This letter provides GAO's comments on the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' (AICPA) Proposed Statement on Auditing Standards, The Auditor's Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements. GAO promulgates generally accepted government auditing standards, which provide professional standards for auditors of government entities in the United States.

Why This Matters Since 2014, veterans who face challenges accessing timely health care at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical facilities have been increasingly referred to community providers to receive care. As part of an organizational reform to address its progressively complex processes, VHA created the Office of Integrated Veteran Care (IVC) to improve coordination and provide seamless access to care. GAO Key Takeaways IVC combined oversight of the management of VHA medical facility and community care into one office. The office established national priorities and initiatives, such as expanding a new process for specialty care appointments. It is also responsible for developing national policy for VHA’s regional networks and medical facilities to guide implementation of initiatives to enhance access to care at medical facilities. IVC has made several changes to its organizational structure and priorities since it was established. In May 2025, officials said further changes are on hold as the Department of Veterans Affairs undergoes reorganization and workforce reduction that may affect IVC. Congressional stakeholders have raised questions about the potential effects on veteran health care delivery. The frequent changes have affected officials’ ability to carry out the initiatives at some facilities. They reported that IVC did not clearly communicate changes to its organizational structure, and they did not always know where to seek guidance. They also reported that communication was often one-way, and their input was not solicited when making changes. Clear two-way communication will help officials effectively implement initiatives to ensure veterans access timely care. VHA Organizational Chart as of January 2025 How GAO Did This Study We evaluated VHA’s efforts against selected leading agency reform practices identified in prior GAO work. We reviewed documents and interviewed VHA officials from national-level offices, three regional networks, and three medical facilities on IVC’s organizational structure and planned changes.

What GAO Found The Veteran Employment Through Technology Education Courses (VET TEC) program administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides financial support to veterans enrolled in high-tech programs through eligible training providers. VA data show more than 20,300 veteran enrollments during the 5-year VET TEC pilot, which began in April 2019. VA reported spending nearly $262 million on the program as of December 2024. GAO found that the VET TEC pilot did not fully align with leading practices for pilot design (see figure). VA officials said the agency did not have sufficient staff to fully address these practices. While VA initially determined it had sufficient staff to meet the pilot objectives, it did not continually assess staff resources. Given that a new VET TEC is authorized through 2027, assessing its human capital needs would help VA assure the program has appropriate resources. Alignment of the VET TEC Pilot Program with Leading Practices for Effective Pilot Design VA oversaw training providers by evaluating their applications. It denied 165 of 221 applications, suspended five provider facilities, conducted two on-site reviews, and referred one instance of potential provider fraud to its Office of Inspector General. GAO's analysis of VA data indicated about $4 million in potential overpayments in tuition and fees to providers, or about 2 percent of payments. VA officials said that providers sometimes submitted information after an initial payment, such as when a veteran never began training, creating a potential overpayment. VA did not have written procedures applicable to the pilot to detect certain potential overpayments. Such procedures would enhance VA's internal controls for the VET TEC payment process. Veterans reported multiple challenges with training providers, including recruiting, educational quality, and career placement services. However, VA did not explicitly collect or analyze ongoing feedback through the GI Bill School Feedback Tool, its primary feedback mechanism. Doing so would help VA obtain critical input and enable it to assess and inform its VET TEC implementation. Why GAO Did This Study The federal government helps veterans transition to the civilian workforce. The Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2017 (the “Forever GI Bill”) instructed VA to carry out a 5-year pilot to train veterans for high-tech jobs. VA created VET TEC to support veterans who enrolled in high-tech courses through VA-approved training providers. In January 2025, legislation was enacted to establish a new program through September 2027. The Forever GI Bill included a provision for GAO to assess VET TEC. GAO issued an initial report on VET TEC in October 2022. This report builds on GAO's prior work and examines (1) VET TEC's alignment with leading practices for effective pilot design, (2) VA's oversight of training providers, and (3) challenges reported by participants. GAO compared VA's efforts to leading practices for effective pilot design and analyzed VA program data from April 1, 2019-August 19, 2024, the most recent available. GAO also analyzed 124 VET TEC comments submitted through the GI Bill Feedback Tool from July 2, 2019–January 5, 2024. GAO reviewed relevant VA documents, federal laws, and regulations and interviewed officials.

What GAO Found The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) did not complete actions to address sexual harassment at federally funded research institutions within the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act’s time frames. For example, OSTP was 15 months late in publishing its February 2024 required inventory of research agencies’ sexual harassment policies. This led to cascading delays in issuing required policy guidelines for agencies—January 2025 guidance was issued 20 months later than it should have been. GAO’s review of 17 research agencies found that none had policies that were fully consistent with the OSTP guidelines issued in January 2025. These agencies are now evaluating how to align their policies with the guidelines and expressed concern about meeting the current October 2025 deadline. OSTP is to monitor agencies’ development of policies. Such monitoring can ensure research agencies implement consistent policies, a goal specified in the act. However, OSTP does not have staff in place to lead this effort. OSTP officials stated they are recruiting to fill such positions, but the office had not yet hired staff as of July 2025, raising doubts about meeting the October deadline. Consistent with the act’s requirements, in August 2023 the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced its intention to make awards to study sexual harassment. In analyzing NSF’s awards database, GAO identified four such awards. However, these four awards were terminated as of May 2025. Timeline of Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Research Agency Activities OSTP’s guidelines addressed most of the act’s requirements, but did not fully address sharing of harassment reports and reporting of investigative information. OSTP staff involved in developing the guidelines departed shortly after its release, which coincided with a change in administrations. Addressing these requirements can enhance research agencies’ awareness of recurring issues, a problem specified in the act. Why GAO Did This Study Academic science, engineering, and medicine are particularly susceptible to workplace sexual harassment, according to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Amid these concerns, the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act, enacted in 2022, identified various requirements for federal research agencies, OSTP, and NSF to combat sexual harassment at federally funded research institutions and increase consistency in research agencies’ policies. The act includes a provision for GAO to assess federal efforts to implement policies that address sexual harassment at research institutions. This report addresses: (1) the status of actions required of OSTP, NSF, and research agencies and (2) the extent to which the policy guidelines address the act’s requirements. GAO analyzed documentation and written responses from OSTP and 17 research agencies, including NSF, on their existing sexual harassment policies and the extent to which they were consistent with the January 2025 OSTP guidelines. GAO also compared these guidelines to the act’s requirements. In addition, GAO interviewed OSTP officials.

What GAO Found Over the next 2 decades, the United States plans to spend tens of billions of dollars to modernize its nuclear weapons stockpile and the research and production infrastructure on which its stockpile programs depend. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is responsible for managing these efforts. Since 2011, NNSA has been required by law to report on cost baselines and cost growth for certain construction projects and nuclear weapons acquisition programs. For example, NNSA must notify congressional defense committees when construction projects initially set cost baselines that exceed $65 million, and again if costs are expected to exceed baselines by 25 percent or more. Within 90 days of submitting a cost growth notification, NNSA must also provide additional information, including an assessment of the root causes of the cost growth. However, NNSA has not implemented effective processes to manage such notifications for construction projects, which has led to delays in notifications. GAO identified 14 NNSA construction projects that established a cost baseline that met the reporting criteria. All 14 provided notification of an initial baseline and seven are experiencing reportable cost growth. However, NNSA has not provided notifications in five of the seven instances. NNSA officials said that notifications were being prepared for some of the projects but has not provided them to congressional defense committees. Officials also acknowledged that NNSA had not sent root cause assessments in most cases. The two assessments that NNSA provided did not address legally required elements, such as the extent to which unrealistic performance expectations or immature technologies played a role in cost growth. Table: Status of Cost Growth Notifications for Ongoing National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Projects Costing over $65 Million, as of April 2025 Number of projects Baseline notification letter sent Experienced reportable cost growth Provided cost growth notification Provided recertification and new cost baseline Provided assessment of root causes 14 14/14 (100%) 7/14 (50%) 2/7a (29%) 2/7a (29%) 2/7a (29%) Source: GAO analysis of Department of Energy project reporting data and NNSA documentation. | GAO-25-107767 aIn 2022, one project provided a cost growth notification, as well as notifications of recertification, a new baseline cost, and an assessment of root causes. However, it subsequently experienced additional reportable cost growth and established a new baseline in May 2025, but has not provided the additional notifications to date, which is not reflected in these figures. NNSA is also required to report on cost baselines for programs to acquire new nuclear weapons or life extension programs, and for programs to alter existing weapons where costs exceed $800 million. For three such programs that met the baseline reporting requirement, NNSA has used an existing reporting requirement to communicate initial cost and schedule baselines rather than provide separate notifications. At the time of GAO’s review, none of the three programs met the criteria for cost growth reporting in effect at the time—a total cost increase of at least 25 percent or a per unit increase of at least 50 percent. NNSA officials responsible for cost growth reporting told GAO that they planned to implement new processes with an initial focus on the process for construction projects, including the use of templates and root cause assessment guidance. However, officials said they were in the early stages and could not provide a timeline for completion. If implemented effectively, templates, guidance, and processes could help NNSA ensure it is providing accurate and timely information to congressional decision-makers Why GAO Did This Study House Report 118-529 includes a provision for us to review NNSA’s cost growth notification processes. GAO’s report assesses NNSA’s implementation of this provision and opportunities NNSA has identified to improve its cost growth notification requirements. GAO reviewed and analyzed provisions of law that relate to cost controls and reporting, NNSA directives and guidance, and NNSA documentation related to cost monitoring and notifications for construction projects and weapons programs. GAO also interviewed officials with NNSA and the Office of Management and Budget.

What GAO Found The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is taking steps to implement the legal authority it was granted in fiscal year 2025 to reimburse management and operating (M&O) contractors for certain transportation services for their employees. According to NNSA, the new contractor commuting authority will help address recruitment and retention challenges and improve transportation safety and congestion at NNSA’s sites. Agency officials identified some potential challenges the agency faces in implementing the authority. NNSA is reviewing a proposed transportation services plan for fiscal years 2025 to 2030 from the M&O contractor for Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of NNSA’s eight sites that compose the nuclear security enterprise. As of July 2025, contractor representatives at NNSA’s other seven sites said they did not plan to submit proposed transportation plans for the contractor commuting authority. The Los Alamos contractor estimates total costs of transportation services for its employees, such as park-and-ride shuttles and public transit subsidies, at about $74.4 million over the 6-year period. Officials said NNSA plans to use its existing contractor and subcontractor oversight framework to oversee the services: The M&O contractor is expected to have primary oversight responsibility for these subcontracts. The transportation plan’s proposed subcontract costs are not expected to meet the minimum threshold for NNSA to review the subcontract prior to award. NNSA plans to ensure program integrity by taking certain steps to monitor the contractor’s reporting and performance, including reviewing the contractor’s costs and benefits of the transportation services on a monthly basis, as well as its annual reporting NNSA officials identified two challenges the agency could face in implementing the authority: assessing some of the intended benefits of proposed transportation services because of difficulties with obtaining quantifiable data on all benefits, and having sufficient capacity for oversight because of NNSA’s longstanding human capital constraints. Why GAO Did This Study NNSA faces significant challenges with recruiting and retaining qualified staff, including contractor employees, particularly as its nuclear modernization workload increases. To carry out its work, NNSA relies on and oversees about 70,000 M&O contractor employees who execute NNSA’s missions at its eight government-owned, contractor-operated sites. NNSA’s efforts to address these challenges include implementing its new legal authority to reimburse M&O contractors for transportation services for their employees. According to NNSA, this authority will also help address challenges related to transportation safety, traffic congestion, and worker productivity. The Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 provides NNSA authority to reimburse contractors for approved transportation services after reviewing proposed plans that include certain required information. Senate Report 118-188 accompanying a bill for the act includes a provision for GAO to review NNSA’s implementation of the contractor commuting authority through fiscal year 2027 and provide an annual briefing to the relevant congressional committees. This first report discusses NNSA’s actions to implement this authority and challenges the agency anticipates facing. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed relevant statutes, agency requirements and guidance, the Los Alamos M&O contractor’s proposed transportation services plan, and prior GAO reports, among other documentation. GAO also interviewed NNSA officials and M&O contractor representatives. Figure 1: Traffic Congestion Driving to Los Alamos National Laboratory, June 2025

What GAO Found Many of the meaningful results the federal government seeks to achieve, such as providing homeland security and cybersecurity, are crosscutting in nature. Achieving results in these areas requires the coordinated efforts of more than one federal agency, level of government, or sector. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) updated the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) to create a more integrated, crosscutting performance planning and reporting framework to support the federal government’s achievement of results. GPRAMA requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to work with federal agencies to develop cross-agency priority (CAP) goals, 4-year outcome-oriented goals that address crosscutting mission areas as well as management challenges. GAO issued three reports on the 2022-2025 CAP goals, which included six recommendations to improve their implementation. Two of the six recommendations, both related to transparent reporting on CAP goal progress, have been implemented. Addressing the remaining recommendations would help ensure that future CAP goals are timely, address required management areas—such as IT—and are defined to allow assessment over time. Agencies and OMB have implemented most recommendations GAO made related to GPRAMA implementation since the law was enacted. Through their efforts, OMB and agencies have made greater use of performance information in decision-making, created clearer definitions of performance goals and responsibilities, and enhanced transparency through more consistent public reporting. Figure: Status of GAO Recommendations Related to Implementation of the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 from Fiscal Years 2012 to 2025, as of July 2025 Notes: Recommendations categorized as “Closed – not implemented” are those for which the intent has not been satisfied, but time or circumstances have rendered the recommendation no longer valid. Recommendations categorized as “Open – partially addressed” are those for which actions have been taken that partially satisfy the intent of the recommendation. OMB has yet to fully implement 18, more than one quarter of GAO’s 61 recommendations. Fifteen relate to crosscutting issues, such as efforts to create an inventory of federal programs. The remainder involve efforts to increase federal transparency and the improved use of performance information. Implementing the open recommendations would help OMB improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal agencies, programs, and activities. Why GAO Did This Study The performance and planning framework originally put into place by GPRA and enhanced by GPRAMA provides important tools that can help decision makers address challenges facing the federal government. GPRAMA includes a provision for GAO to periodically assess the act’s implementation, including the CAP goals. This report, GAO’s fifth periodic review of GPRAMA’s implementation, (1) discusses GAO’s prior work on the implementation of CAP goals from 2022 to 2025; and (2) examines progress made in implementing GAO’s past GPRAMA recommendations. GAO summarized three reports related to CAP goals issued during the 2022-2025 timeframe. GAO also reviewed related prior work and actions OMB and other federal agencies have taken to implement recommendations made since GPRAMA was enacted.

What GAO Found Between 2018 and 2024, 97 percent of counties across the contiguous U.S. were projected to reach at least level 3, a dangerous level of heat, by the National Weather Services’s HeatRisk, a 5-level index for potential heat-related effects. In addition, more than 319 million people lived under a forecast that was at a dangerous level for at least one day during this period of time. Average Days per Year at HeatRisk Level 3 and Above by County, 2018-2024 FEMA has provided limited assistance to tribal, state, and local governments for projects to mitigate against extreme heat. For example, less than 1 percent of the agency’s Building Resilient Infrastructure Communities (BRIC) 1,235 grant projects with obligations from fiscal years 2020 through 2023 primarily addressed extreme heat. Further, there has never been a presidentially declared major disaster for an extreme heat event, which would trigger federal assistance, such as damaged infrastructure, emergency protective measures for survivors, and mitigation assistance. According to FEMA, past extreme heat events have caused little infrastructure damage, a key criterion for approving federal assistance. FEMA officials told us that absent extraordinary circumstances, it was unlikely that a president would ever declare a major disaster for extreme heat. Agency officials reported providing some assistance for extreme heat when responding to other approved disasters, such as distributing commodities to Houston, Texas after Hurricane Beryl. However, FEMA has not evaluated its role in helping tribal, state, and local governments to plan for and implement activities that reduce or mitigate future disaster losses from extreme heat events. Moreover, FEMA has also not assessed how its potential decision to end BRIC may affect the agency’s ability to assist these entities. Evaluating FEMA’s role and its capabilities for assisting tribal, state, and local governments to prepare, respond, and recover from extreme heat events would help the agency to fully identify any gaps in assisting these governments and determine how to best address them. The evaluation’s results could also be incorporated into any upcoming changes to FEMA’s role or reform efforts. Why GAO Did This Study According to the National Weather Service, extreme heat is the leading weather-related cause of death in the U.S.—killing more people than floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes combined. These events are forecast to grow in intensity, frequency, and duration. GAO was asked to examine the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) support for states and localities experiencing extreme heat events. This report examines (1) where forecast data projected extreme heat could occur; (2) the extent FEMA assisted Tribes, states, and localities to mitigate extreme heat; and (3) the extent that FEMA helped these entities respond to and recover from extreme heat events. GAO reviewed FEMA documentation; analyzed heat index data from January 2018 through October 2024 and FEMA grant data from fiscal years 2020 through 2023; interviewed emergency management or public health officials, subject matter experts; and FEMA officials.

What GAO Found When the Department of Defense (DOD) contracts for weapon systems, it generally procures some data rights to intellectual property (IP) created by contractors. These data rights determine how DOD can use and distribute contractors’ IP and are necessary for DOD to conduct system maintenance. Selected Weapon Systems GAO Reviewed GAO found that DOD’s guidance requires programs to plan for IP and data rights necessary for sustainment by preparing IP stratgies. However, DOD guidance focuses largely on programs early in the acquisition cycle and does not fully address the needs of programs in sustainment when it comes to IP and data rights planning. None of the selected programs that completed IP strategies included all of the required elements outlined in DOD policy. Additional information could help better inform programs in sustaiment about the options available to them to address data rights shortfalls. Selected programs received thousands of individual data products, or data deliverables, which program personnel struggled to review for completeness and accuracy. DOD components have developed tools to assist their review processes, but these efforts are not coordinated across the department. Funding the tools has also been a challenge. Until DOD assesses the tools available, programs may continue to struggle to review the data deliverables they receive. Selected programs experienced vendor lock—or reliance on a single supplier—due to data rights shortfalls. According to officials, this approach can drive up costs and lengthen repair timeframes. Options to address these effects are limited once programs enter sustainment. Statute affords DOD unlimited rights in operation, maintenance, installation, and training (OMIT) data. However, the statute excludes detailed manufacturing or process data from this allowance. By clarifying how DOD and contractors treat detailed manufacturing or process data needed for OMIT, Congress could broaden the abililty of government personnel to make repairs themselves or compete maintenance work to different vendors while balancing the considerations of the industrial base. Why GAO Did This Study DOD spends billions to acquire and sustain weapon systems. To sustain these systems, DOD programs must have the necessary data rights that allow DOD or contractors to conduct maintenance activities. DOD and contractor personnel may have different interpretations of statutes, regulations and contract terms, resulting in disputes regarding what data is delivered under the contracts and affecting DOD’s ability to sustain the systems. A Senate committee report includes a provision for GAO to study data rights. This report examines (1) how selected DOD weapon systems in sustainment planned for IP acquisition, (2) what data deliverables those programs received, and (3) what challenges, if any, selected programs faced in sustainment due to data rights shortfalls. GAO reviewed planning and contract documents from five selected programs in sustainment: F/A-18, F-35, Littoral Combat Ship, Stryker Combat Vehicle, and Virginia-class Submarine. GAO selected programs using criteria such as military service and type of weapon system. GAO reviewed policies, and guidance on IP and data rights for DOD, and interviewed DOD IP experts, program and maintenance personnel for each selected program.

What GAO Found The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Foster Home Program is one of VA’s long-term-care programs for veterans who are no longer able to live independently. Veteran participation in the program is voluntary. Veterans are eligible for the program if they qualify for nursing-home care, enroll to receive primary care at home from VA, and an approved home is available in their area, among other things. While in a medical foster home, a caregiver provides supervision and assistance for activities of daily living 24 hours a day, including bathing, eating, and dressing. In addition, a home care team comprised of VA staff, such as nurses, makes routine visits to the home to check on the veteran. Other VA staff, such as recreation therapists, may also provide services to improve overall well-being, depending on availability. Generally, veterans are responsible for paying the costs, such as room and board, for their stay in the medical foster home while VA provides home-based primary care services. Care Provided to Veterans as Part of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Foster Home Program VA’s Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care (VA central office), with support from regional offices, sets and oversees VA policy on medical foster homes. Local VA medical centers implement and oversee the Medical Foster Home Program. VA central office began an effort to expand access to the Medical Foster Home Program in December 2021 by increasing the number of participating VA medical centers. VA spent approximately $18.6 million on expansion from fiscal years 2021 through 2024, resulting in 42 additional VA medical centers establishing the Medical Foster Home Program locally. As of May 2025, 483 homes were aligned with 150 VA medical centers and 707 veterans were participating in the program. Veterans, caregivers, and Medical Foster Home Program staff generally indicated satisfaction with the quality of care and support provided through the program, based on national VA survey data and interviews. Staff at five selected VA medical centers also described challenges that included problems sustaining the program, recruiting veterans and caregivers, and working with certain state requirements. Some of these challenges may be addressed by provisions in the Joseph Maxwell Cleland and Robert Joseph Dole Memorial Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2022 (Cleland-Dole Act), according to VA officials. The Cleland-Dole Act provided VA with the authority to make payments for veteran medical foster home costs, such as room and board, for a 5-year period for certain veterans. As of May 2025, VA had not begun making payments for veterans’ medical foster home costs as VA was not able to update its payment systems due to competing priorities, according to VA central office officials. Officials added they were exploring manual payment options until the systems were updated. The Cleland-Dole Act also requires VA to create a system to monitor the program, including tracking specified data, which VA officials said may help with program oversight. VA expects to implement the data tracking requirements by the end of 2025 Why GAO Did This Study Veterans’ needs for home-based long-term care services are increasing as the country’s veteran population ages. One way that VA is increasing the availability of home-based long-term care services is through the Medical Foster Home Program. The Cleland-Dole Act included provisions authorizing VA to make payments for a 5-year period for eligible veterans’ costs of care in private medical foster homes as well as to track specific data. The act also included a provision for GAO to review the implementation of these sections relating to the Medical Foster Home Program. This report describes the program and how it is overseen, local experiences, and how VA is planning for changes related to the Cleland-Dole Act. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed agency documentation and data on the Medical Foster Home Program from fiscal year 2021 through May 2025. GAO interviewed and obtained information from officials at VA central office, five selected VA medical centers, and associated VA regional offices. The VA medical centers were selected for variation in the number of medical foster homes in the program, maturity of the program, and geography. GAO also interviewed participating veterans and caregivers about their experiences and observed two medical foster home annual inspections. In addition, GAO reached out to some veterans’ service organizations. For more information, contact Sharon Silas at Silass@gao.gov.

In fiscal year 2024, federal agencies spent more than $495 billion on common products and services like medical supplies and information technology (IT). For more than 2 decades, we have recommended ways for agencies to strategically manage their spending, which has resulted in billions in savings. The Big Picture Since 2014, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with support from the General Services Administration (GSA), has led the category management initiative. Category management is intended to help federal agencies buy like a single enterprise to leverage the government’s buying power, eliminate duplicative contracts, and save taxpayer dollars. OMB reported that the government has saved more than $111 billion since starting the initiative. The initiative established 10 common spending categories, which account for more than half of federal contract spending. It also established government-wide contracts that offer competitive pricing and provide increased visibility into data to inform buying strategies. Ten Common Spending Categories Note: The category dollar amounts may not sum to the total due to rounding. In March 2025, the President issued an executive order to further centralize agencies’ buying efforts to eliminate waste and enable agencies to focus on their core missions. In July 2025, OMB issued guidance for agencies to consolidate spending through contracts managed by GSA using category management principles, and to centralize agency procurement functions at GSA, where appropriate. OMB recently noted that less than 20 percent of common spending currently goes through GSA. What GAO’s Work Shows Our work has shown that leading private sector companies use category management to manage up to 90 percent of their purchases and achieve savings of 10 to 20 percent of total procurement costs. We also found that agencies have faced challenges implementing category management, leaving billions of dollars in potential savings on the table. We made recommendations in key areas to increase savings. Accountability Facilitates Results We found that to achieve results, agencies need to be held accountable. In October 2016, we found that previous efforts to consolidate spending missed opportunities for savings because agencies underutilized preferred contracts, and OMB did not monitor agency use or hold agencies accountable for results. In response to our recommendations, OMB established goals including the amount of spending managed using category management principles, use of preferred contracts, savings, and small business utilization. Subsequently, OMB issued overarching guidance in 2019 that directed agencies to take five key actions, including establishing annual plans to manage more spending using category management principles while also balancing their small business goals. In November 2020, we found that small businesses had received at least 30 percent of annual category management obligations since 2016, but the number of small business vendors providing common products and services decreased each year, continuing a decade-long trend. OMB has since offered new training to identify small business opportunities and improved its reporting metrics. In September 2025, we reported that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) had issued relevant policy, but its category managers—who have responsibility for implementing category management—generally did not fulfill their responsibilities. We recommended that VA establish performance requirements and take other steps to hold category managers accountable. Better Data Could Yield Future Savings Our work has consistently found that agency limitations in collecting, analyzing, and sharing data have hindered category management implementation. In September 2020, we found that three of seven agencies we assessed did not regularly review their spending on IT contracts to identify potential contract duplication or share contract data such as the prices they paid for IT products and services. In November 2020, we found that agencies reported numerous data challenges, but OMB had not pursued government-wide solutions to address them. We recommended that OMB establish a strategic plan to address data challenges. In January 2025, OMB reported that an initiative to improve access to centralized data was underway. Focus on Requirements Needed Defining requirements is a key step that agencies should take to understand what products and services they need before deciding how to buy them. In October 2016, we reported on OMB efforts to standardize computer configurations for common requirements. An interagency working group of requirements and contracting officials found that agencies bought hundreds of different types of computers, but that nearly 80 percent of requirements could be met through five standard configurations. OMB developed a strategy to standardize configurations and consolidate purchasing. In November 2020, we found that OMB’s overarching guidance focused primarily on contracting, not how agencies can better define requirements. We recommended that OMB increase its emphasis on requirements and develop more tailored training for relevant officials. OMB has since amended its guidance and developed some training to emphasize the importance of engaging with stakeholders responsible for defining requirements. Challenges and Opportunities Our prior work identified key challenges and opportunities for OMB, GSA, and federal agencies to improve category management implementation and realize greater efficiency and savings. Current efforts led by OMB and GSA have the potential to advance category management by providing the tools, training, and expertise needed to drive more spending through government-wide contracts while also ensuring agencies meet their statutory small business contracting goals, address data limitations, and better define requirements. Efforts to centralize procurement functions previously carried out by agencies will require close collaboration and well-defined agreements to ensure that GSA is meeting agency expectations and mission requirements while achieving results like cost savings and shorter procurement lead times. OMB’s July 2025 guidance acknowledges the need to consider how GSA will increase its capacity to support these efforts, as well as develop processes to manage risk and monitor performance. Congressional oversight of these efforts—and a sustained focus on accountability, data, and requirements—has the potential to help federal agencies accomplish their missions more effectively while also achieving savings and being better stewards of taxpayer dollars. For more information, contact Mona Sehgal at SehgalM@gao.gov.

What GAO Found GAO has made 122 recommendations to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) from July 2011 through September 15, 2025. These recommendations address issues with intelligence enterprise management, infrastructure and facilities, workforce management, and personnel vetting. As of September 15, 2025, the Office of the DNI (ODNI) has implemented 72 recommendations, or 59 percent. GAO closed six additional recommendations for various other reasons. In May 2025, we identified 14 of these as recommendations that ODNI should prioritize. By fully implementing the 44 remaining open recommendations, ODNI could help ensure the intelligence community improves its workforce and infrastructure management and increases the effectiveness of operations in support of its mission. Why GAO Did This Study The James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 included a provision for the Comptroller General to submit a list to the Congressional Intelligence Committees and to the DNI of all recommendations made by GAO to the DNI as of September 30, 2023 that had not been fully implemented, and annually thereafter through 2028. This report is GAO's third submission, which formally transmits and communicates the results of its work. For more information, contact Alissa H. Czyz at czyza@gao.gov.

What GAO Found To support U.S. innovation, the federal government has invested in research and development (R&D) at colleges and universities, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU), and Minority-Serving Institutions (MSI). As overall federal research funding to colleges and universities increased from fiscal year 2018 through 2022, the amount HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs received also increased. Federal Research Funding Provided to Colleges and Universities, by HBCU, TCU, or MSI Status, Fiscal Year 2022 Twelve of the 14 federal research agencies GAO surveyed collectively offered at least 75 competitive research funding programs and initiatives targeted to HBCUs, TCUs, or MSIs, or to partnerships with those institutions during fiscal years 2022 through 2024. Two agencies did not offer any such programs. These 75 programs and initiatives included research as well as research capacity-building activities. According to agency officials, as of May 15, 2025, awards under about half of the programs and initiatives were ongoing, changes in administration and agency priorities led to the termination of some awards under at least 10 of the programs and initiatives, and awards under some other programs and initiatives were paused for review. Five agencies that GAO selected—the Department of Transportation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation—conducted outreach to increase HBCU, TCU, and MSI participation in federally funded research. Representatives from four of the six colleges and universities that GAO spoke to said site visits from agency officials helped connect them to research funding. As of May 15, 2025, officials from four of five selected agencies said they paused some outreach. The five agencies tracked a variety of information aimed at assessing the effectiveness of their outreach efforts. For three agencies, that information was not tied to fully identified performance goals. According to agency officials, the strategic plans containing the goals and performance measures related to HBCU, TCU, and MSI outreach were either being revised or were no longer in effect as of May 15, 2025. Why GAO Did This Study HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs are part of the federal R&D ecosystem, but these institutions have long faced barriers to securing federal research funding. The Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act (2022) includes a provision for GAO to examine federal efforts to increase research capacity and competitiveness at HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs. This report examines (1) HBCU, TCU, and MSI participation in federally funded research during fiscal years 2018–2022; (2) competitive federal research funding programs and initiatives that were targeted to HBCUs, TCUs, or MSIs or to partnerships with those institutions in fiscal years 2022–2024; (3) outreach selected federal research agencies conducted to increase the participation of HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs in federally funded research and selected institutions’ views on the outreach; and (4) the extent to which selected federal research agencies assessed the effectiveness of their outreach to HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs. Using the most recent comprehensive data available at the time of our analysis to identify trends, GAO analyzed federal research funding to higher education institutions. GAO also surveyed and reviewed data from 14 federal research agencies on competitive research funding programs and initiatives targeted to HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs. Additionally, GAO interviewed officials from five selected federal research agencies on their outreach to HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs, including how they assess effectiveness of the outreach. GAO also interviewed representatives from six HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs—selected to represent a variety of institution types and research areas—about their views on agency outreach and conducted two site visits to an HBCU and a TCU. For more information, contact Candice N. Wright at WrightC@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Communities that receive Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster assistance are generally required to cover a portion of recovery costs, known as the nonfederal cost share. Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) and Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) funds, which are administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), can be used for this purpose. For disasters occurring from January 2017 through January 2023, grantees budgeted about 7 percent ($3.7 billion) of the $49.4 billion in CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT funds to meet FEMA cost-share requirements. In addition, four grantees allocated another $2 billion that could be used for cost share. However, as of December 2024, grantees had not yet determined how much of the $2 billion would be used for this purpose. Different timelines and requirements can make it difficult for grantees to use CDBG-DR or CDBG-MIT funds for FEMA cost share, according to prior GAO work and seven grantees GAO interviewed: Timing of funding availability. CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT funds have historically become available later than FEMA funds. This can complicate planning, particularly when projects have already begun. Income requirements. Grantees generally must use at least 70 percent of CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT funds to assist people with low and moderate incomes, a requirement that does not apply to FEMA funds. This can be challenging, particularly when the benefits of large FEMA-funded infrastructure projects are difficult to isolate for these individuals alone. Wage and labor requirements. Grantees must follow federal wage and labor requirements when using CDBG-DR or CDBG-MIT funds for construction, including rules on how much and how often workers must be paid. However, these requirements do not apply to the two FEMA programs for which almost all of the CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT funds are used to meet cost-share requirements. As a result, FEMA officials said the agency may not cover the additional costs these requirements may impose. Options for addressing these challenges include aligning HUD and FEMA requirements or eliminating the cost-share requirement altogether. However, these options present trade-offs and may require statutory changes. For example, eliminating the cost-share requirement completely would require congressional action and could result in FEMA funding fewer projects. Implementing prior GAO recommendations on improving the federal disaster recovery framework could also help address these challenges. In a November 2022 report (GAO-23-104956), GAO recommended that Congress consider establishing an independent commission to propose reforms to the federal government’s approach to disaster recovery. GAO also recommended that HUD and FEMA take steps to better manage fragmentation across recovery programs. Implementing these recommendations could help alleviate challenges in using CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT funds to meet cost-share requirements. Why GAO Did This Study Natural disasters affect hundreds of U.S. communities each year, and the federal government provides billions of dollars to support recovery efforts. The Stafford Act generally requires communities to contribute up to 25 percent in nonfederal cost share for assistance provided through FEMA’s Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Grant programs. GAO was asked to review the use of CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT funds to meet nonfederal cost-share requirements. This report examines (1) the portion of these funds that grantees have budgeted to meet cost-share requirements and (2) key challenges selected grantees face in using the funds for this purpose and options to address these challenges. GAO focused on FEMA programs because they accounted for most of the cost-share funds. GAO collected and analyzed budget data from 52 of the 55 grantees that received CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT funds for recovery from disasters that occurred from January 2017 through January 2023. GAO reviewed HUD and FEMA documentation and interviewed officials from both agencies. GAO also interviewed seven grantees. The selected grantees reflected a mix of characteristics, including varying funding amounts, levels of experience with cost share, and type of grant received (CDBG-DR or CDBG-MIT). For more information, contact Jill M. Naamane at naamanej@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Over the last 10 years, substance use has generally declined nationally among 8th, 10th, and 12th graders, according to data GAO analyzed. These same data indicated that as of 2023, school-aged children more commonly reported using drugs or alcohol than tobacco. Most states and territories (45 of 56) GAO surveyed required public schools to teach about at least two substances in grades K-12, with 39 states and territories teaching about all three (tobacco, alcohol, and drugs) in school year 2024–2025. Of the remaining 11 states and territories that responded to the survey, six did not have requirements for specific substances but had or were developing requirements that public schools teach about how substance use can affect students’ health in grades K-12. The other five did not require public schools to teach about substance use prevention. States and Territories’ Reported Requirements for Teaching About Substance Use Prevention in Public Schools, School Year 2024–2025 Overall, 28 states and territories reported that they provided information to school districts about evidence-based substance use prevention programs on state websites, according to GAO’s survey. For example, New York maintains a list of evidence-based substance use prevention programs appropriate for different age ranges that schools and others can use, according to officials from the state’s Office of Addiction Services and Supports. The U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office of National Drug Control Policy administer grant programs that can be used to support substance use prevention activities in public schools. For example, HHS’s Substance Use Block Grant requires states to spend a minimum of 20 percent of their funding for substance use prevention activities, which can include school-based strategies. Education and HHS also offer resources about substance use prevention to states and communities, including websites with recorded webinars and a registry of evidence-based practices. Moreover, Education, HHS, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy fund technical assistance centers that create and distribute substance use prevention resources and provide training to stakeholders. Why GAO Did This Study Substance use—when people use drugs, alcohol, or tobacco in ways that can harm themselves or others—remains a persistent problem in the United States. Substance use can result in negative consequences, including poor school performance and diminished mental health. Research suggests that prevention programs for school-aged children may help address substance use before it occurs. Senate Report 118-84 includes a provision for GAO to examine the extent to which states require the use of evidence-based drug education and prevention programs in public schools, and how the federal government helps address challenges schools face implementing these programs. This report describes (1) how states approach substance use prevention programs, including those that are evidence based, in public schools, and (2) the federal resources offered to help public schools implement these programs. GAO surveyed all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and eight territories about substance use prevention and other related requirements, such as behavioral health topics, in public schools for school year 2024–2025. Fifty-six states and territories responded to GAO’s survey; Florida, Palau, and the U.S. Virgin Islands did not. GAO interviewed officials and reviewed documents from Education, HHS, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and related technical assistance centers. GAO also interviewed officials from state departments of education, public health, and other agencies in California and New York. GAO selected these states based on whether states require substance use prevention in public schools and the percent of a state’s population living in rural areas, among other criteria. In addition, GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and reports related to substance use prevention. For more information, contact Jacqeline M. Nowicki at NowickiJ@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has policies and procedures on employee misconduct but has not fully communicated them. In June 2024, BOP updated its Standards of Employee Conduct and provides ongoing training on these standards. However, BOP is not sharing and using feedback from employees on the training, which is inconsistent with leading practices. Doing so would better position BOP to improve the training’s design, delivery, and overall effectiveness in preventing employee misconduct. Additionally, BOP uses orientation handbooks and signs posted in facilities to inform incarcerated individuals how to report certain employee misconduct. However, the handbooks and signs discuss sexual misconduct rather than a broader range of allegations, such as contraband and physical abuse. Developing a communication strategy to fully inform incarcerated individuals about employee misconduct offenses that affect their health and safety could increase awareness about the standards BOP is trying to uphold and help ensure facility safety and employee accountability. Further, BOP has not fully incorporated data analysis and planning into how it manages employee misconduct. For example, BOP collects employee misconduct data but does not assess these data to identify trends in misconduct across more than 2 years. By developing and implementing an approach to routinely and fully assess employee misconduct data over more than 2 years, BOP could better focus its efforts to prevent and address misconduct. BOP increased staff and took other steps to reduce its employee misconduct caseload, but about 37 percent of the 12,153 cases open as of February 2025 had been unresolved for 3 years or longer. BOP’s approach to investigating and disciplining employee misconduct does not include establishing milestones or designating responsibilities to key officials. Implementing a comprehensive plan with these elements would help BOP allocate the resources necessary for investigating and disciplining employee misconduct cases, achieve desired results, and enhance safety and efficiency. Length of Time Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Employee Misconduct Cases Had Been Open as of February 2025 Note: Includes cases reported from October 2013 through February 2025 that remained open as of February 27, 2025, when BOP retrieved the data from its system. While BOP’s Office of Internal Affairs investigates most cases, a small number are investigated by the Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General or another body, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Why GAO Did This Study Each year, BOP receives and investigates thousands of employee misconduct allegations. These include sexual abuse of incarcerated individuals, unprofessional conduct, and failure to follow policy. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reported that BOP’s operational challenges have resulted in lengthy investigations and backlogged cases. GAO was asked to review BOP’s efforts to prevent and address employee misconduct. This report examines (1) the extent to which BOP has established and communicated policies and procedures on employee misconduct and (2) the extent to which BOP has incorporated data analysis and planning into misconduct management, among other issues. GAO analyzed BOP policy and data from October 2013 through February 2025 and interviewed BOP officials. GAO also interviewed staff and incarcerated individuals from three BOP complexes, selected in part to represent a variety of locations.

What GAO Found The Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) is a Department of Defense (DOD) program operating in over 3,400 U.S. public high schools. It is designed to educate students on leadership and citizenship. DOD provided about $439 million in total funding for JROTC in fiscal year 2024. Each military service administers and funds its own JROTC program jointly with participating high schools. In general, JROTC instructors are former or current officers or noncommissioned officers who are certified by their respective military service and employed by schools. In 2022, allegations that JROTC instructors had inappropriately touched, spoken to, or sexually assaulted students raised safety questions about the program. DOD, the military services, host schools, and Education have varying responsibilities in implementing JROTC and addressing allegations of adult sexual misconduct in the program (See fig 1). DOD sets policies and guidance for JROTC. The military services’ and school districts’ responsibilities are laid out in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Prior to fall 2024, each military service had its own agreement, but the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act required DOD to develop a standardized one. Figure 1: Selected Roles and Responsibilities for the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) aThe Air Force administers the Space Force JROTC program. The Coast Guard also administers a JROTC program under the Department of Homeland Security. This report does not examine Coast Guard JROTC. Based on responses to its nationally generalizable survey of school administrators, GAO estimates that 2 to 7 percent of public high schools with JROTC programs had at least one JROTC instructor who was the subject of an adult sexual misconduct allegation in the prior 5 years. Of the schools with at least one allegation, an estimated 6 percent had at least one substantiated allegation, based on GAO’s survey. Schools are to address allegations of instructor misconduct in accordance with their school district policies. They are also to notify the military service of investigations into alleged JROTC instructor adult sexual misconduct and discipline against instructors. An estimated 89 percent of public high schools with JROTC programs have mandatory training for all school staff—including JROTC instructors—on topics such as recognizing and reporting adult sexual misconduct. An estimated 45 percent require this type of training for students. According to responses to GAO’s survey, an estimated 48 percent of school administrators drop in to observe JROTC classes at least twice a month, and an estimated 30 percent do so monthly. For on-campus JROTC activities that occur outside of school hours, an estimated 18 percent of school administrators drop in frequently and 48 percent do so occasionally. These visits can make administrators aware of and provide an opportunity to address inappropriate instructor behavior, including behaviors that may escalate to adult sexual misconduct. An estimated 49 percent of schools’ codes of conduct policies require the presence of two adults—who could be JROTC instructors or other school staff—for activities outside of regular school hours. In addition, an estimated 43 percent of school policies require the presence of a male and female adult for coed activities outside of regular school hours. Schools may face challenges in having both male and female adults present during coed JROTC activities outside of regular school hours because relatively few JROTC programs (an estimated 11 percent) have both a male and female instructor. In September 2023, DOD entered a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to share information about allegations of adult sexual misconduct in schools that host JROTC programs with the Department of Education. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 generally prohibits sex discrimination—which under certain circumstances includes adult sexual misconduct—in an education program or activity that receives federal funding, such as public schools. The MOU states that Education’s Office for Civil Rights will send DOD resolution letters, letters of findings, and resolution agreements pertaining to complaints alleging discrimination in JROTC programs or activities in violation of federal civil rights laws. In addition, the MOU states that DOD will notify Education of all complaints alleging discrimination in violation of federal civil rights laws, including sex discrimination in JROTC programs. DOD officials told GAO they notify Education of all allegations of adult sexual misconduct that could meet Education’s definition of sex discrimination. Why GAO Did This Study GAO was asked to examine how schools implement JROTC and how Education coordinates with DOD regarding adult sexual misconduct in the program. Sexual misconduct can be a type of sex discrimination. For the purposes of this report, GAO defines adult sexual misconduct as an adult sexually assaulting, sexually harassing, or attempting to develop an intimate or sexual relationship with a student. To provide this information, GAO conducted a nationally generalizable survey of school administrators in public high schools with JROTC programs. The survey asked how schools oversee JROTC, how they prevent and respond to any allegations of adult sexual misconduct, and whether administrators were aware of any of adult sexual misconduct allegations against their school’s JROTC instructors in the prior 5 years. GAO also interviewed Education and DOD officials about how they communicate regarding adult sexual misconduct in JROTC programs, and the agencies’ MOU. For more information, contact Jacqueline Nowicki at nowickij@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) is responsible for cleaning up contaminated soil and legacy landfills resulting from Manhattan Project-era and Cold War-era waste disposal at 12 of its 15 sites. GAO examined eight sites with such contamination and found that site-specific factors inform cleanup decisions in the context of federal and state laws and regulations, as well as agreements EM follows to conduct cleanup. These factors include future land use, physical parameters, and community acceptance. For the eight sites GAO examined, soil and legacy landfill cleanup is estimated to cost approximately $15 billion over the next 6 decades. However, the sites’ estimated scope, schedule, and cost for cleanup may change as more information becomes available. In particular, at two of the sites, EM and regulators have worked for more than a decade on the scope of remedial actions needed to clean up contaminated soil and legacy landfills. The final remedy decisions will affect the sites’ cost estimates. For example, cleanup of one legacy landfill at an EM site in Los Alamos, New Mexico, could cost about $12 million under one potential remedy but about $805 million if another remedy is selected. Removal of Contaminated Soil at Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management EM headquarters is unable to readily identify the scope, schedule, and cost of soil and legacy landfill cleanup over the 12 sites. While EM sites have information on soil and legacy landfill cleanup, sites report data to EM in an aggregated form, with soil cleanup information combined with those of other activities, such as groundwater cleanup. EM’s 2020 Program Management Protocol states that headquarters provides technical and policy support in the planning and field execution of soil and other cleanup. With distinct information on soil cleanup activities, EM headquarters could better provide technical support for planning. In addition, as remedy decisions are made, having information available that is specific to soil and legacy landfill cleanup at EM sites would improve headquarters’ ability to track resources needed to implement remedy decisions and their schedule and cost implications on the entire EM program. Why GAO Did This Study EM is responsible for addressing hazardous and radioactive waste from nuclear weapons production and energy research at DOE sites. Contaminated soil at these sites poses a threat to public health and the environment, making soil and legacy landfill cleanup critical to EM’s mission. GAO was asked to review EM’s soil and legacy landfill cleanup efforts. This report examines (1) the regulatory framework for soil and legacy landfill cleanup at selected EM sites and how site-specific factors inform remedy decisions and (2) available data on the scope, schedule, and cost for soil and legacy landfill cleanup. GAO examined eight sites selected to include various regulatory frameworks governing EM’s cleanup, different stages of cleanup, remaining remediation decisions, and various end uses for the land. GAO conducted site visits at three of these sites. GAO examined relevant laws and regulations and reviewed agency documents on soil and legacy landfill cleanup. GAO interviewed officials from EM, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and state regulatory agencies.