# Recent Reports

Reports News from the GAO

- Child Care: Selected States Are Taking Steps to Sustain Program Changes Implemented with COVID-19 Funding What GAO FoundIn all five selected states, child care officials reported using supplemental funding to make investments and program changes to address preexisting challenges facing families and child care providers. Preexisting challenges included the affordability and availability of child care for families, and financial viability and staffing for child care providers. These state officials reported making one-time investments, such as updating technology systems and creating targeted grants that could have long-term positive impacts (see figure). They also changed their Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) programs to enhance families' access to child care and improve providers' financial viability. For families, they expanded eligibility for subsidies and lowered family co-pays. For providers, they focused on payment rates, compensation, workforce development, and quality improvement. States planned to use various strategies to sustain program changes that were made using supplemental funding, such as establishing a new state trust fund or increasing state child care budgets. State officials said that their ability to secure ongoing funding would affect their ability to maintain certain program changes.Example of New York State (NYS) Child Care Grant Opportunity Notice The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Child Care supported states' efforts to address challenges for families and providers with supplemental funding by encouraging specific uses for funds and offering technical assistance. After COVID-19 relief laws were enacted, the agency published guidance that encouraged states to make CCDF program changes. These included increasing provider payment rates based on new cost modelling and increasing family income eligibility limits. The Office of Child Care also provided technical assistance to help states explore options to enhance their CCDF programs and continues to support states' efforts to determine which of their recent program changes can be sustained beyond the expiration of the supplemental funding. For example, it has helped states develop strategic plans, facilitated opportunities for states to learn from their peers, and referred states to its technical assistance partners for specialized assistance.Why GAO Did This StudyThe COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions to the country's child care sector, exacerbating preexisting challenges for families and providers. In response, in fiscal years 2020–2021 Congress appropriated more than $52 billion in supplemental funding to CCDF, which supports states' efforts to assist low-income working families with obtaining child care. The remaining funds must be expended by September 30, 2024.House Appropriations Committee Report No. 117-96 includes a provision for GAO to study the state use of COVID-19 relief funding for long-term strategies to improve and support the child care sector. This report examines (1) how selected states used supplemental funding to implement long-term strategies that help address preexisting challenges for families and providers, and (2) how OCC supported states' efforts to address challenges for families and providers using pandemic-related funds.GAO interviewed CCDF administrators from five states (Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Tennessee) about their experiences implementing long-term program changes with COVID-19 funds and the support they received from the Office of Child Care. GAO selected states to represent diversity in child care funding amounts and geographic region. The information from the states is not generalizable, but provides perspectives. GAO also interviewed agency officials and organizations knowledgeable of child care issues; and reviewed related reports, literature, federal laws and regulations, and Office of Child Care guidance.For more information, contact Kathy A. Larin at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov.
- Paid Parental Leave: OPM Should Take Steps to Further Raise Awareness of the Program What GAO FoundThe Federal Employee Paid Leave Act of 2019 (FEPLA) provided a new paid parental leave benefit to most federal civilian employees. FEPLA amended the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), which provided a federal entitlement of up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to most federal employees for a variety of caregiving and medical purposes. Eligible federal employees were able to substitute up to 12 weeks of qualifying FMLA unpaid leave with FEPLA paid parental leave.The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) collected and analyzed data on the government-wide use of paid parental leave from the 2021 Federal Employee Benefits Survey, 2022 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), and other sources. FEVS 2022 data showed that 96 percent of federal employees who used paid parental leave used it for the birth of a child (see table). A total of 557,778 employees completed the 2022 FEVS.Responses to Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) Question Related to Use of Paid Parental Leave by Qualifying Event, 2022			Question 100a: For what purpose did you use Paid Parental Leave?									Percent Response								Birth of a child									96								Adoption placement of a child									2								Foster care placement of a child									2					Source: GAO analysis of Office of Personnel Management 2022 FEVS data. | GAO-24-106654OPM and three selected agencies—Department of Justice (DOJ), Small Business Administration (SBA), and Social Security Administration (SSA)—found no significant obstacles to employees using paid parental leave. Selected agencies used multiple channels, such as hosting information sessions, to communicate paid parental leave to their employees. However, GAO found that selected agencies' public-facing webpages did not reflect current paid parental leave policies. During the course of GAO's review, DOJ, SBA and SSA agreed and updated the relevant webpages accordingly.OPM's Leave Administration webpage includes handbooks and fact sheets intended to provide information on leave administration for federal employees. GAO found the webpage directs users to outdated information about FMLA before FEPLA went into effect. Specifically, the webpage directs users to the 2015 Handbook on Leave and Workplace Flexibilities for Childbirth, Adoption, and Foster Care, which does not reflect the availability of paid parental leave provided under FEPLA. The webpage also does not include FEPLA fact sheets. OPM officials told us that they had not yet completed updating the Handbook and fact sheets on its webpage because they had competing priorities and limited staff available. OPM intends to update the relevant documents as staff resources and workload permit. Without current information on its public webpage, OPM is missing an opportunity to help raise awareness of paid parental leave and ensure that federal employees understand their eligibility.Why GAO Did This StudyBeginning October 1, 2020, eligible federal employees were able to use up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave for the arrival of a new child by birth, placement for adoption or foster care. Studies cited by OPM indicated that paid parental leave can help increase bonding time between parent and child, improve the desirability of federal employment, and increase employee retention.The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 directs GAO to review federal paid parental leave. This report (1) describes OPM data on paid parental leave and (2) assesses OPM and selected agencies' efforts to raise awareness of the program, among other objectives.GAO analyzed OPM data on the government-wide use of paid parental leave. GAO also selected three agencies for review based on workforce size and use of paid parental leave. GAO analyzed relevant documents and interviewed officials from OPM, the selected agencies, and employee unions at the selected agencies.
- VA Disability Benefits: Board of Veterans' Appeals Should Address Gaps in Its Quality Assurance Process What GAO FoundThe Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) has a quality assurance (QA) process and a related accuracy measure for its decisions. Specifically, its QA process involves: 1) checking a random sample of draft decisions for certain types of Board-defined errors each month through its case review process; and 2) monitoring outcomes of Board decisions that were further appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). The Board uses results from these activities to provide various interventions, such as individual feedback to veteran law judges (VLJs) or training. The Board also calculates and publishes an accuracy rate that represents error-free adjudications. However, GAO found shortfalls in the Board's process for calculating this measure. Contrary to federal internal control standards, GAO found that the Board did not have:(1) written policies or procedures for calculating its accuracy rate or managing case review error data, or(2) checks on its accuracy rate calculation.As a result, the Board lost data and GAO could not verify accuracy rates provided by the Board in 2 of 4 fiscal years. Until the Board develops written policies and procedures, the Board will likely continue to have difficulty supporting the accuracy of its publicly reported measure.GAO found gaps in the Board's efforts to build and use evidence—such as a lack of data and analysis—to assess its QA process and related activities. GAO analyses of CAVC and Board data show that over the past 3 fiscal years, CAVC remanded (sent back) about 80 percent of appealed Board decisions, often because CAVC found the Board's explanation of its findings to be inadequate. However, GAO found that the Board lacked evidence to better understand and address these and other issues and set priorities to help improve its QA process. Specifically:Board officials told GAO it has no comprehensive, written plan outlining how it will accomplish the mission and goals of its QA process.	Board officials told GAO they had not fully analyzed trends or underlying causes of the most common Board-identified errors or CAVC remands.	The Board has not systematically or comprehensively built or used evidence to better understand and improve its interventions, such as collecting feedback about training.	The Board does not assess VLJ decisions for consistency, such as whether common misunderstandings of policy or law exist in decisions.GAO's prior work has identified key practices for evidence-based decision-making. These practices involve building and assessing evidence and using it to foster a culture of continuous improvement. Absent such a process and a plan to guide it, the Board is not positioned to fully understand and address underlying causes of the most common errors and remands or understand consistency—evidence which is needed to target and implement effective interventions and foster continuous improvement of its QA efforts.Why GAO Did This StudyEach year, the Board adjudicates thousands of cases in which a veteran was dissatisfied with the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) initial decision on their claim for benefits. However, researchers and Congress have raised questions about how the Board ensures the quality of its adjudications.GAO was asked to review the Board's QA process. This testimony examines (1) how the Board assures and measures the quality of its adjudicative decisions, and (2) the extent to which the Board builds and uses evidence to assess its QA process.GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and Board documents. GAO analyzed QA data provided by the Board for fiscal years 2019 through 2022 and assessed its reliability. GAO also reviewed relevant quality assurance literature and interviewed VA officials, attorneys, VLJs, and subject matter experts, including researchers and veterans service organizations. GAO also conducted group discussions with randomly selected Board decision-writing attorneys and VLJs.
- Credit Cards: Pandemic Assistance Likely Helped Reduce Balances, and Credit Terms Varied Among Demographic Groups What GAO FoundApproximately half of active credit card accounts carried a balance during the period from June 2013 through 2019, according to GAO's analysis of a nongeneralizable sample of more than 650,000 credit card accounts from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. This included almost 35 percent of all active accounts in the highest credit score category (720 and above) and more than 30 percent of all active accounts in zip codes with median household incomes of $150,000 or more.After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, cardholders in the GAO sample generally paid down credit card balances and carried balances for shorter periods, according to GAO's analysis. Specifically, the share of all active accounts that carried a balance declined from 50 to 45 percent from April 2020 to December 2021 (see figure). Federal pandemic assistance likely contributed to these improvements. GAO analysis suggests that after March 2020, cardholders who carried balances increased their average credit card payments during the months when pandemic assistance payments were disbursed.Percentage of Active Credit Card Accounts That Carried a Balance, 2019–2021Note: GAO's analysis was based on a nongeneralizable sample of active general purpose credit card accounts. This figure excludes the percentage of active credit card accounts that were seriously delinquent (90 or more days), which was less than 1 percent during this period.Cardholder accounts in the sample that were in billing zip codes with a majority of Black or African American or Hispanic or Latino residents likely had higher interest rates and lower credit limits and carried balances longer compared with accounts in predominantly White zip codes, as indicated by GAO analysis. For example, the difference in interest rates was on average about 1.3 percentage points. Cardholders in the sample that were in majority-Black or -Hispanic zip codes continued to face higher interest rates and lower credit limits as compared with cardholders in predominantly White zip codes who had the same credit scores, zip-code income distribution, and revolving status. While accounts in the sample that were in majority-Black or -Hispanic zip codes carried smaller balances than accounts in predominantly White zip codes, higher interest rates combined with carrying balances longer can result in higher credit costs.Why GAO Did This StudyCredit cards are the most common consumer lending product by number of users, with 82 percent of U.S. adults holding a credit card in 2022. However, credit card adoption rates vary by race, ethnicity, and income. Consumers can use credit cards as a convenient means of payment and source of credit. Some consumers do not always pay off their monthly credit card balances and can accumulate interest and fees over time, which can lead to debt burden and affect their financial health. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic caused significant economic disruptions and has affected consumers' credit card usage.GAO was asked to review consumer credit card usage. This report examines (1) consumer credit card usage from 2013 through 2019, (2) how the COVID-19 pandemic and related assistance affected credit card usage from March 2020 through December 2021, and (3) how credit card costs and usage vary among racial/ethnic groups.GAO analyzed a nongeneralizable sample of credit card data from the Federal Reserve for June 2013–December 2021 and used the Census Bureau's American Community Surveys to estimate the median household income and racial and ethnic composition in cardholders' zip codes. GAO also reviewed research from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Reserve, and academics. Further, GAO interviewed representatives of federal agencies, six large credit card issuers, three credit reporting agencies, a banking association, and a consumer advocacy organization.For more information, contact Alicia Puente Cackley at (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov.
- VA Disability Benefits: Actions Needed to Address Challenges Reserve Component Members Face Accessing Compensation What GAO FoundThe Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) approved 11 to 20 percent fewer initial disability compensation claims from members of the reserve components—the Reserves and National Guard—than the active components (i.e., full-time active-duty military) each year from 2012 through 2021, the most recent data available. VA and Department of Defense (DOD) officials were unaware of this difference. Reserve component approval rates remained lower across characteristics such as military rank and age, but the size of the difference sometimes varied.Active and Reserve Component VA Disability Compensation Claim Approval RatesDOD and VA partially addressed challenges reserve component members face accessing disability compensation. Disability compensation claims generally must include evidence of a health condition that developed during military duty and led to a disability. Stakeholders—who study or work with reserve component members—identified challenges related to reserve component members' timely documentation of their health conditions and VA claims processors' ability to obtain evidence to support their claims. For example:All 15 stakeholders told GAO that reserve component members do not always understand the importance of immediately documenting health conditions to support any future disability compensation claims. DOD and VA guidance does not address this knowledge gap.	Thirteen stakeholders and several claims processors told GAO that finding evidence needed to support reserve component claims, such as service dates, is difficult. One form lists active-duty service but not reserve component members' two-week annual training. DOD designed a new form that will list dates of annual training, but the military services have not fully applied sound planning practices to implement it. VA claims processors also lack a reliable data source for the dates of monthly weekend drills.Guidance on documenting health conditions, efficient rollout of DOD's new form, and better VA data on service dates could help reserve component members prove that their disabilities are connected to their military service. Without this proof, VA claims processors will likely deny disability compensation claims.Why GAO Did This StudyOver one-third of the U.S. military serve in the reserve components. In return for their service, the nation has committed to compensate veterans for service-connected disabilities. The Identifying Barriers and Best Practices Study Act includes a provision for GAO to study reserve component members' access to VA disability benefits.This report examines VA's approval rates for reserve and active component disability compensation claims and how DOD and VA addressed stakeholder-identified challenges facing reserve component members in accessing disability compensation, among other topics.GAO analyzed VA data; reviewed relevant federal laws, DOD and VA policies, and other documents; and interviewed VA and DOD officials and 15 selected stakeholders, including researchers and veterans service organizations.
- Disability Insurance: SSA Faces Ongoing Challenges with Overpayments What GAO FoundOverpayments in the Social Security Administration's (SSA) Disability Insurance program can impose burdens on disability insurance beneficiaries and taxpayers. GAO and past research have consistently found that the majority of disability insurance beneficiaries who have earnings sufficient to affect their benefits will receive an overpayment. The financial burden of these overpayments can be high.In 2015, GAO reported that more than half of all disability insurance overpayments were paid to beneficiaries earning above program limits. Further, a 2019 study conducted by Mathematica and SSA, found that 71 percent of DI beneficiaries with earnings sufficient to affect their benefits receive overpayments, which often accumulate to thousands of dollars. Specifically, the study found that overpayments lasted for a median of 9 months and accrued a median amount of $9,282.In addition, according to SSA's Office of the Inspector General, overpayments attributed to disabled beneficiaries working above program limits have been a leading cause of improper payments, amounting to $755 million in taxpayer funds at risk in 2021.SSA has faced challenges preventing, detecting, and recovering overpayments in the past, and GAO has made a number of recommendations related to improving SSA's efforts. Two of GAO's longstanding priority recommendations pertaining to overpayments remain open.Preventing potential overpayments: one recommendation focuses on preventing potential overpayments to individuals receiving concurrent federal workers' compensation benefits. Specifically, in 2015, we recommended that SSA strengthen internal controls designed to prevent DI overpayments due to the concurrent receipt of Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) benefits. In response, SSA is working towards an agreement with the Department of Labor to use FECA benefit data to improve efficiencies in its ability to offset or reduce DI benefits when an individual is concurrently receiving FECA benefits.	SSA's efforts to recover overpayments: the second priority recommendation in this area focuses on SSA's efforts to recover overpayments. Specifically, in 2016, we recommended that SSA adjust the minimum withholding rate to 10 percent of monthly DI benefits to allow quicker recovery of debt. This change would increase scheduled collections and reduce the time it will take to fully recover overpayments and result in tens of millions of dollars in overpayment debt recovered over a 5-year period.Implementing these recommendations could help improve the financial status of the DI program and ensure that SSA does not continue overpaying beneficiaries who may have difficulty repaying debt incurred by overpayments.Congress can also play a key role in addressing underlying issues related to preventing improper payments. For example, in 2022, GAO recommended that Congress amend the Social Security Act to accelerate and make permanent the requirement for the Social Security Administration to share its full death data with the Department of the Treasury's Do Not Pay system. Sharing these data on an ongoing basis will allow agencies to enhance their efforts to identify and prevent improper payments to deceased individuals.Why GAO Did This StudySSA's DI program provides benefits to millions of Americans who can no longer work due to a disability. In fiscal year 2022, about 8.95 million DI beneficiaries received approximately $146 billion in benefits. While SSA reports that most benefits are paid correctly, beneficiary or SSA error can result in overpayments—that is, payments made in excess of what is owed. Overpayments can pose a financial hardship for beneficiaries responsible for repaying the debt. They may also result in the loss of taxpayer dollars, either because beneficiaries do not repay their debts or because they are eligible to have their overpayment debts waived by SSA. This testimony describes: (1) the impact of overpayments on DI beneficiaries and taxpayers, and (2) SSA's challenges with preventing, detecting, and recovering overpayments and related GAO recommendations. This statement is based primarily on prior GAO reports issued from 2015 to 2023.For more information, contact Elizabeth Curda at (202) 512-7215 or curdae@gao.gov.
- Special Education: Additional Data Could Help Early Intervention Programs Reach More Eligible Infants and Toddlers What GAO FoundStates and territories (states) use different definitions of “developmental delay” and different program eligibility criteria for their early intervention programs, which serve infants and toddlers with disabilities from birth through age 2. This reflects flexibilities provided to states under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which assists states in operating a statewide program of early intervention services. GAO surveyed 56 Part C programs, and 54 responded. When asked to name their top challenges serving eligible families, 48 states identified a lack of qualified service providers, and 23 cited staffing challenges at the state level.According to GAO's survey, 53 percent of children referred for Part C services ultimately enrolled (see figure). To better understand the characteristics of children moving through each stage of the process, GAO analyzed demographic data for the 16 states able to report this information on GAO's survey. GAO found notable variation at different points in the enrollment process. For example, the percentage of children referred who received an evaluation ranged from 59 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native children to 86 percent of Asian children (a 27 point spread); whereas, the percentage of children deemed eligible who enrolled ranged from 91 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native children to 95 percent of Asian and White children (a 4 point spread).Percentage of Children Reaching Each Stage of Part C Enrollment Process, Out of Children Referred, July 2021 to June 2022Note: GAO conducted a survey of Part C programs. Fifty-four states and territories responded to our survey overall, and 41 provided responses included in this figure. Our survey requested data for the 12-month period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, however, three respondents provided data for a different, recent, 12-month period, in accordance with our survey instructions.Education does not collect, or require states to collect, demographic data on children prior to enrollment in Part C. Officials said that IDEA does not provide them the authority to do so. If Education had statutory authority to collect such data throughout the enrollment process, it could focus its assistance on maximizing access to early intervention services for all infants and toddlers who need it—a key goal of IDEA. Many states, however, collect such data already, and some use it to identify ways to improve Part C access. Encouraging all states to improve their Child Find efforts by using the data they already collect would help them better identify and serve those infants and toddlers who need support.Why GAO Did This StudyIDEA Part C programs served more than 770,000 children in 2021. Early intervention services, such as speech or physical therapy, can improve a child's outcomes. Research suggests that access to services varies by characteristics such as race and income.GAO was asked to review barriers states may face in carrying out IDEA Part C requirements, and any inequities in access to early intervention services. This report examines (1) how states' Part C programs differ and challenges states face in serving eligible families; (2) available data on characteristics of children referred to, evaluated for, determined eligible for, and enrolled in Part C programs; and (3) how Education and states use available data to identify opportunities to increase children's access to services. To do so, GAO conducted a survey of 56 Part C programs: 50 states, five territories, and the District of Columbia. GAO also analyzed data from Education, and spoke with Education officials and stakeholders, and other experts.
- Unemployment Insurance: Estimated Amount of Fraud During Pandemic Likely Between $100 Billion and $135 Billion What GAO FoundBased on statistical sampling and imputation techniques, GAO estimates that the amount of fraud in unemployment insurance (UI) programs during the COVID-19 pandemic was likely between $100 billion and $135 billion. This is about 11 percent and 15 percent, respectively, of the total amount of UI benefits paid during the pandemic. GAO's estimate is for the period from April 2020 (first full month of payments from all UI programs) to May 2023 (end of the public health emergency). This estimate covers all 53 states that participated in the regular and temporary UI programs. The full extent of UI fraud during the pandemic will likely never be known with certainty. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Labor (DOL) expressed concerns about GAO's fraud estimation methodology and stated that the resulting estimate was likely overstated. GAO disagrees and explains in the report the steps taken to estimate the range of fraud. These steps include using (1) a 95-percent confidence interval to account for sample design and size, and (2) multiple data sources and validity checks to account for uncertainty associated with identifying potential fraud in its sample.During the pandemic, DOL provided states with assistance to improve UI systems and processes. As of July 2023, DOL reported allocating grants totaling about $1.4 billion to states for initiatives including fraud prevention, detection, investigation, and recovery. Officials from selected states confirmed that they used this assistance for fraud detection and prevention, including verification software and improvements in payment timeliness.Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Unemployment Insurance (UI) Financial AssistanceAs of May 1, 2023, states reported identifying about $55.8 billion in fraudulent and nonfraudulent UI overpayments and recoveries of about $6.8 billion from March 2020 through March 2023. During this period, states reported identifying fraudulent UI overpayments totaling $5.3 billion and recoveries of $1.2 billion. States use several tools to recover overpayments, including direct repayment and offsets. States can also write off overpayments as uncollectible. Further, states may waive their legal right to collect nonfraudulent overpayments. DOL rules do not allow states to waive fraudulent overpayments.Why GAO Did This StudyThe UI system has faced long-standing challenges with program integrity, which worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to historic pandemic job losses, Congress created new temporary UI programs to provide relief for the unemployed. The unprecedented demand for benefits and need to quickly implement the new programs increased the risk of fraud. Due to this and other challenges, GAO added the UI system to its High Risk List in June 2022.This report (1) provides an estimate of fraud within UI programs during the pandemic; (2) identifies the assistance DOL provided to states; and (3) presents amounts that states reported in UI overpayment recoveries and waivers, among other amounts. GAO used data from multiple sources to produce an estimated range of the extent of fraud during the pandemic. In determining the estimate, GAO reviewed DOL data, selected and reviewed a sample of payments, matched samples to other federal data bases, developed an econometric model on claims and economic conditions, and performed numerous other analyses. GAO also reviewed data on state-reported overpayments, recoveries, and waivers. GAO interviewed officials from 14 states, selected based on fraud risk and other factors.
- Trauma-Informed Care: Challenges to Developing and Implementing Performance Partnership Pilots to Serve Children What GAO FoundTo ensure that youth receive trauma-informed care across systems and in a coordinated manner, communities need support to build infrastructure and capacity. Congress may authorize a variety of approaches to help build infrastructure and capacity. One such approach is performance partnerships that allow a federal agency or multiple federal agencies to provide grant recipients flexibility in how they use funding across two or more programs. In exchange for these flexibilities, recipients commit to improve agreed-upon outcomes and assess progress towards them.However, state and local governments and other organizations may face challenges in using performance partnership pilots to serve children exposed to trauma, such as:developing trust and buy-in among partners,	achieving goals without sufficient time for planning, and	overcoming privacy concerns that could undermine data sharing efforts, which would be central to developing and implementing partnerships and trauma-informed systems.Why GAO Did This StudySenate Report 115-150 includes a provision for GAO to, among other things, identify barriers or challenges faced by organizations that receive funding from multiple federal programs to serve children exposed to trauma.GAO reviewed key reports related to performance partnerships and trauma-informed care, as well as federal agency documents and prior GAO reports. In addition, GAO interviewed a former Office of Management and Budget official who helped create and implement performance partnership pilots for disconnected youth, individuals who provided technical assistance to and wrote the guide about the Multi-System Trauma-Informed Collaborative, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration officials who facilitate and coordinate the work of the federal Interagency Task Force on Trauma-Informed Care.For more information, contact Kathryn A. Larin at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov.
- Unemployment Insurance: DOL Needs to Further Help States Overcome IT Modernization Challenges What GAO FoundThe eight states in GAO's study were in varying phases of modernizing their unemployment insurance (UI) IT systems, ranging from planning to operations and maintenance. As of February 2023, six of the eight states had modernization efforts underway, but not yet completed. According to officials from the six states, these efforts were expected to replace legacy UI systems that ranged from 7 to about 50 years old. The remaining two states completed modernization efforts in 2018 and 2021 and were in the operations and maintenance phase. To support their modernization efforts, the eight states rely extensively on contractors for system development and implementation, technical support, and identity verification.The selected states reported several modernization successes. For example, states reported improved system stability after migrating systems to cloud computing solutions and a reduction in paper-based UI processes. However, states also identified modernization challenges in five areas: staffing, contracting, management, financial, and technical (see figure).Eight States' Unemployment Insurance IT System Modernization Challenge AreasRegarding staffing, most states reported not having enough staff resources and not having staff with the necessary expertise to support their modernization efforts. To help states address modernization challenges, the Department of Labor (DOL) initiated several efforts, such as sending teams of experts to states and conducting pilot tests of UI technology solutions for states.DOL has gaps in managing its efforts to assist states' with UI IT modernization and its oversight of states' UI IT performance. Although DOL fully implemented key contract management activities on its first pilot, the department did not fully implement leading pilot design practices such as developing a data analysis plan and ensuring stakeholder communication. Without fully implementing leading pilot design practices, DOL likely cannot ensure its future pilots produce information needed to make effective program and policy decisions. Regarding oversight, although DOL is responsible for overseeing the UI program to ensure that the states are operating the program effectively and efficiently, it has not measured states' UI IT performance. Until DOL finalizes IT standards and measures state UI IT performance, the department will be limited in its ability to monitor whether states' UI systems are performing efficiently and effectively.Why GAO Did This StudyIn the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the nation experienced historic levels of job loss. According to DOL data, approximately $878 billion in benefits were paid across all UI programs from April 2020 to September 2022. However, state UI programs with legacy IT systems faced performance issues in processing the unprecedented number of UI claims. Due to this challenge and others, GAO added the overarching UI system to its High-Risk List in June 2022.GAO was asked to review UI IT modernization issues. The specific objectives were to (1) provide the status of modernization efforts for selected states, including the role of contracting; (2) identify notable modernization successes and challenges; and (3) evaluate DOL's management activities in assisting states and overseeing their efforts.To do so, GAO analyzed documentation and interviewed state officials from a nongeneralizable sample of eight states (selected based on varying location and population size, among other criteria). GAO also reviewed relevant DOL policies and guidance documents and compared them to key management and oversight activities. In addition, GAO interviewed department officials.
- HUD Rental Assistance: Enhanced Data and Strategy Could Improve Oversight of Accessibility Requirements What GAO FoundFederal civil rights laws require housing providers to make reasonable accommodations to help ensure that households with disabilities have equal opportunities to use and enjoy their homes. These requirements apply to public housing agencies (PHA) and other housing providers that administer rental assistance programs from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).Examples of Reasonable AccommodationsHUD does not collect certain key data on households with disabilities that participate in its three largest rental assistance programs. Although HUD collects information on a household's disability status, the agency does not systematically collect data on requests for reasonable accommodations. Doing so would make HUD more aware of whether the needs of assisted households were met. Moreover, many PHAs already collect data that HUD could use. For example, GAO surveyed PHAs that administer HUD rental assistance and estimates that over 83 percent (plus or minus 9 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence interval) collect information on a household's accessibility needs during application and generally annually thereafter.HUD also does not have a comprehensive, documented strategy for its oversight of compliance with reasonable accommodation requirements. HUD prioritizes its oversight on investigating complaints, which it is legally required to do. Because of the high volume of complaints, HUD is able to conduct only a limited number of discretionary compliance reviews of HUD-assisted housing providers. To target these reviews, officials said they consider factors such as complaints, press articles, and various data sources to assess risk. But HUD does not have basic assisted-household data to help support identification of potential noncompliance. HUD also does not document the criteria it uses to assess risk. Developing a comprehensive strategy for prioritizing and planning reviews, including policies for using assisted-household data, would allow HUD to proactively address compliance issues rather than respond after complaints are filed. Doing so also might reduce the number of complaint investigations, potentially freeing up resources for other fair housing-related activities.Why GAO Did This StudyHUD is responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws that require housing providers to make reasonable accommodations for households with disabilities. HUD serves many of these households through its rental assistance programs.GAO was asked to review HUD's rental assistance to low-income households with disabilities. This report examines (1) what data are available on reasonable accommodations provided to HUD-assisted households with disabilities and (2) how HUD oversees compliance with requirements for reasonable accommodations in its rental assistance programs.GAO analyzed HUD documentation, including reporting requirements; reviewed relevant laws and regulations; surveyed a generalizable sample of 756 PHAs operating in urban areas or entire states that administer HUD programs; and interviewed officials at HUD headquarters and all 10 regional offices.
- Amateur Athlete Safety: Certification Related to the Independence of the U.S. Center for SafeSport for Fiscal Year 2022 What GAO FoundThe U.S. Center for SafeSport (the Center) is a nonprofit organization that plays a key role in ensuring the safety of amateur athletes. The Center has jurisdiction over the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (the Corporation) and its affiliated organizations (known as national governing bodies) with regard to safeguarding amateur athletes against abuse in sports.GAO found no evidence that a former employee or board member of the Corporation worked for the Center during its fiscal year 2022 (January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022), in violation of the cooling-off period set forth in the Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur Athletes Act of 2020 (the Act). Further, for the Center's fiscal year 2022, GAO found no evidence of a conflict of interest, as defined by the Act, between the Center's executives or attorneys and the Corporation. According to the Act, an executive or attorney for the Center shall be considered to have an inappropriate conflict of interest if the executive or attorney also represents the Corporation. In addition, GAO's review of the Center's investigative process found no evidence of interference or influence by the Corporation. Based on the certification provisions of the Act and GAO's methodology, GAO certifies that the Center was independent from the Corporation during fiscal year 2022.Why GAO Did This StudyThe Act includes a provision for GAO to annually "make available to the public a certification relating to the Center's independence from the Corporation," including findings on whether:a violation of the prohibition on employment (2-year cooling off period) of former employees or board members of the Corporation has occurred during the year preceding the certification;	an executive or attorney for the Center has had an inappropriate conflict of interest during that year; and	the Corporation has interfered in, or attempted to influence the outcome of, an investigation by the Center.GAO reviewed information provided by the Center about its employees and individuals who worked or volunteered for the Center at any point during its fiscal year 2022. This includes reviewing conflict of interest verification forms that the Center requires of all such individuals. GAO cross-checked the information provided by the Center to information received from the Corporation about its employees, such as information about attorneys employed, hired, or retained and a brief description of the type of matter each attorney engaged in on behalf of the Corporation. GAO reviewed the Center's written responses to questions. GAO also reviewed various documents, such as the Center's employee handbook, board bylaws, confidentiality policy, standard operating procedures, and the SafeSport Code, which establishes acceptable standards of conduct for all individuals who participate in U.S. Olympic and Paralympic events and training.For more information, contact Kathryn A. Larin at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov.&nbsp;
- Hunger and Homelessness: Funding Distribution for Key Programs What GAO FoundFive key federal programs can provide food or housing assistance to those experiencing or at risk of homelessness: the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Continuum of Care (CoC) and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), Federal Emergency Management Agency's Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP), and Department of Agriculture's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).Of the programs providing food or housing assistance, GAO analyzed the geographic distribution of funding for the three that use formulas to allocate funding to qualifying jurisdictions—EFSP, CoC, and ESG. None of the programs are required to use criteria related to homelessness in their formulas. State funding per capita for these programs did not always align with measures of homelessness, rental costs, and income inequality. For example, in fiscal year 2020, two states with some of the highest per capita funding for CoC—Connecticut and Louisiana—were among the states with the lowest level of homelessness. Another state with relatively high per capita funding for CoC, Ohio, ranked among the bottom half for each measure of need. Analysis of per capita funding also showed different geographic patterns. States in the Northeast and West tended to receive the highest EFSP and CoC funding per capita, while ESG funding tended to be concentrated in the Northeast and parts of the Midwest.A CARES Act-related change to the ESG funding formula in 2020 resulted in better targeting of funds to states with large homeless populations than under the traditional formula. The CARES Act provided funds to be awarded in two rounds. The first round allocated $1 billion using the traditional formula, which does not factor in measures of homelessness. The second round allocated $2.96 billion using a formula that weighted indicators of homelessness. As a result, states with the largest homeless populations received a greater share of program funds in the second round. For example, California, New York, Texas, and Florida accounted for over 50 percent of funds allocated in the second round, compared to about 34 percent in the first round.Emergency Solutions Grants – CARES ACT Round 1 and 2 Funding by Percentage of AllocationWhy GAO Did This StudyThe COVID-19 pandemic and recent economic challenges, including inflation and increased housing costs, have raised questions about whether more U.S. households are experiencing hunger and homelessness. House Report 117-99 includes a provision for GAO to conduct a study on federal programs that address hunger and homelessness. Among its objectives, this report (1) describes the geographic distribution of EFSP, CoC, and ESG funding and how per capita program funding aligns with state-level homelessness rates, median rents, and income inequality; and (2) compares the geographic distribution of two rounds of ESG funding under the CARES Act, one using the traditional ESG funding formula and the other a formula developed to target populations experiencing homelessness.GAO reviewed prior work and federal agency documentation and reports to identify key federal programs that can provide food or housing assistance to those experiencing or at risk of homelessness. GAO reviewed agency funding data and documentation. GAO analyzed the geographic distribution of funding of the three key programs that use formulas to allocate funding (EFSP, CoC, and ESG) and how per capita funding aligned with indicators of need that GAO determined relevant to the programs—two of which primarily focus on addressing homelessness. GAO also interviewed agency officials, advocacy groups, and recipient organizations.For more information, contact Alicia Puente Cackley at (202) 512-8678 or CackleyA@gao.gov.
- U.S. Access Board: Interagency Efforts to Promote Accessibility for People with Disabilities Generally Followed Leading Collaboration Practices What GAO FoundThe U.S. Access Board, which works to promote accessibility for people with disabilities, has collaborated with federal agencies to carry out the three key areas of its mission: developing accessibility guidelines, providing related technical assistance and training, and enforcing certain accessibility requirements applicable to federal facilities. For example, in updating accessibility guidelines, such as on medical equipment, it collaborated with federal agency members on its governing board to obtain input and approval. The Access Board also collaborated with relevant agencies when providing technical assistance, such as on designing accessible electric vehicle charging stations. Additionally, the Access Board uses a collaborative approach with federal agencies when investigating public complaints about inaccessibility at federal facilities.The Access Board and selected agencies generally followed leading collaboration practices for the three selected efforts that GAO reviewed. In the few instances where the agencies had not fully followed a leading practice, GAO found that the agencies either were taking action to more fully implement the practice (e.g., recruiting additional participants) or used other ways to communicate and agree on interagency plans (in lieu of written agreements). (See example below.)Examples of Actions Taken by the U.S. Access Board and the Department of Transportation on Developing Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines, Organized by Leading Collaboration Practices			Practice 									Examples of Actions 								Outcomes and Accountability									Agencies shared goals of drafting guidelines that reflected the expertise of relevant agencies and of facilitating subsequent steps in the rulemaking process. Officials tracked and communicated progress at board meetings.								Bridging Organizational Cultures									Agencies relied on long-term working relationships and common terminology to bridge their distinct cultures and missions.								Leadership; Clarity of Roles, Responsibilities									As this collaborative effort focused on developing Access Board's guidelines, officials from both agencies were clear on roles and responsibilities, including Access Board's leadership role.								Participants									Relevant staff attended meetings regularly and brought their expertise and institutional knowledge to develop the guidelines.								Resources									Both agencies contributed staff time and expertise. The Access Board primarily funded necessary activities, such as a cost benefit analysis, given its leadership role.								Written Guidance and Agreements									The Access Board did not have formal documents outlining detailed plans for the collaborative effort with the Department of Transportation, but plans were communicated in frequent meetings and emails. Further, additional formal guidance or agreements were not needed, given that the collaborative effort ended in March 2023.					Source: GAO analysis of interviews with agency officials and related documents. | GAO-23-105948Why GAO Did This StudyThe U.S. Access Board is a small federal agency ($9.8 million operating budget in fiscal year 2022) that promotes accessibility for people with disabilities. Because the Access Board is structured as a coordinating body with a governing board that includes federal agency representatives, interagency collaboration is a key feature of its work. GAO was asked to examine the Access Board's interagency collaboration in achieving its mission and goals.This report examines (1) the ways the Access Board collaborates with federal agencies to accomplish its mission and goals and (2) the extent to which the Access Board's collaboration with federal agencies on selected efforts aligns with leading collaboration practices.GAO analyzed Access Board documents such as its performance and accountability reports from 2017 to 2022; conducted structured interviews with the Access Board and three other federal agencies (Department of Transportation, General Services Administration, and U.S. Postal Service), and reviewed related agency documents and information. The three selected collaborative efforts varied across the Access Board's key work areas, access mode (e.g., digital or physical), agencies involved, and the Access Board's role. GAO assessed the efforts against leading collaboration practices previously identified by GAO.For more information, contact Elizabeth Curda at (202) 512-7215 or curdae@gao.gov.
- Meat and Poultry Worker Safety: OSHA Should Determine How to Address Persistent Hazards Exacerbated by COVID-19 What GAO FoundCompanies reported taking steps to address COVID-19 in response to federal guidance. Most of the 15 companies responding to GAO's survey said they encouraged distancing in communal areas, installed barriers, and required masks. However, studies, federal inspections, and worker interviews suggest that meat and poultry workers continued to face high risk of infection in the first year of the pandemic. For example, in 2020, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) found that COVID-19 risk to workers at one large meat plant was more than 70 times higher than to the state's general population.Plastic Sheeting between Poultry Workers Standing in Close Proximity OSHA increased meat and poultry plant inspections in the first year of the pandemic, but faced enforcement challenges. Officials told GAO their ability to protect workers was limited because existing standards did not target COVID-related hazards, such as jobs requiring workers to stand in close proximity. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 permits OSHA to develop safety and health standards for specific industries. OSHA is developing an infectious disease standard for healthcare workers, but not for workers in meat and poultry processing. Without assessing the actions needed to better protect meat and poultry workers—such as assessing the need for an industry standard—OSHA may be missing an opportunity to protect workers.OSHA and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) officials said they met regularly during the pandemic, but did not provide documentation on whether they addressed worker safety. The agencies reported little field-level collaboration among staff with direct knowledge of plant conditions. In August 2022, the agencies updated their 1994 memorandum of understanding, which states that FSIS should report hazards to OSHA, including infectious diseases. The agencies did not follow some leading collaboration practices, such as defining outcomes and including key participants. By following these practices, OSHA and FSIS could better collaborate on meat and poultry worker safety.Why GAO Did This StudyIn 2016 and 2017, GAO reported that meat and poultry workers faced multiple occupational hazards. OSHA is responsible for ensuring worker safety and health, FSIS is responsible for ensuring the safety of meat and poultry products, and employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces.The CARES Act includes a provision to monitor and report on the federal pandemic response. GAO also was asked to review federal efforts to ensure meat and poultry worker safety and health during the pandemic.This report examines (1) meat and poultry companies' response to the pandemic and how the pandemic affected these workers; (2) OSHA's enforcement actions and associated challenges; and (3) OSHA and FSIS collaboration on worker safety. GAO surveyed companies, analyzed OSHA inspection data from February 2018 through June 2022—the most recent available at the time; reviewed federal laws and regulations; and spoke to workers from nine states with large meat and poultry processing operations. GAO also compared OSHA and FSIS actions to leading practices for interagency collaboration, and interviewed federal officials.
- Community Redevelopment: Significant Improvements in Policies and Procedures Are Needed at NeighborWorks America What GAO FoundThe mission of NeighborWorks America, a congressionally chartered nonprofit, is to revitalize neighborhoods. The organization has made progress in establishing policies, procedures, and internal controls relating to procurement, whistleblower complaints, and internal audits. But GAO found weaknesses remain.Procurement.  GAO reviewed a sample of contract files and purchase card transactions and found staff did not consistently follow procurement policies, including for documentation and supervisory approval. NeighborWorks has begun to implement a new procurement system, but the extent to which the new system will address these issues is unclear. NeighborWorks does not provide formal training on its procurement process and made some changes to its procedures without clearly communicating those changes to staff. Providing formal training to staff and clearly communicating changes in policy would help address weaknesses in the procurement process.NeighborWorks America's Documentation of Selected Required Elements of Sample Contract Files, by Contract Size, Fiscal Years 2019–2021Note: For more details, see figure 2 in GAO-23-105944.Whistleblowers.  NeighborWorks has a new whistleblower policy, but it does not include procedures for investigating complaints or criteria for who will conduct investigations. Developing and implementing such procedures and criteria would help ensure that potential violations of law or policy or misuse of taxpayer dollars are appropriately investigated.Internal audits.  NeighborWorks' internal audit function met most standards of The Institute for Internal Auditors—a recognized leader on internal auditing. However, it has not fully met standards on quality assurance and improvement. For example, Internal Audit has not had an external assessment—required every 5 years—since 2012. By implementing a quality assurance and improvement program, Internal Audit could assess the efficiency and effectiveness of its activities and identify opportunities for improvement.Why GAO Did This StudyNeighborWorks received an annual appropriation of $163 million in fiscal year 2021, which accounted for most of its funding, and has around 350 employees. However, past audits have raised questions about its procurement process.The Joint Explanatory Statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 includes a provision for GAO to review NeighborWorks' compliance with regulatory requirements and internal policies in several areas. This report addresses the extent to which NeighborWorks established effective policies, procedures, and internal controls for procurement, whistleblowers, and audits, among others. GAO analyzed (1) NeighborWorks' policies and procedures in these areas, (2) a nongeneralizable sample of contract files and purchase card transactions from 2019–2021, and (3) whistleblower complaints from 2016–2022. GAO also interviewed current and former staff and conducted five focus groups with current staff.
- Family Child Care Networks: Actions Needed to Better Assess Quality Improvement Efforts What GAO FoundFamily child care networks (i.e., networks) are community-based programs that support family child care providers. As of March 2022, 142 networks received federal funds through the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). Over 80 percent of the 116 networks that responded to GAO's survey reported having funding sources in addition to CCDF, such as parents, state and local governments, and the Head Start program. All of the 116 networks serve licensed providers, and more than half also serve child care center providers or license-exempt family, friend, and neighbor providers. The most commonly offered services are coaching and training, and peer-to-peer networking and learning, according to respondents. Fewer respondents reported offering certain administrative services, such as financial recordkeeping or tax preparation.Services That Family Child Care Networks Reported Providing in 2022Note: For more details, see fig. 6 in GAO-23-105640Stakeholders GAO interviewed, including state agencies, networks, and provider unions, reported that networks offer providers benefits such as improved relationships and financial advantages. However, stakeholders also cited perceived disadvantages for providers who join networks. For example, providers may associate networks with decreased independence due to activities such as additional home visits.The Administration for Children and Families' Office of Child Care (OCC), which administers the CCDF program, provides states with resources, training, and technical assistance on networks. OCC collects some information from states on their CCDF-supported efforts. However, GAO found that OCC does not fully assess or report on states' progress toward improving child care quality, due in part to limitations in states' OCC-approved performance measures. For example, of the 13 states with networks, five did not clearly describe the measures related to infant and toddler child care quality in their OCC-approved state plans and 12 did not include measurable targets. OCC does not give states written guidance on setting useful performance measures because it believes the individualized technical assistance states may request is more effective. However, by proactively providing written guidance to states and assessing and reporting on states' progress, OCC will be better positioned to inform Congress on whether CCDF-supported efforts are meeting their goals.Why GAO Did This StudyThe declining number of family child care providers, who care for children in home settings, may cause hardships for families who depend on this type of care. Family child care networks help these providers manage and enhance the quality of their businesses.GAO was asked to review the characteristics and perceived benefits and disadvantages of family child care networks, among other issues. This report examines (1) characteristics of CCDF-supported networks including their funding, service population, and services; (2) selected stakeholders' views on whether and how providers benefit from networks and on factors providers consider in deciding whether to join a network; and (3) how OCC supports and assesses states' efforts to improve the quality of family child care, including through networks.GAO conducted a non-generalizable survey of CCDF-supported networks and interviewed state, union, and network officials in four states (Alabama, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Oregon), selected based on the percentage of children receiving CCDF-subsidized care in family child care homes, among other factors. GAO also reviewed states' plans and interviewed OCC officials to assess OCC's support and evaluation.
- Child Care: Observations on States' Use of COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Funding What GAO FoundThe Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) is the largest federal child care program, providing grants to states to improve the affordability, availability, and quality of child care. For fiscal years 2020 and 2021, CCDF was appropriated substantially more than fiscal year 2019 CCDF allocations to help states prevent, prepare for, and respond to the pandemic (see table). Each new funding source came with its own rules and deadlines for states to obligate and spend funds. States were also provided additional programmatic flexibilities.			Coronavirus Supplemental Appropriations to the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) in Fiscal Years 2020 and 2021 and Total Spending as of April 2023 								Act 									Appropriation to CCDF (billions) 									Estimated total spending as of April 2023 (billions) 									Spending deadline 								Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (2020)						&nbsp;						$3.5									$3.3									Sept. 30, 2023								Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSA)						&nbsp;						$10.0									$8.0									Sept. 30, 2023								American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA)									child care stabilization funds									$24.0									$19.9									Sept. 30, 2023					&nbsp;						supplemental CCDF funds									$15.0									$3.3									Sept. 30, 2024								Total 						&nbsp;						$52.5 billion 									$34.5 billion 						&nbsp;		Source: Pub. L. No. 116-136, div. B, tit. VIII, 134 Stat. 281, 557 (2020); Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. M, 134 Stat. 1182, 1914; and Pub. L. No. 117-2, §§ 2201, 2202, 135 Stat. 4, 31; Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) documents; and GAO interviews with HHS officials. I GAO-23-106833States used supplemental funding and temporary flexibilities in various ways, but data on the full extent of their use and impact is not yet available. In October 2021, GAO reported that data from its national survey of state CCDF administrators showed states used the funds and flexibilities in 2020 to, for example, help essential workers pay for care and pay care providers based on enrollment, not attendance. According to HHS officials, as of April 2023, states spent an estimated $34.5 billion of the $52.5 billion in supplemental COVID-19 relief funds. Due to states still having time to expend the funds and lags in data reporting, a full accounting will likely not be available until 2025 or 2026.State child care administrators GAO interviewed in the fall of 2022 said they faced challenges managing supplemental pandemic funding as they adapted to meet the needs of child care providers and families during the pandemic. They reported facing remaining uncertainty about the impact of the funds' expiration on providers and families who may continue to face long-standing challenges like a workforce shortage and a lack of child care supply. Several of the administrators and child care experts GAO interviewed said that provider payment rates often are not sufficient to cover the high cost of providing quality care, leading to fewer providers accepting subsidies and fewer places for families to use them. As such, addressing these and other key challenges would require a sustained effort.Why GAO Did This StudyThe federal government has long invested in child care as a key support for workers to help them become self- sufficient. Child care subsidies funded by CCDF help some low-income families afford child care so parents can work, attend school, or participate in job training. Appropriations for child care through CCDF during the COVID-19 pandemic totaled more than $52 billion. This represented a concerted effort to stabilize the sector and to ensure that low-income families would continue to have access to affordable child care. States were also given new flexibilities in how they administer CCDF programs. These efforts to support child care providers and families are ongoing, as these funds have not yet expired.This statement is primarily based on GAO's October 2021 and March 2023 reports on CCDF, including child care during the COVID-19 pandemic. It addresses (1) how states used federal COVID-19 relief child care funds and flexibilities, and (2) past and continuing challenges states faced spending these funds.For our prior work, GAO (1) surveyed state CCDF administrators in 50 states and the District of Columbia and asked about their uses of supplemental child care funds and flexibilities in 2020, and (2) interviewed the state child care administrators in seven selected states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, and Texas—in September and October 2022. These states were selected to represent varying state program attributes like geographic region and population size.For more information, contact Kathryn A. Larin at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov.
- Servicemembers Transitioning to Civilian Life: DOD Could Enhance the Transition Assistance Program by Better Leveraging Performance Information What GAO FoundTo improve the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), federal law required the service branches to establish counseling pathways, among other actions. GAO found that DOD service branches had fully implemented the TAP counseling pathways. These pathways include a self-assessment, individualized initial counseling, tier assignment that reflects servicemembers' transition preparedness, and a revised core curriculum. Service branch officials, TAP staff, and servicemembers GAO interviewed from selected installations generally expressed positive feedback on the TAP counseling pathways.Over 90 percent of transitioning servicemembers participated in the TAP counseling pathways, according to GAO's analysis of TAP data from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022. Although participation increased in 2-day tailored classes on issues like higher education or vocational training, the service branches waived many servicemembers from attending them. Per service branch policies, servicemembers who need maximum transition support must attend a 2-day class, but GAO found that nearly a quarter of them did not. GAO also found that most servicemembers (70 percent) did not start TAP at least 1 year in advance, as generally required.The service branches and the TAP policy office collect and review performance information on 2-day class attendance and timeliness. However, they do not fully leverage this information to understand and improve results, inconsistent with leading practices for using performance information. For example, DOD does not use data it collects on servicemembers who start TAP less than 1 year in advance, including why they started late. Better understanding root causes would help DOD officials to craft and implement effective corrective action plans and improve servicemembers' ability to benefit from the full range of transition resources available to them.Time Frames for Starting the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) for DOD Active-Duty Servicemembers Who Left the Military from April 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022 Note: For the remaining servicemembers, the timing of when the servicemember started TAP was unknown due to missing data or not applicable because the servicemember separated under short notice. The 1-year time frame does not apply when servicemembers face an unanticipated separation or retirement. Therefore, in some cases the requirement may have been met although the servicemember started TAP less than 1 year before separation or retirement.Why GAO Did This StudyMore than half a million servicemembers are expected to participate in TAP over the next few years. TAP is a mandatory program designed to assist separating servicemembers who may face challenges in choosing a career path, finding employment, or deciding which college to attend. The program was recently tailored to meet individual servicemember needs by assigning them to counseling pathways based on how prepared they are to transition back to civilian life.This testimony summarizes GAO's December 2022 report on the TAP program, including GAO's findings on the implementation of TAP counseling pathways and transitioning servicemembers' participation in these pathways.For that report, GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, policies, and agency documents and interviewed officials from relevant federal agencies, service branches, and five installations. The installations were selected for diversity in numbers served, location, and service branch. In addition, GAO analyzed the most recent available TAP data, and determined they were sufficiently reliable for active-duty members of the DOD service branches but not DOD reserve component or Coast Guard servicemembers.
- Special Operations Forces: Actions Needed to Assess Performance of the Preservation of the Force and Family Program What GAO FoundU.S. Special Operations Command established the Preservation of the Force and Family program about a decade ago to address strains that special operations forces and their families can face. The program is designed to provide a holistic system of care that focuses on physical, psychological, spiritual, cognitive, and social areas of well-being. The program offers services including physical therapy, injury care, psychological treatment, family counseling, and peer mentoring.The command established a program evaluation framework for the program in January 2023. However, it has not fully defined specific and measurable performance goals and clear performance measures (see figure). Specifically, performance goals do not clearly state what is to be achieved, time periods for achievement, nor who is responsible for achieving each goal. Performance measures are not clear and not fully linked to strategic goals. For example, one performance measure is listed as “neurocognitive assessments.” However, the framework does not provide any information about which assessment, what specifically is to be measured, or what methodology will be used to collect and analyze the data. Without fully defining performance goals and measures, the command will have difficulty demonstrating that program activities are achieving their desired goals.Key Elements of Program Performance Assessment SystemsThe command has made progress implementing a new data system for the program and establishing minimum data requirements. However, it faces challenges in data collection and analysis, inhibiting its ability to evaluate program effectiveness. For example, the command experienced significant delays in implementing the data system and is in the process of reevaluating its requirements. In addition, some special operations forces' service components are in the initial stages of collecting required program data, but their data-collection practices vary.The command established an annual reporting requirement, but has not developed a detailed program evaluation plan to help ensure standardized data collection and analysis. A program evaluation plan that identifies relevant data sources, standardized data collection procedures, and detailed data analysis procedures could help the command align data with performance measures to support its evaluative annual program report. Such a plan could also better position the command to demonstrate the effectiveness of program activities, provide external accountability for the use of public resources, and identify any areas to improve program performance.Why GAO Did This StudyIn fiscal year 2022, the command made about $79.6 million available for program activities and maintained over 800 service providers across 32 locations worldwide to care for special operations forces and their families. However, since January 2016, the command has not completed a program evaluation demonstrating program performance and effectiveness.The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 includes a provision for GAO to review the program. GAO evaluated the extent to which the command has 1) identified program performance goals and measures and 2) collected and analyzed data to determine how well the program is achieving desired outcomes.GAO reviewed command policies and guidance and compared processes for data collection and analysis against recommended practices. GAO also interviewed officials managing the program.
- HUD Rental Assistance: Serving Households with Disabilities What GAO FoundThe Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided rental assistance to an estimated 1.8 million households with disabilities, according to the 2019 American Housing Survey (survey). HUD primarily served these households through the Housing Choice Voucher, public housing, and Project-Based Rental Assistance programs. Most HUD-assisted households with a member using a mobility device (such as a wheelchair) reported living in units with at least one accessibility feature (such as an entry-level bedroom). However, more than 300,000 assisted households with a member using a mobility device reported living in units without any accessibility features, according to the 2019 survey.Providers of HUD-assisted housing are required to provide reasonable accommodations—such as structural modifications—to allow households with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in HUD rental assistance programs. Housing providers also must use strategies, such as waitlist priorities, to match households with disabilities with units that meet their needs.Why GAO Did This StudyGAO was asked to examine HUD assistance for households with disabilities. Low-income households with disabilities can face challenges in securing affordable, accessible housing. This report provides information on how HUD serves low-income households (those with incomes at or below 80 percent of their areas' median income) with disabilities through its rental assistance programs.For more information, contact Alicia Puente Cackley at (202) 512-8678 or CackleyA@gao.gov.
- Child Care: Subsidy Eligibility and Use in Fiscal Year 2019 and State Program Changes During the Pandemic What GAO FoundThe Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) is the primary source of federal funding to states for subsidies that help low-income families afford child care so parents can work, attend school, or participate in job training. According to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) data, 2 million of the estimated 8.7 million children eligible for subsidies in their states received them in an average month in fiscal year 2019 (see figure). States have to prioritize which eligible children receive them, and there is a long-standing gap between the number of children eligible for subsidies and those who receive them. In addition, some families do not know about or may face challenges when applying for subsidies. Experts GAO interviewed said that, even with subsidies, some low-income families find it challenging to afford high-quality care, which can lead to them making trade-offs between paying for child care and necessities like food.Subsidy Receipt among Estimated Eligible Children, in an Average Month in Fiscal Year 2019aThis estimate represents the number of children who received child care subsidies funded through the Child Care and Development Fund as well as related government funding streams.Nearly all state child care administrators and child care experts GAO interviewed said that the pandemic put unprecedented strains on working families and child care providers. State administrators described various program changes they made to support families and providers, in part using federal COVID-19 relief funding. For example, six of the seven state child care administrators GAO interviewed said family co-payments were waived in their state for some portion of the pandemic to make child care more affordable for families, and six said their states increased payment rates to child care providers.State child care administrators GAO interviewed said that they faced both short-term and ongoing challenges as they adapted subsidy programs to meet the changing and time-sensitive needs of families and child care providers during the pandemic. Administrators expressed concerns about the time-limited and one-time nature of federal COVID-19 relief funding, and uncertainty about future funding levels. For example, three said they were concerned about expelling newly eligible children from the subsidy program once COVID-19 funds expire, and one state opted to implement one-time bonuses rather than raising wages to address long-standing workforce recruitment and retention challenges.Why GAO Did This StudyMany families struggle to access child care that is both high quality and affordable in the U.S., particularly those who are low-income. The COVID-19 pandemic created additional difficulties in the already-stressed child care sector. To support both families and child care providers, Congress appropriated additional funds and provided states temporary flexibilities in how they administer their CCDF programs.GAO examined: (1) what is known about the number of children eligible for federal child care subsidies and the extent to which they receive and use them, and (2) changes selected states made to federal child care subsidy programs to support families and providers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and challenges they have experienced.GAO summarized HHS's analysis of CCDF program data about children's eligibility and receipt of child care subsidies for fiscal year 2019, the most recent available, and calculated children's estimated eligibility and receipt rates at the state level. GAO also interviewed CCDF administrators from seven states about their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic (selected to represent different state program attributes like using wait lists or not, and state attributes like geographic region and population size); interviewed agency officials and child care experts; and reviewed related reports.GAO is not making recommendations in this report.For more information, contact Kathryn A. Larin at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov.
- Child Welfare: HHS Is Taking Steps to Help States Support Relative Caregivers with Evidence-Based Programs What GAO FoundKinship navigator programs provide information to kin caregivers on programs and services to meet their needs and the needs of the children they are raising. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and child welfare stakeholders identified program elements that they saw as particularly beneficial to families. These included providing services tailored to meet the unique needs of individual families and pairing caregivers with mentors with lived experience.States have not yet accessed federal matching funds for evidence-based kinship navigator programs as of December 2022. HHS has approved three programs—one each in Ohio, Arizona, and Colorado—to qualify for these funds. Ohio officials said they were in the process of starting their program. Arizona and Colorado, whose programs were approved later in 2022, have not yet submitted documentation required by HHS to access the federal matching funds. States have used other federal funds—appropriated annually for kinship navigator programs—primarily to build programs and provide services to kin caregivers, according to reports submitted to HHS for fiscal years 2018 through 2020. For example, states reported efforts to build networks with service organizations and provide individualized support to families, such as case management. Fewer states used these funds to evaluate their program outcomes, which would be necessary if states wanted their program to be approved as evidence based.Examples of Ways States Used Annually Appropriated Federal Funds for Kinship Navigator Programs, Fiscal Years 2018-2020 Officials GAO interviewed from five selected states cited various challenges understanding or meeting evidence-based requirements for evaluating program outcomes, and HHS has taken steps to assist states. Officials from three states described difficulties understanding various aspects of the evaluation requirements, such as terminology used in HHS guidance that outlines the requirements. HHS is in the process of updating its guidance using feedback from public comments and experts, among other sources. HHS expects to issue revised guidance for public comment in fiscal year 2023. In addition, officials in three states said meeting the requirements is challenging, for example, because they must evaluate outcomes for programs that provide different services depending on unique family needs. Acknowledging the challenges, HHS has provided opportunities for states to obtain more information about evaluating programs and flexibility with ways states can measure outcomes. HHS officials said states may need more time, resources, and technical assistance to build evidence supporting the effectiveness of kinship navigator programs.Why GAO Did This StudyWhen parents cannot care for their children, grandparents or other relatives often step in as primary caregivers, although they may face significant hardships. Congress provided funding to states to support programs that help these kin caregivers navigate programs and services for which they are eligible. States can also access additional federal matching funds if they operate programs determined by HHS to be evidence based. GAO was asked to review how states are investing in these programs.This report examines (1) elements of kinship navigator programs that HHS and child welfare stakeholders identified as being beneficial for families; (2) how states are using federal funds administered by HHS to invest in their programs; and (3) challenges selected states reported facing in developing programs that meet federal evidence-based requirements, and the extent to which HHS has addressed those challenges.GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, policies, and HHS guidance, and analyzed reports states submitted to HHS on their use of federal funds. GAO also interviewed HHS officials, child welfare stakeholders from four national organizations, and officials from five states (Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, Nevada, and Ohio), selected for their high numbers of children in kinship care and geographic variation.For more information, contact Kathryn A. Larin at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov.
- Subminimum Wage Program: DOL Could Do More to Ensure Timely Oversight What GAO FoundThrough the 14(c) program, the Department of Labor (DOL) certifies employers to pay individuals with disabilities wages below the federal minimum—also known as subminimum wage. Employer participation in this program decreased by about half from 2010 to 2019, according to GAO's analysis of DOL data. During this period, the number of 14(c) workers also fell from about 296,000 to 122,000. Officials GAO interviewed from DOL and four stakeholder organizations attributed this decline, in part, to federal and state policies restricting the payment of wages below the federal minimum. Since August 2019, most 14(c) workers earned less than $3.50 per hour, while about 14 percent earned at or above the federal minimum of $7.25. Representatives from two of the four stakeholder organizations said these earnings patterns may reflect differences in workers' skills and abilities, employment opportunities, and state minimum wage laws.Employers Authorized under Section 14(c) to Pay Subminimum Wages, 2010-2019Community rehabilitation programs provide vocational rehabilitation and other services to individuals with disabilities and represent the vast majority of 14(c) employers. According to GAO's survey of these employers, almost all 14(c) workers had an intellectual or developmental disability, and most were White and of prime working age (25 to 54 years old). In addition, these employers reported few 14(c) workers engaged in competitive employment—which includes earning at least minimum wage in a work setting with individuals without disabilities.DOL oversees the 14(c) program in part through its certification process, such as by ensuring employers calculate wages accurately. However, this oversight has been hampered by long processing times for some applications, including renewals. DOL's processing times varied from 2 days to over 2 years, with about 40 percent completed within 4 months, based on GAO's analysis of data from 2019 through 2021. DOL's application processing manual states that staff are to ensure timely processing, but the agency has not set or communicated timeliness goals. Employers with an existing certificate are allowed to continue paying workers subminimum wages while waiting for their certificates to be renewed. However, if the employer incorrectly calculated wages during this period, the employer may owe workers significant back pay to make up the difference between the correct wage and the wage paid.Why GAO Did This StudySection 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 permits employers to pay wages below the federal minimum to individuals with disabilities if they hold a 14(c) certificate from DOL. In 2014, legislation amended the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to call for maximizing opportunities for these individuals to earn competitive wages in the community. GAO was asked to examine the 14(c) program.This report (1) describes trends in 14(c) program participation and the wages workers earn, (2) describes what 14(c) employers report about their workers' characteristics and movement to competitive employment, and (3) examines the extent to which DOL oversees the 14(c) program. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance, and analyzed DOL data on 14(c) employment, wages, certificates, and investigations. GAO also surveyed a nationally representative sample of community rehabilitation program employers and received an overall response rate of 72 percent, allowing GAO to generalize results to the population. In addition, GAO interviewed officials from DOL and representatives from stakeholder organizations selected for their experience working with the 14(c) program.
- Unemployment Insurance: DOL Needs to Address Substantial Pandemic UI Fraud and Reduce Persistent Risks What GAO FoundGAO found evidence of substantial levels of fraud and potential fraud in unemployment insurance (UI) during the pandemic. GAO estimated over $60&nbsp;billion in fraudulent UI payments by extrapolating the lower bound of the Department of Labor's (DOL) 2021 estimated national fraud rate for the regular UI program. However, such an extrapolation has inherent limitations and should be interpreted with caution. GAO is working to develop a more comprehensive estimate on the total extent of UI fraud during the pandemic. The DOL Office of Inspector General's UI fraud investigations resulted in over 1,200 indictments or initial charges from April 2020 through January 2023. Each week that office continues to open over 100 new UI fraud-related investigative matters.Illustrative examples of unemployment insurance fraud casesDOL and the states were not adequately prepared to handle UI fraud risks when the pandemic began. DOL has taken some recent steps to address UI fraud risks. For example, it has provided state workforce agencies with fraud-related guidance, integrity tools, and grant funding. DOL, however, has not yet implemented an antifraud strategy as called for by leading practices in GAO's Fraud Risk Framework.The expediting of COVID-19 relief funding exacerbated an underlying improper-payment problem in the federal government, including UI, which predated the pandemic. For example, DOL reported an increase in estimated improper payments from $8.0 billion (9.2 percent estimated improper payment rate) for fiscal year 2020 to $78.1 billion (18.9 percent estimated improper payment rate) for fiscal year 2021. For fiscal year 2022, DOL reported estimated improper payments of $18.9 billion (22.2 percent estimated improper payment rate).In June 2022, GAO added the UI system to its High Risk Program based on the system's need for transformation. The system's administrative and program integrity challenges pose significant risks to service delivery and expose the system to significant financial losses. Long-standing challenges with UI administration and outdated IT systems have further affected states' ability to meet the needs of unemployed workers, especially during economic downturns. Such challenges have also contributed to impaired service, declining access, and disparities in benefit distribution.Why GAO Did This StudyThe UI system has faced long-standing challenges with program integrity, which increased dramatically during the pandemic. According to DOL data, expenditures across all UI programs totaled approximately $878 billion from April 2020 through September 2022. This included benefits as part of four new UI programs Congress created to support workers during the pandemic. The unprecedented demand for benefits and the need to quickly implement the new programs increased the risk of financial fraud. Due to these circumstances and other challenges, GAO added the UI system to its High Risk Program in June 2022.This statement addresses: (1) fraud in the UI programs, (2) UI fraud risks and management of such risks, (3)&nbsp;continued UI improper payment problems, and (4) the addition of the UI system to GAO's High Risk Program.This statement is based on GAO's body of work related to the UI system during the pandemic. More detailed information on the objectives, scope, and methodology that form the basis of the statement can be found in individual reports, which are listed in the full hearing statement.
- Military Child Care: DOD Efforts to Provide Affordable, Quality Care for Families What GAO FoundLittle research exists detailing the effects of the Department of Defense (DOD) child care program on young children's learning and development outcomes. Broader child care research, however, suggests that quality child care is tied to positive outcomes for children, including improved cognitive, social, and language development. DOD has taken steps to create and maintain quality care, including by establishing programmatic and oversight requirements and developing new staff training. For example, while optional for most civilian centers, DOD requires its child development centers, school-age programs, and most community-based providers receiving DOD-subsidized fee assistance, to be nationally accredited. DOD has also recently implemented a new child care curriculum and research-informed online training program for staff at its child development centers.Children Playing at a Child Care FacilityConsistent with some research showing that employer-sponsored child care is associated with improved outcomes for workers, the DOD child care program aims to promote service member and family readiness by supporting job performance, improving retention, decreasing absenteeism, and promoting families' financial well-being. For example, DOD officials said its child care program supports service member job performance by meeting military-specific needs, such as those from frequent relocation, non-traditional working hours, and deployment. Officials also told GAO that DOD promotes military family financial well-being by subsidizing child care fees paid by families, and by making it possible for service members and their spouses to work. Pre-pandemic DOD surveys of military families showed general satisfaction with the quality of DOD child care. However, individuals from military family associations GAO interviewed said some families have expressed concerns about the affordability and availability of DOD child care. Concerns included long waitlists and the cost of care, especially for families of more junior service members. DOD officials told us the department is taking steps to address concerns, which include building more child development centers, expanding the pool of community-based providers that are potentially eligible to accept DOD-subsidized fee assistance, and increasing the amount of fee assistance available to families.Why GAO Did This StudyDOD operates the largest employer-sponsored child care program in the U.S., which it views as essential to overall mission readiness, retention, and recruitment for the military. The DOD child care program aims to provide quality, available, and affordable care for military families, and includes on-base options, as well as fee assistance for families who use community-based child care.A report accompanying Senate bill 1790, which was amended and enacted as the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, includes a provision for GAO to examine the DOD child care program.This report describes (1) how DOD child care supports the learning and development of young children, and how DOD seeks to ensure its quality; and (2) how the DOD child care program supports the readiness of service members and their families.GAO searched for research on the effects of DOD's child care program on children and service members, and for general research to describe the effects of high-quality child care on children and employer-provided child care on employees. GAO reviewed DOD child care program administrative data for fiscal year 2021 (the most recent available) and pre-COVID-19 data from DOD surveys of service members (in 2018) and their spouses (in 2019), because of the disruptions COVID-19 caused to the child care industry. GAO also reviewed agency documentation and interviewed agency officials, representatives from military family associations, and other stakeholders.For more information, contact Kathryn A. Larin at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov.
- Unemployment Insurance: Data Indicate Substantial Levels of Fraud during the Pandemic; DOL Should Implement an Antifraud Strategy What GAO FoundConsidered together, measures and estimates indicate substantial levels of fraud and potential fraud in unemployment insurance (UI) programs during the pandemic. However, each measure and estimate has strengths and limitations, and none completely and reliably indicates the extent of fraud in UI programs during the pandemic.Examples and Definitions of Measures and EstimatesDOL has taken steps to address UI fraud risks. For example, DOL issued guidance, provided funding to states, and deployed teams to recommend improvements to state UI programs. While these steps help prevent, detect, and respond to fraud, as of December 2022, DOL has not yet developed an antifraud strategy based on leading practices in GAO's Fraud Risk Framework. Also, it has not yet addressed the six October 2021 recommendations GAO made including to identify, assess the impact of, and prioritize UI fraud risks. These are essential pieces to inform an overall antifraud strategy. Without an antifraud strategy, DOL is not able to ensure that it is addressing the most significant fraud risks facing the UI system in alignment with the Fraud Risk Framework.Why GAO Did This StudyThe UI system has faced long-standing challenges with program integrity, which worsened during the pandemic. Congress created four new UI programs to support workers during the pandemic. According to DOL data, approximately $878 billion in benefits were paid across all UI programs from April 2020 through September 2022. The unprecedented demand for benefits and the need to implement the new programs quickly increased the risk of financial fraud. Due to this risk and other challenges, GAO added the UI system to its High-Risk List in June 2022.GAO was asked to review matters relating to the scope and severity of fraudulent activity in the UI system during the pandemic. This report examines what measures and estimates indicate about the extent of UI fraud during the pandemic and the extent to which DOL designed and implemented a strategy to manage UI fraud risks. GAO reviewed information that federal and state entities used to measure and estimate the extent of fraud in UI programs, then evaluated DOL's activities against leading practices in GAO's Fraud Risk Framework. This report is part of an ongoing body of work to better understand and manage federal fraud, including future work to improve estimates of fraud.
- Emergency Rental Assistance: Treasury's Oversight is Limited by Incomplete Data and Risk Assessment What GAO FoundThe Department of the Treasury administers the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program, which provides nearly $46.55 billion to tribal, state, territorial, and local governments (grantees) to help low-income households affected by the COVID-19 pandemic pay rent and utilities. By June 2021—5 months into the program—about one-quarter of grantees had not made any payments. Multiple factors contributed to payment delays, based on GAO's interviews with grantees and review of their documentation. These factors included limited grantee staff and technology resources, gathering information for tenant eligibility determinations, and unclear program guidance. Grantees had spent less than half of the available funding by Treasury's deadline to begin reallocating excess funds (September 30, 2021).Treasury's reallocation of excess funds did not consistently align with renters' needs. Rebalancing the distribution of funds was critical to maximizing their use because renters' needs and grantees' capacity to deliver assistance varied across states. Treasury reallocated about $3.1 billion in ERA1 funds by the end of October 2022, but its prioritization of transfers between grantees in the same state limited its ability to address large funding differences across states and better align payments to the needs of renters and grantee capacity.Available data suggest that ERA payments served low-income renters and varied to meet local needs. According to limited Treasury data, 85 percent of households served by the first ERA appropriation had incomes below 50 percent of the area median, consistent with a legal requirement to prioritize such renters. Data also suggest grantees used funds to address local needs. Households received larger average payments in urban areas ($7,200) than in rural areas ($5,200) and in counties with higher rents and more rent-burdened households.Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA1) Distribution by Income Level, Quarter 4, 2021Oversight of the ERA program would benefit from improved data collection and assessment of improper payment risks. Although Treasury has taken recent steps to improve data collection and reporting, including issuing detailed final reporting requirements, to date the agency has not collected or reported complete data as required by the authorizing statute. Without better data collection and reporting, Congress and Treasury will lack information on the program's outcomes. And although Treasury completed a required assessment of improper payment risks for the program, the assessment focused on allocations to grantees and did not address missing payment data and potentially duplicative payments to households. Without a more detailed assessment of improper payment risks, Treasury's awareness of such risks and oversight of the ERA program will be limited.Why GAO Did This StudyCongress twice authorized funding for the ERA program in response to financial and housing instability resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of the emergency nature and expedited implementation of the program, Treasury had to develop program guidance and oversight procedures as grantees were beginning to make payments. GAO previously reported on the program's early implementation challenges and the need for effective oversight of grantees and payments.The CARES Act includes a provision for GAO to monitor federal efforts to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. This report examines (1) factors that affected the timeliness of ERA payments, (2) reallocation of excess ERA funds, (3) ERA recipient and grantee spending characteristics, and (4) Treasury's ERA data collection and oversight efforts.GAO analyzed ERA payment and demographic data, as well as reallocation documentation; reviewed relevant federal laws and agency documentation; and interviewed officials from Treasury and 21 grantees selected based on expenditures, government type, and geography.
- Servicemembers Transitioning to Civilian Life: DOD Can Better Leverage Performance Information to Improve Participation in Counseling Pathways What GAO FoundTo improve the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (FY 2019 NDAA) includes provisions requiring the service branches to establish counseling pathways, among other actions. GAO found that DOD service branches had fully implemented the TAP counseling pathways. These pathways include a self-assessment, individualized initial counseling, tier assignment that reflects servicemembers' transition preparedness, and a revised core curriculum. Service branch officials, TAP staff, and servicemembers GAO interviewed from selected installations generally expressed positive feedback on the TAP counseling pathways.Over 90 percent of transitioning servicemembers participated in the TAP counseling pathways, according to GAO's analysis of TAP data from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022. In addition, participation in 2-day classes on employment, higher education, vocational training, and entrepreneurship increased. Nonetheless, the service branches waived many servicemembers from attending them. Per service branch policies, servicemembers who need maximum transition support must attend a 2-day class, but GAO found that nearly a quarter of them did not. GAO also found that most servicemembers (70 percent) did not start TAP more than 1 year in advance, as generally required.The service branches and the TAP policy office collect and review performance information on 2-day class attendance and timeliness. However, they do not fully leverage this information to understand and improve results, inconsistent with leading practices for using performance information. For example, DOD does not use data it collects on servicemembers who start TAP less than 1 year in advance, including why they started late and whether they involuntarily left service for disciplinary reasons. Better understanding root causes would help DOD officials to craft and implement effective corrective action plans and improve servicemembers' ability to benefit from the full range of transition resources available to them.Time Frames for Starting theTransition Assistance Program (TAP) for DOD Active-Duty Servicemembers Who Left the Military from April 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022Note: The 1-year time frame does not apply when servicemembers face an unanticipated separation or retirement or, for reserve component servicemembers, when demobilization makes the time frame unfeasible. Therefore, in some cases the requirement may have been met although the servicemember started TAP less than 1 year before separation or retirement.Why GAO Did This StudyMore than half a million servicemembers are expected to participate in TAP over the next few years. TAP is a mandatory program designed to assist separating servicemembers who may face challenges in choosing a career path, finding employment, or deciding which college to attend. The program was recently tailored to meet individual servicemember needs by assigning them to counseling pathways based on how prepared they are to transition back to civilian life.The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019 included a provision for GAO to review the TAP counseling pathways. This report addresses, among other things, the implementation of TAP counseling pathways and transitioning servicemembers' participation in these pathways.GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, policies, and agency documents and interviewed officials from relevant federal agencies, service branches, and five installations. The installations were selected for diversity in numbers served, location, and service branch. In addition, GAO analyzed the most recent available TAP data, and determined they were sufficiently reliable for active-duty members of the DOD service branches but not DOD reserve component or Coast Guard servicemembers.
- Social Security Administration: Remote Service Delivery Increased during COVID-19, but More Could Be Done to Assist Vulnerable Populations What GAO FoundCOVID-19 prompted the Social Security Administration (SSA) to make dramatic changes in the way it delivers services and administers its programs. On March 17, 2020, SSA closed its offices to the public—providing limited in-person visits for individuals with certain critical needs—and expanded remote service delivery options. SSA increased its use of telephone, mail, video, and online services. Through 2021, SSA established policies at field offices to increase the use of inoffice appointments. SSA also worked with state agencies that process claims for disability benefits to offer video options for certain medical exams. In April 2022, the agency reopened field offices to walk-in visits from the public.The public filed fewer benefit claims with SSA during the pandemic, on average, compared to the prior 2 years, particularly for certain benefits and among certain vulnerable populations, according to GAO’s analysis of SSA data. For example, compared to the 2 years before the pandemic began, average monthly claims were lower from March 2020 through December 2021 for several SSA benefits. Specifically, they were 18 percent lower for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits, 12 percent lower for Disability Insurance, and 8 percent lower for Supplemental Security Income Old-Age, though Supplemental Security Income claims rebounded in late 2021. Some types of benefits claims declined more for certain populations, such as Spanish speakers.Changes in SSA Benefit Claims (January 2020-December 2021)SSA took steps to address a range of challenges with providing services remotely, but gaps remain in delivering services online and assessing lessons learned. SSA targeted outreach to certain vulnerable populations and expanded the use of third parties to help the underserved access benefits and services. However, not all claimants are able to apply for SSI online and applications in Spanish cannot be submitted online. As a result, SSA cannot fulfill its mission to ensure that its services are equitable and accessible, and some eligible individuals may not apply for benefits. Some SSA offices have assessed specific service delivery changes, but the agency does not have a coordinated process for assessing lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and taking related corrective actions, which could leave SSA vulnerable to other crises in the future.Why GAO Did This StudyIn 2020, SSA provided benefits to nearly 70 million individuals. Under the CARES Act, SSA received $300 million to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19. The CARES Act includes a provision for GAO to monitor federal efforts to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. GAO was also asked to review SSA’s response.This report examines (1) changes SSA made to its delivery of key services; (2) the effect of these changes on the public, including certain vulnerable populations; and (3) how SSA addressed challenges it faced and identified lessons learned. GAO analyzed summary and administrative SSA data from March 2018 to December 2021, and reviewed the agency’s plans, policies, and guidance documents. GAO also conducted group interviews with SSA staff at various levels and offices; and interviewed SSA officials and external stakeholders, including disability advocates and employee groups.