What GAO Found In prior work, GAO identified challenges that have hindered the Coast Guard’s ability to meet its maritime security operation demands. GAO made the following recommendations to help address challenges pertaining to the Coast Guard’s workforce and assets, which it has yet to fully address. Workforce. In November 2019, GAO found that the Coast Guard lacked assurance that it had the right mix of deployable specialized forces personnel—who have capabilities needed to combat maritime threats—in the right units. GAO made two recommendations to address these issues. Further, in April 2025, GAO reported that even with increased recruiting, the service was approximately 2,600 service members (8.5 percent) short of its enlisted workforce target at the end of fiscal year 2024. GAO recommended that the service develop a plan to support its workforce retention. Vessels and aircraft. In June 2025 GAO found that the Medium Endurance Cutter’s availability to conduct missions declined from fiscal year 2020 through fiscal year 2024 due, in part, to maintenance challenges that limit its maritime security operations. This is exacerbated by persistent and longstanding challenges managing its planned $40 billion acquisition programs to modernize vessels and aircraft. In November 2025, GAO found that continued delays and cost overruns with the Offshore Patrol Cutter program—a high priority acquisition—are likely because of outdated cost estimates and incomplete ship design. GAO made nine recommendations to address these issues, including that Coast Guard stabilize design before constructing more ships. Coast Guard Deployable Specialized Forces Conducting Drug Interdiction Mission Why GAO Did This Study The U.S. government has identified transnational and domestic criminal organizations as a significant threat to the public, law enforcement, and national security. The Coast Guard is a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and is the nation’s lead federal maritime law enforcement agency. It received nearly $25 billion in supplemental funding in fiscal year 2025 for various acquisitions and in support of efforts to modernize operations and capabilities. It conducts maritime security operations, including law enforcement boardings, drug interdiction, and other missions. The Coast Guard employs personnel and assets—including aircraft and vessels—to conduct maritime security operations. This statement discusses Coast Guard challenges GAO previously identified related to its maritime security operations and actions to help address these challenges. This statement is based primarily on seven GAO reports published from November 2019 to January 2026.

What GAO Found Shared services are the delivery of common services to federal agencies through consolidated, standardized capabilities offered through designated lead provider agencies. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated four lead agencies to serve as Quality Service Management Offices for centralizing certain shared services, with the General Services Administration (GSA) responsible for overall coordination. Each of the four agencies offers and manages a marketplace of shared services in four functional areas: cybersecurity, financial management, grants management, and human resources. Across the federal government, many agencies and their components’ adoption of shared services varied by functional area (see figure). Number of Federal Customer Agencies Adopting Shared Services by Functional Area, as of July 2025 Note: The term “customer agencies” refers to customers from the Chief Financial Officers Act (CFO Act) agencies, which may include individual bureaus or components within a larger agency. It also includes non-CFO Act agencies, independent agencies, and commissions that use shared services. Agencies identified various benefits, such as operational efficiencies and cost savings, but no barriers to adopting shared services. However, agencies identified challenges, including finding services that met both operational needs and legal requirements, shared services operating outdated legacy IT systems, and difficulties integrating shared services into their agencies. As coordinators, GSA and the lead agencies have addressed some of these challenges. For example, they have expanded the marketplace of services to better meet agencies’ needs. However, key leadership roles vital to making decisions about shared services remain unfilled due, in part, to a lack of OMB engagement. Further, GSA and agencies do not have comprehensive data on how well shared services are meeting agencies’ needs. The absence of leadership commitment and data to inform decision-making are contributing factors to limiting the amount of cost savings and benefits. Why GAO Did This Study The federal government can increase efficiency and reduce duplicative efforts by consolidating certain mission-support services—such as payroll or travel—within a smaller number of federal agency providers. In 2019, OMB estimated that moving to shared services could save the government between $1.25 and $7.5 billion of the $25 billion a year spent on those services. The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 includes a provision for GAO to review the adoption of shared technology platforms and services. This report (1) describes the level of shared service adoption across federal agencies; and (2) describes the benefits, barriers, and challenges federal agencies face in adopting shared services and determines the extent to which they have mitigated the challenges. GAO analyzed documentation from GSA and the Quality Service Management Offices on government-wide federal shared service adoption. GAO also administered a questionnaire on adoption, benefits, barriers, and challenges to six randomly selected agencies and two agencies selected due to their extensive experience using shared services. GAO compared coordinating agencies’ efforts to mitigate the identified challenges against OMB guidance. GAO also interviewed agency officials.

What GAO Found According to national surveys of federal, tribal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, the number of law enforcement officers who resigned or retired generally increased from fiscal years 2019 through 2024, which contributed to overall decreases in officer staffing. Law enforcement agencies reported taking steps to recruit and retain officers by enhancing benefits and compensation, and diversifying their recruitment techniques. The Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Hiring Program provides funding to support hiring initiatives at tribal, state, local, and territorial law enforcement agencies. Studies show a relationship between local law enforcement staffing levels and crime rates. For example, studies included in our review of literature showed that increasing the number of law enforcement officers resulted in reduced crime. Why GAO Did This Study The Recruit and Retain Act, which became law in 2024, includes a provision for GAO to report on the effects of recruitment and attrition rates on federal, tribal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in the United States. This report provides information on how staffing levels at selected federal law enforcement agencies changed from fiscal years 2020 through 2024, recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers, and the effects staffing levels may have had on public safety. For this work, we conducted a literature search to identify studies, articles, and other publications from academia, law enforcement associations, and government sources relevant to the recruitment and retention of law enforcement personnel. We reviewed selected literature and documentation and conducted interviews with representatives of eight selected federal agencies from four departments. We also interviewed representatives from 10 law enforcement associations to obtain their perspectives on law enforcement personnel staffing recruitment and retention. Membership of these selected associations represents a cross-section of law enforcement personnel from across the country. In addition, we reviewed previous surveys of law enforcement personnel on recruitment and retention conducted by law enforcement associations. For more information, contact Gretta Goodwin at GoodwinG@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Agencies at the federal, state, and local levels have facilities capable of analyzing emerging street drugs—psychoactive substances newly circulating in the drug market. For example, the Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have forensic laboratories that can analyze seized drugs and identify emerging substances. Current laboratory-based technologies can detect and identify emerging street drugs when appropriate methods (protocols) and reference standards are available. Portable technologies can detect drugs at the point of seizure but face accuracy challenges due, in part, to user error. Technology manufacturers told GAO they are developing more lay-friendly user interfaces and operational methods. From fiscal year 2019 through 2024, the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services awarded a combined total of about $12.5 million in grants for the development of new methods and technologies for analyzing emerging street drugs. New methods and technologies may make laboratory processes more consistent, among other enhancements. Method development can be done on faster timelines than technology development. While new methods and technologies could enhance some capabilities, forensic scientists face key challenges with analyzing emerging street drugs, including: Lack of resources. Laboratories GAO spoke to consistently referenced insufficient staffing and time. Unstandardized reporting. According to stakeholders, varying reporting requirements at thestate and local levels can lead to gaps in data. Limited information sharing. Law enforcement may not always share up-to-date information about emerging drugs with medical examiners and hospitals. If these challenges could be addressed, laboratories could be in a better position to meet the nation’s needs for emerging drug analysis. However, GAO is not making recommendations to address these challenges because they are primarily faced by state and local laboratories. Illustration of Challenges Faced by Forensic Laboratories Why GAO Did This Study The U.S. is facing a public health crisis with the rapidly changing and increasingly complex landscape of emerging street drugs. Overdose deaths related to fentanyl mixed with veterinary tranquilizers, such as xylazine and medetomidine, have increased in recent years according to agency data. This mixture can be fatal because opioid overdose reversal medication does not affect these tranquilizers. The ability to rapidly identify new street drugs as they emerge could save lives. The Testing, Rapid Analysis, and Narcotic Quality Research Act of 2023 (Pub. L. No. 118-23, 137 Stat. 125, 126-27, § 3) includes a provision for GAO to review the capabilities of the federal government and state and local agencies to detect, identify, and analyze new psychoactive substances, which GAO refers to as “emerging street drugs” in this report. This report addresses (1) methods and technologies that are available or in development for emerging street drug analysis at federal and selected state and local laboratories and in the field, (2) timelines for developing new methods and technologies for the identification of emerging street drugs, (3) federal grant programs funding the development of new methods and technologies, and (4) federal and selected state and local facilities that analyze emerging street drugs and the key challenges they face. GAO interviewed officials and reviewed documents from 16 components of seven federal agencies that have ongoing efforts in drug analysis. GAO also visited or interviewed officials from 15 state and local laboratories from three different regions in the U.S. Further, GAO reviewed scientific literature and interviewed additional stakeholders, including technology manufacturers and grantees. For more information, contact: Karen L. Howard at HowardK@gao.gov or Triana McNeil at McNeilT@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates a wide variety of products used by U.S. consumers. These products include human food, human and veterinary medical products, cosmetics, and tobacco products. According to FDA, the products for which it has oversight responsibilities accounted for about 21 cents of every dollar spent by U.S. consumers in 2024. FDA’s oversight responsibilities changed during the period of GAO’s review—fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2024. For example, in 2009, the agency received authority to regulate new types of products, such as cigarettes and other tobacco products. In 2011, FDA was directed by law to increase the number of required food safety inspections. In 2022, FDA’s authority to regulate cosmetics was expanded to include recall authority for certain products. FDA’s overall funding increased from fiscal years 2008 through 2024, largely from user fees. Over this 17-year period, the agency went from being funded mostly through discretionary appropriations (which FDA refers to as budget authority) to being funded in nearly equal amounts by user fees and budget authority. User fees are paid by manufacturers and other regulated entities. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Overall Funding, by Funding Source, Fiscal Year 2008 through Fiscal Year 2024 Increases in FDA’s user fee funding during this time came from both new user fee authorizations (e.g., tobacco products) and the growth of existing user fees (e.g., human drugs). Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Funding by Product Areas and Funding Source, Fiscal Year 2008 and Fiscal Year 2023 FDA has faced staffing challenges related to recruiting, retaining, and training staff as reported by GAO and others from January 2020 through January 2025. These staffing issues have presented challenges for FDA’s food and drug inspections. For example, in 2024, GAO reported that because of staffing challenges the agency was not able to complete as many drug inspections as it had in prior years. GAO and others also reported during this same period that FDA had challenges with managing other resources, such as its information technology systems for collecting safety and quality complaints. Why GAO Did This Study FDA, an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), regulates more than $3.9 trillion worth of food, medical products, and tobacco products produced in the U.S. and abroad. Prior to 2020, GAO reported that FDA faced challenges that could affect the agency’s ability to perform its oversight responsibilities. These concerns contributed to the addition of FDA’s oversight of medical products and food safety to GAO’s High-Risk List in 2009 and 2007, respectively. In addition, these concerns contributed to two other areas on GAO’s High-Risk List: (1) HHS’s leadership and coordination of public health emergencies, and (2) skills gaps in the federal workforce. Given the breadth of these concerns, GAO undertook a review at the initiative of the Comptroller General in consultation with congressional committees to provide the Congress with contextual information on FDA’s capacity to meet its oversight responsibilities. This report provides information on changes in FDA’s responsibilities, funding, and staffing from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2024. It also provides information on challenges affecting FDA’s capacity to meet its oversight responsibilities that GAO and others identified in reports issued from January 2020 through January 2025.

What GAO Found The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) within the Department of Education (Education) enforces several federal civil rights laws, including laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin; sex; disability; and age. Under most of these laws, OCR's enforcement authority extends to institutions that receive funds from Education, such as state educational agencies, elementary and secondary school systems, and colleges and universities. In March 2025, about half of OCR's 575 staff were placed on paid administrative leave, and seven of OCR's 12 regional offices were closed as part of agencywide Reduction-in-Force (RIF) and reorganization efforts. Based on Education's court filings, GAO calculated that paying salaries and benefits to OCR staff who were subject to the RIF cost between $18 million and $24 million from mid-March through September 5, 2025. GAO calculated that it cost an additional $10.5 to $14 million for the staff remaining on administrative leave from September 8 through December 12, 2025. In December 2025, Education recalled to work those OCR staff subject to the March 2025 RIF. Agency officials said that since the March 2025 RIF, OCR has kept up with its workload and met its mission without these staff. They noted that Education decided to recall these staff to contribute to the enforcement of existing civil rights complaints. These officials also said that there is always work to be done and the agency will continue utilizing available resources to do so. Subsequently, in early January 2026, Education rescinded the RIF actions for OCR staff. From March to September 2025, OCR received over 9,000 complaints of alleged discrimination and resolved over 7,000. About 90 percent of these were resolved by Education dismissing the complaints. Education did not demonstrate that it accounted for all potential costs and savings associated with its RIF and reorganization actions, and did not document its analyses, though Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guidance directed it to do so. Without fully accounting for costs and savings and documenting its analyses, Education lacks reasonable assurance that its actions achieved the stated goal of reforming its federal workforce to maximize efficiency and productivity, including whether such actions improved service to the American people, increased productivity, or saved taxpayer dollars. GAO recommends that Education estimate the full costs and savings associated with the Reduction-in-Force and reorganization actions it initiated in March 2025, and document its analysis. Education disagreed with the recommendation, stating that it had rescinded the RIFs for OCR staff and taken action to return those employees to active duty. GAO continues to believe that Education should conduct and document such an analysis, as discussed in the report. Why GAO Did This Study In response to an Executive Order, Education announced a RIF and reorganization in March 2025 that would cut OCR's workforce by about half. However, subsequent preliminary injunctions prohibited Education from doing so. According to Education, all RIF actions were paused as of November 21, 2025. Education rescinded the RIF actions for OCR staff in early January 2026. GAO was asked to examine issues related to OCR's operations in light of recent RIF actions. This report provides information about OCR RIF actions, including associated costs and savings and OCR's workload in relation to these actions. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and OCR's Case Processing Manual. GAO assessed RIF actions against relevant federal guidance from OMB and OPM. In addition, GAO analyzed publicly available information from court filings that Education submitted in federal court, the President's fiscal year 2026 budget request for OCR, and data that Education provided to Congress.

What GAO Found Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) institutions generally make menstrual products available to incarcerated and detained individuals; however, a few of the 29 institutions that housed women in fiscal year 2024 do not fully adhere to all required elements of BOP’s policy. For example, based on site visits and questionnaire responses, GAO found that not all institutions provide the five required types of products in common areas or replenish menstrual products within 24 hours. BOP has two oversight mechanisms to monitor whether institutions adhere to its policy. However, neither mechanism has systematically assessed, detected, and rectified all deficiencies across BOP institutions related to providing menstrual products. By conducting routine, systematic oversight, BOP could better ensure that menstrual products are consistently, appropriately, and equitably available and accessible to incarcerated and detained individuals. Of the 31 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities GAO visited or whose officials responded to GAO’s questionnaire, facilities generally make at least some menstrual products available to detained individuals. However, ICE’s detention standards do not have specific detail to allow its oversight mechanism to detect variation in access to menstrual products. ICE conducts inspections of facilities against their assigned detention standards, which outline how facilities are to provide safe, secure, and humane confinement. Without more detailed language in these standards, inspections cannot detect deficiencies related to access to menstrual products. GAO found variation in (1) the types of menstrual products facilities provide, (2) how facilities provide products, and (3) the quantity limits that facilities apply. By revising the detention standards to clarify requirements, ICE could better ensure menstrual products are consistently, appropriately, and equitably available and accessible to detained individuals. Examples of the Provision of Menstrual Products at Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Institutions and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Facilities Why GAO Did This Study BOP and ICE incarcerated and detained tens of thousands of women in fiscal year 2024. These agencies are responsible for caring for the individuals in their custody. This includes providing hygiene items like menstrual products. GAO was asked to review the availability and accessibility of menstrual products for vulnerable populations, including incarcerated and detained individuals. This report examines the extent to which (1) BOP provides access to menstrual products for incarcerated and detained individuals and (2) ICE provides access to menstrual products for detained individuals. GAO visited a nongeneralizable sample of five BOP institutions and three ICE facilities. These locations were selected based on the number of individuals housed and security level or facility type, among other criteria. During these visits, GAO observed the provision of menstrual products and interviewed facility staff and incarcerated and detained individuals. GAO also reviewed agency documents and conducted a web-based survey of 29 BOP institutions and 52 ICE facilities. GAO analyzed the responses received from officials from 100 percent of BOP institutions and 58 percent of ICE facilities (30).

What GAO Found GAO made significant accomplishments in FY 2025, as detailed in this Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 (see figure). In the spirit of the Government Performance and Results Act, this annual report informs the Congress and the American people about what GAO has achieved on their behalf. This report describes GAO's performance measures, results, and accountability processes for FY 2025. In assessing our performance, we compared actual results against targets and goals that were set in our annual performance plan and performance budget, and that were developed to help carry out our strategic plan. An overview of our annual measures and targets for 2025 is available here, along with links to a complete set of our strategic planning and performance and accountability reports. This report includes a performance and financial snapshot for the American taxpayer for FY 2025, a letter from the Acting Comptroller General, and five parts. Part I: Management's Discussion and Analysis. This section includes a statement attesting to the completeness and reliability of the performance and financial data in this report and the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. It includes a summary of our mission, organizational structure, strategies we use to achieve our goals, and processes for measuring our performance. In addition, it discusses our agency-wide performance results and use of resources in FY 2025. It also includes information on management challenges, external factors that affect our performance, and future challenges and priorities. Part II: Performance Information. This section includes details on our performance results by strategic goal in FY 2025 and our targets for FY 2026. Part III: Financial Information. This section includes details on our finances in FY 2025, including a letter from our Chief Financial Officer, audited financial statements and notes, and the reports from our external auditor and Audit Advisory Committee. This section also includes an explanation of the information each of our financial statements conveys. Part IV: Inspector General's (IG) View of GAO's Management Challenges. This section includes our IG's perspective of our agency's management challenges. Part V: Appendixes. This section provides the report's abbreviations and describes how we ensure the completeness and reliability of the data for each of our performance measures. Why GAO Did This Study As a legislative branch agency, GAO is exempt from many laws that apply to executive branch agencies. However, GAO generally holds itself to the spirit of many such laws, including the Government Performance and Results Act and the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act. Accordingly, the FY 2025 Performance and Accountability Report provides information on GAO's work, which it considers comparable to that reported by executive branch agencies that choose to prepare annual Performance and Accountability Reports in lieu of separate Agency Financial Reports. For more information, contact Rebecca Gambler at GamblerR@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In January 2026, GAO identified 38 open recommendations under the purview of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Chief Information Officer (CIO), from previously issued work. Each of these recommendations relates to a GAO High-Risk area: (1) Ensuring the Cybersecurity of the Nation or (2) Improving IT Acquisitions and Management. In addition, GAO has designated four of the 38 as priority recommendations. For example, GAO previously recommended that VA fully implement all event logging requirements on the systems used to detect, investigate, and remediate cyber threats as directed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, GAO recommended that VA develop guidance regarding standardizing cloud service-level agreements. GAO also previously recommended that the department ensure that it compares its inventories of active software licenses to purchased licenses to identify opportunities to reduce costs and improve investment decisions. The CIO's continued attention to these recommendations will help ensure the secure and effective use of IT at the department. Why GAO Did This Study CIO open recommendations are outstanding GAO recommendations that warrant the attention of agency CIOs because their implementation could significantly improve government IT operations by securing IT systems, identifying cost savings, improving major government programs, eliminating mismanagement of IT programs and processes, or ensuring that IT programs comply with laws, among others. For more information, contact Nick Marinos at marinosn@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Individuals 55 and older accounted for about 22 percent of participants (769,000 individuals) across six selected federal workforce development programs GAO examined using program year 2023 data. Program year 2023, which ran from July 2023 through June 2024, was the most recent complete year of data available at the time of this review. Compared to younger participants, older adults were less likely to find a job after exiting a program. For example, about 60 percent of older adults reported having a job in the second quarter after exiting Department of Labor (DOL) Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) programs in program year 2023. In contrast, about 69 percent of participants ages 40–54 and 73 percent of participants ages 16–39 reported having a job. Similarly, about 50 percent of older adults in the Department of Education’s Vocational Rehabilitation program reported having a job, compared to about 54 percent of participants ages 40–54 and 58 percent of participants ages 16–39. Exit from a program generally occurs when a participant has not received services for 90 days and does not have plans to receive future services. Older workers (41 total) who GAO interviewed at 10 job centers in five states said participating in federal workforce development programs helped them learn digital literacy skills and get employment and training opportunities in their communities. They also noted challenges, such as limited numbers of employers participating in job fairs and few openings in some workforce programs. Additionally, they said they faced challenges finding jobs, including challenges navigating the job application process, developing new skills, and managing potential age discrimination by employers. Older Adults Using Job Center Services Job center officials GAO interviewed at the 10 centers said older workers they served had unique employment needs compared to younger workers. Some state and local partners in locations GAO visited had initiatives to address the needs of older workers. However, DOL, which administers most of these programs, does not facilitate information sharing among these partners on promising practices that could support older workers. Doing so could help DOL strengthen workforce system support for older workers, improve their employment rates and earnings, and bring their valuable knowledge and experience to the workplace. Why GAO Did This Study Older workers represent an increasing share of the U.S. workforce. From 2003 to 2023, individuals 55 and older increased their share of the workforce from 15 percent to 23 percent, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Federal workforce development programs may help older workers manage challenges that could affect their ability to find and retain jobs, such as demand for new skills or limited knowledge of effective job search strategies. These programs are administered primarily by DOL and Education through a network of state and local partners, including job centers that provide employment and training services to all jobseekers. GAO was asked to examine employment support for older workers. This report provides information on the percentage of workforce development program participants who are 55 and older, their rates of employment after exiting these programs, and their perspectives as participants in these programs. This report also examines the extent to which DOL has helped state and local partners share information with one another to support older workers. To provide this information, GAO analyzed DOL and Education program data to compare the employment outcomes of older and younger participants in six workforce development programs (out of 38 programs that serve adults). GAO focused on four core Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) programs that serve older workers, among other customers, and two other programs in which older workers make up a large share of participants. GAO also held nine non-generalizable discussions with small groups of older workers at job centers in five states to learn from their experiences seeking employment and participating in workforce programs. GAO selected locations in which individuals 55 and older represented a substantial share of program participants within these local areas and that reflected variation in geographic and economic conditions. GAO reviewed, for all 50 states, program year 2024 WIOA State Plans that outline their 4-year workforce development strategies. Additionally, GAO interviewed state and local partners, including job center officials, about initiatives focused on older workers within their states. GAO also interviewed DOL and Education officials about their coordination on issues related to older workers.

What GAO Found Assistive technology—such as pencil grips, calculators, and screen readers—can help students with disabilities more fully participate at school. Staff from the eight school districts that GAO visited provided examples of assistive technology that students use in the classroom (see figure). Limited knowledge about assistive technology was a key challenge, according to staff from all eight school districts GAO visited. For example, staff in many school districts said that teachers often only think of high-tech devices and may not consider simpler low-tech devices that could meet students’ individual needs. In addition, rapidly changing technology can make it difficult for school district and school staff to keep abreast of current assistive technology options. School district staff also described how broad challenges pertaining to public education adversely affected their ability to provide assistive technology to students with disabilities. These included insufficient time and opportunities for training, staffing issues (e.g., shortages and high turnover), technology issues, and funding constraints. Examples of Assistive Technology Used in School Districts GAO Visited The eight school districts GAO visited sometimes formed assistive technology teams and used external resources, which helped mitigate some of the challenges described above. Specifically, four districts had assistive technology teams that helped improve coordination and increase staff knowledge about assistive technology, according to school district officials. The teams—generally comprised of district special education staff—help school staff develop standardized processes to identify the best assistive technology for students’ needs, document assistive technology use in students’ individualized education programs, and acquire assistive technology. In addition, district officials in all eight school districts said that they used federal, state, or regional resources to train school staff or provide assistive technology to students. These included external training, expert consultations, libraries that loan assistive technology, and guidance such as Education’s 2024 Myths and Facts Surrounding Assistive Technology Devices and Services. Why GAO Did This Study The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that all children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education. Under IDEA, assistive technology must be considered for students receiving special education services. Little is known about how this requirement is implemented locally. GAO was asked to review how schools make decisions about providing assistive technology to students with disabilities. This report describes (1) the assistive technology selected school districts provide to students and the challenges they face doing so, and (2) strategies and resources selected school districts use to provide assistive technology to students and mitigate challenges. GAO visited four states—Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming— selected for variation in factors such as percentage of students with disabilities and presence of state-level assistive technology initiatives. GAO interviewed staff from state and regional education agencies, eight school districts, and eight schools. GAO selected districts for variation in factors such as urbanicity and assistive technology initiatives. In addition, GAO interviewed officials and reviewed documents from the U.S. Department of Education (Education), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and both departments’ relevant technical assistance centers. GAO also conducted a web-based survey of all 93 Parent Centers—family technical assistance centers funded by Education—and received a response rate of 88 percent. We provided a draft of this report to Education and HHS for review and comment. Education provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. HHS did not provide any comments on the report. For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at nowickij@gao.gov.

What GAO Found To promote global financial stability, U.S. and foreign banking regulators negotiate and develop nonbinding minimum capital standards for banks through the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. U.S. members are the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The Basel Committee expects members to treat Committee work as confidential. Its internal regulations state that internal discussions and the analyses on which they are based should be kept confidential. It also has a process for collecting sensitive bank data (for assessing the effect of standards on select banks), which requires analysts to sign a confidentiality agreement intended to protect the data. The Committee imposes no penalties for violating these expectations, but could take informal action (e.g., restrict a member’s access to information). U.S. members vary in the extent to which they are subject to the Federal Records Act and have different policies for retaining Basel Committee and related documents as records under the act: FRB’s policy expressly covers its work on international organizations, including the Committee, and FRB also issued related guidance. FDIC’s policy does not expressly cover its Committee work, but FDIC officials said the policy applies. FDIC also has a procedure directing staff to document their Committee work to share with leadership. OCC’s policy does not expressly cover its Committee work. OCC officials said that only documents used as background or working files in rulemaking to implement Basel standards are considered records under their policy. OCC’s policy does not instruct staff whether to treat—and thus retain—Basel Committee or related documents as records under the Federal Records Act when first created or received. The act requires covered agencies to preserve records documenting the organization’s functions and decisions and to communicate records management responsibilities to staff. However, OCC has not clarified how to treat Committee and related documents, citing its current policy as sufficient. Taking such action could help OCC ensure staff retain documents needed to support rulemaking, consult leadership during Committee negotiations, and demonstrate accountability. U.S. members said they process Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for Basel Committee or related records in the same way as other FOIA requests. In 2019–2024, FRB received two FOIA requests related to the Committee and FDIC received one. FRB identified information responsive to the requests but deemed it confidential and therefore exempt from FOIA disclosure. FDIC provided the requested information. Why GAO Did This Study In 2025, GAO reported on U.S. participation in the Basel Committee’s development of Basel III bank capital standards. U.S. members told GAO that Committee discussions and related information are governed by confidentiality expectations. GAO was asked to review these expectations and their potential implications. Among its objectives, this report examines the Basel Committee’s confidentiality expectations; U.S. members’ records retention policies for their Committee work; and U.S. members’ processes for handling FOIA requests for Committee or related records. GAO reviewed Committee and U.S. member documents on confidentiality expectations and associated penalties. GAO assessed relevant records retention policies of U.S. members against provisions in the Federal Records Act and its associated regulations. GAO also reviewed relevant FOIA regulations and data on related requests and interviewed U.S. Committee members.

What GAO Found In January 2026, GAO identified 17 open recommendations under the purview of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Chief Information Officer (CIO) from previously issued work. Each of these recommendations relates to a GAO High-Risk area: (1) Ensuring the Cybersecurity of the Nation or (2) Improving IT Acquisitions and Management. In addition, GAO has designated two of the 17 as priority recommendations. For example, GAO previously recommended that USDA establish a time frame for incorporating privacy into an organization-wide risk management strategy that should include the department's risk tolerance. Further, GAO recommended that USDA complete annual reviews of its IT portfolio consistent with federal requirements. GAO also previously recommended that the department manage its software licenses more effectively by implementing procedures to track usage. The CIO's continued attention to these recommendations will help ensure the secure and effective use of IT at the department. Why GAO Did This Study CIO open recommendations are outstanding GAO recommendations that warrant the attention of agency CIOs because their implementation could significantly improve government IT operations by securing IT systems, identifying cost savings, improving major government programs, eliminating mismanagement of IT programs and processes, or ensuring that IT programs comply with laws, among others. For more information, contact Nick Marinos at marinosn@gao.gov.

To alert the audit community to changes in professional standards, we periodically issue Professional Standards Updates (PSU). These updates highlight the effective dates of recently issued standards and guidance related to engagements conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. PSUs contain summary information only, and those affected by a change should refer to the respective standard or guidance for details.

What GAO Found In March 2023, the Small Business Administration (SBA) established 12 best practices to help participating agencies manage risks posed by small business applicants in their Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. GAO found that participating agencies and selected components have incorporated some best practices in their due diligence efforts, but gaps remain. For example, as of August 2025 all agencies had incorporated three of the 12 best practices, such as leveraging standardized foreign affiliation disclosures to capture consistent information. Most agencies incorporated additional practices, such as documenting a risk-based approach to their due diligence processes, and some incorporated practices such as determining “covered individuals” required to submit disclosures (see figure). The SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022 (Extension Act) requires participating agencies to incorporate the applicable best practices in their due diligence programs to the extent practicable. Doing so may improve agencies’ ability to manage potential foreign risks. The Extension Act also requires participating agencies to assess SBIR and STTR applicants’ cybersecurity practices. GAO found that nine of the 11 participating agencies and selected components did so using a variety of mechanisms, including business intelligence tools and self-assessment forms. However, two of the agencies GAO reviewed—the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—are not assessing all applicants’ cybersecurity practices. NSF officials told GAO that its applicants are small and nascent companies with limited electronic assets or systems to protect. USDA officials stated they previously understood training applicants on cybersecurity would suffice as an assessment. Until NSF and USDA incorporate cybersecurity assessments into their due diligence programs, they are at an increased risk of making awards to applicants that are vulnerable to cyberattacks.   SBA conducts information sharing meetings for agencies to discuss due diligence efforts, but GAO found agencies have gaps in how they have incorporated SBA’s best practices to manage and reduce foreign risks. For example, GAO found some agencies are not incorporating certain best practices because, in part, they lack clarity on the intent of the practice or the best means to incorporate it. In August 2025, SBA officials acknowledged that based on the gaps and agency needs we identified in this report, additional opportunities may exist for SBA to engage with agencies on the challenges and impacts of incorporating the best practices and due diligence programs. The SBA-facilitated meetings could provide a discussion forum on agencies’ challenges in incorporating the best practices, potential for additional guidance, and possible revisions. Why GAO Did This Study The SBIR and STTR programs fund research and development (R&D) performed by U.S. small businesses. In fiscal year 2023, federal agencies issued more than 6,300 such awards in areas such as defense and environmental protection. However, Congress and U.S. intelligence agencies have expressed concerns about foreign adversaries exploiting potential vulnerabilities in these programs and in entrepreneurial small businesses. The Extension Act requires the 11 participating agencies to implement due diligence programs to assess the security risks posed by small business applicants. It includes a provision for GAO to issue a series of reports on the implementation and best practices of agencies’ due diligence. This report is the third in this series and examines (1) agencies’ incorporation of the best practices, (2) their assessments of applicants’ cybersecurity practices, and (3) interagency mechanisms for sharing information on due diligence programs. To determine the extent to which agencies have incorporated SBA’s best practices, GAO reviewed agencies’ policies and procedures for conducting due diligence and assessing applicants’ cybersecurity practices. GAO also interviewed SBA and SBIR and STTR program officials at the participating agencies and selected components on the best practices.

What GAO Found The U.S. Department of State's Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia (EUR/ACE) is responsible for coordinating and overseeing foreign assistance to Ukraine. In June 2023, EUR/ACE entered into a 3-year contract for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Audit Services for Ukraine Reporting (MEASURE). This contract assists EUR/ACE in overseeing nonhumanitarian, nonmilitary assistance programs implemented within Ukraine and funded by supplemental appropriations, such as training and equipping Ukraine's police and border guards and ensuring the safety of nuclear power operations. Many MEASURE contract tasks have been completed, such as progress reports on programs funded by U.S. assistance. For these reports, MEASURE's contractor compiled available information on outcomes of assistance, which EUR/ACE has used for decision-making, particularly with respect to project oversight. But data availability and timeframes to realize outcomes have varied, which have limited the MEASURE contractor's ability to analyze outcome information and conduct evaluations. In response, EUR/ACE has adjusted the structure and timing of contract deliverables to enhance their ability to inform decision-making. For example, EUR/ACE revised the progress reports to be more streamlined, include more analysis, and issue semiannually rather than quarterly. As of November 2025, MEASURE tasks not yet completed included evaluations across projects and a selection of strategic outcome indicators, both of which were meant to provide a broader sense of the effectiveness of Ukraine assistance. These and other deliverables were delayed due to implementation challenges, such as needing to negotiate access to key data and working in a wartime environment, as well as the administration's decision to conduct a foreign assistance review and pending updates to the Ukraine Assistance Strategy. EUR/ACE officials expect that the planned evaluations and selection of strategic outcome indicators will provide a greater sense of the extent to which the assistance provided has been effective in meeting U.S. objectives as defined in the Ukraine Assistance Strategy.  Why GAO Did This Study Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the U.S. government has appropriated tens of billions in assistance for Ukraine and countries impacted by the situation in Ukraine. As of September 30, 2025, according to State, the MEASURE contract helped EUR/ACE oversee $6.1 billion of the supplemental appropriations for Ukraine—$4.3 billion from the first four supplementals and a further $1.8 billion from a fifth supplemental that is subject to change in fiscal year 2026. GAO was asked to review the oversight mechanisms in place for U.S. assistance to Ukraine. This report is part of a series of work GAO has done evaluating U.S. oversight of Ukraine assistance. This report discusses: the design and status of the MEASURE contract, challenges faced during implementation, the outcome information the MEASURE contract provided, and State's use of this information. GAO reviewed the MEASURE contract and associated deliverables and spoke with EUR/ACE officials, contractor representatives, and five U.S. government implementing entities on the implementation of the contract and associated challenges and mitigation efforts. GAO selected these entities based on factors such as their amount of Ukraine assistance funding.

What GAO Found The Space Development Agency (SDA) is developing space- and ground-based systems to detect and track potential missile threats in low Earth orbit. SDA aims to rapidly deliver capability and frequently update technology by delivering multiple satellites in phases, which it calls tranches, planned for contract award every 2 years. Each tranche needs to be replaced roughly 5 years after launch. However, SDA is at risk of being unable to deliver capability as quickly as planned. For example, SDA is overestimating the technology readiness of some critical elements it plans to use. This includes the spacecraft, which must be modified for the mission. As a result, contractors have performed additional unplanned work, which has added to already delayed schedules. Earth Orbits with Missile Warning Satellites Additionally, SDA’s requirements process is not transparent to users. For example, SDA is not sufficiently collaborating with combatant commands, which report having insufficient insight into how SDA defines requirements and when, or whether, SDA will deliver planned capabilities. Consequently, SDA is at risk of delivering satellites that do not meet warfighter needs. SDA reports achieving early milestones, but these achievements do not reflect schedule risks. SDA has continued to award new tranche contracts every 2 years irrespective of satellite performance. SDA relies on contractor schedules for each tranche but has not developed an overall or architecture-level schedule. Using an architecture-level schedule to monitor schedule risks would better position SDA and stakeholders to understand earlier how schedule changes affect SDA’s progress in delivering capabilities. In addition, the Department of Defense (DOD) does not know the life-cycle cost to deliver missile warning and tracking capabilities because it has not created a reliable cost estimate. SDA required limited cost data from contractors for tranches 1 and 2. Requiring more complete and frequent cost data moving forward would enable DOD to develop reliable cost estimates for future tranches. Why GAO Did This Study DOD is developing large constellations of satellites for missions that include missile warning and tracking. SDA’s effort—known as the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture—plans to have at least 300-500 satellites in low Earth orbit. This constellation is expected to cost nearly $35 billion through fiscal year 2029. Given the design life of the satellites, each one must be replaced about every 5 years. A Senate report contains a provision for GAO to assess DOD’s efforts to develop these capabilities. GAO’s report (1) describes SDA’s efforts to develop and deliver missile warning and tracking capabilities; (2) identifies risks SDA faces delivering these planned capabilities; (3) assesses aspects of SDA’s requirements process; and (4) evaluates the extent to which SDA is meeting schedule milestones and cost estimates. GAO reviewed relevant program, DOD, and contractor documents; assessed SDA’s schedule and cost estimates against best practices; conducted site visits to a ground operations center, the Boulder Ground Innovation Facility, which analyzes satellite data, and seven contractor sites; and interviewed SDA and DOD officials and three combatant commands.

What GAO Found Shared decision-making agreements with federal agencies enable Tribes to provide substantive, long-term input into natural and cultural resource management decisions for public lands. In treaties, Tribes ceded millions of acres of their territories to the federal government in exchange for certain commitments. Many of these areas are now public lands. Agencies committed in 2022 to ensure Tribes play an integral role in deciding how to manage federal natural resources. These agencies include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior and their components, such as Agriculture’s Forest Service and Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). GAO identified 11 features that strengthen shared decision-making agreements, including a commitment to seeking consensus and a clearly outlined dispute resolution process. Fully incorporating these 11 features into policies would better position agencies to strengthen shared decision-making. Agency and tribal officials GAO interviewed identified factors that facilitated agreement development, including having certain legal authorities. For example, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended, authorizes eligible Tribes to assume administration of certain Interior programs through a self-governance agreement. However, the Forest Service and NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries are not authorized to enter into this type of agreement, even though they manage natural resources similar to Interior. Providing these agencies a similar authority would allow for increased tribal input into management decisions, consistent with current administration priorities. Factors That Agency and Tribal Officials Said Facilitated or Impeded Development of Shared Decision-Making Agreements Agency and tribal officials also identified factors that impeded development of agreements, including limited agency understanding of legal authorities and incomplete guidance. Agencies have taken steps to address these factors, such as training staff working with Tribes. However, in light of significant federal workforce reductions that began in 2025, agencies have not conducted workforce planning to assess their capacity related to developing agreements. Doing so could enable better understanding of how to allocate agencies’ limited resources, address any skill gaps, and make strategic use of partnerships with Tribes. Why GAO Did This Study Federal agencies manage public lands, including national forests and parks, that are Tribes’ ancestral territories. Public lands retain special significance and importance to Tribes. Agencies collaborate with Tribes when meeting their missions and to fulfill unique federal trust and treaty responsibilities. GAO was asked to examine issues related to agencies developing shared decision-making agreements with Tribes. This report identifies features that strengthen shared decision-making agreements and examines factors that facilitated or impeded their development, as well as agency actions to address impediments. GAO reviewed agreements between federal agencies and Tribes, as well as federal laws, academic reports, and agency documents. GAO selected five shared decision-making agreements for in-depth analysis and interviewed the federal and tribal officials involved.

What GAO Found Of the 51 large, medium, and small airports included in GAO’s review, all but two small airports have some level of public transit service by bus or rail. Accessing airports by transit, instead of driving or taking taxis or rideshares, can help reduce congestion on increasingly busy airport roads. GAO found that 23 of the nation’s 31 large airports have rail service such as light or commuter rail. For 18 of these airports, the rail service is either located on airport grounds or off-site but connected by an air train that moves passengers on dedicated tracks. The remaining five large airports have rail service located off the airport grounds but connected by a free bus. The 20 selected medium and small airports generally have bus service from the airport curb to the local downtown. Large Hub Airports with Transit Rail Service (such as light or commuter rail) Note: Includes large hub airports per Federal Aviation Administration 2023 passenger boarding (enplanement) data. Use of transit by passengers and airport and airline employees varies widely across airports. Transit use ranged from 4 percent to 19 percent for the 12 airports for which GAO identified reports on passengers’ mode of transport. For employees, two large airports GAO visited reported that 17 percent and 19 percent of surveyed employees used public transit. Meanwhile an estimated 4 percent of airport and airline employees nationwide used public transit to commute, according to GAO’s analysis of Census data. Factors that influence individuals’ transit decisions include cost, travel time, and familiarity with transit options, according to Transit Cooperative Research Program reports and stakeholders GAO interviewed. In addition, people with disability consider factors such as availability of elevators or accomodations for mobility aids. Employees may also consider the availability of parking or transit benefits and transportation modes that match their work shifts, which often begin early in the morning. Some airports have begun to implement transportation demand management (TDM) strategies to promote the use of existing transit options. TDM broadly refers to efforts to reduce congestion and vehicle-related emissions. Five airports GAO visited were implementing TDM strategies, such as additional signage or advertising of transit options, or offering incentives, such as reduced cost transit. Although airports are implementing TDM strategies for passengers and employees, some are prioritizing strategies for employees who may be more willing to shift to transit due to their familiarity with the airport. Two airports GAO visited set, and plan to assess, transit use goals for their TDM strategies. Why GAO Did This Study Millions of passengers and employees travel to and from U.S. airports daily. Increased air travel demand has renewed concerns about congestion on roads to airports. Some airports and transit agencies have implemented TDM strategies to increase transit capacity or the use of existing transit to relieve congestion. The Federal Aviation Admministration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2024 includes provisions for GAO to assess the extent to which U.S. commercial airports are accessible by transit and the TDM strategies that airports are implementing. This report addresses, among other things, (1) public transit availability at selected U.S. airports; (2) passenger and employee use of public transit to access airports and the factors that influence their decisions to do so; and (3) TDM strategies selected large airports are implementing and plans by the airports to assess the effects of these strategies. GAO reviewed airport websites and conducted literature searches to identify documentation on transit options and use for 51 airports—all 31 large-hub airports and a random selection of 20 medium-hub and small-hub airports based on 2023 FAA enplanement data. GAO contacted all 51 airports to confirm this information was accurate. GAO also analyzed 2019-2023 Census data on employee commutes. GAO reviewed Department of Transportation (DOT) guidance and interviewed officials from DOT and nine stakeholder organizations selected to represent a range of perspectives. GAO visited five large airports that recently implemented projects to increase transit capacity, were implementing TDM strategies, or both. At each airport, GAO interviewed airport and transit agency officials and other stakeholders. For more information, contact Andrew Von Ah at VonahA@gao.gov.