Official source comparison

Observed versions 192 & 193

The extracted text differs.

Reports News from the GAO Reports News from the GAO. https://www.gao.gov/rss/reports.xml Thu, 05 Nov 2026 10:12:00 -0500 GAO https://www.gao.gov/themes/custom/gao_uswds/img/gao-logo-rss.gif Reports News from the GAO https://www.gao.gov/rss/reports.xml Feed provided by GAO. Immigration Detention: Changes In Inspections of ICE Facilities Raise Questions About Oversight https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-109299 What GAO Found Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detention facility inspections have changed at the same time that the number of immigration detention facilities and the size of the detained population have increased. From April 2025 to April 2026, following a January 2025 Executive Order, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) added over 40 detention facilities that detain noncitizens for over 72 hours. The average daily population of detained noncitizens grew by over 50 percent, to 61,817 individuals, over the timeframe. From fiscal year 2024 to July 2026, three of the four DHS entities that conducted inspections changed the frequency (decreased or increased) or stopped conducting inspections. Changes to Inspections Conducted by DHS Entities from Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 to July 2026 ICE relies on these inspections to identify deficiencies in its facilities and ensure compliance with its detention standards. However, the frequency of inspections has in some cases decreased, there is an increased reliance on self-inspections, and processes for these inspections have changed. ICE has not used evidence, such as data on deficiencies identified through inspections and performance information such as the extent to which facilities are in compliance with their contracts, to determine the effects of these recent changes on facility conditions. By using evidence to determine these effects and applying the results to improve oversight, ICE could ensure that facilities provide sound conditions and care for noncitizens, in accordance with its standards. Why GAO Did This Study ICE is authorized to detain noncitizens apprehended for violations of immigration law pending removal proceedings or execution of a removal order. ICE guidance states that ICE must detain noncitizens in the most humane manner possible. ICE has established detention standards that dictate how facilities should operate. ICE relies on various DHS entities within and outside of ICE to assess compliance. These inspections identify deficiencies related to medical care and food service, among other areas. GAO was asked to review compliance with detention standards and related oversight. This report examines (1) changes to DHS inspections of detention facilities since GAO’s last report on this topic (GAO-25-107580) and (2) ICE's use of evidence to inform its oversight of detention facilities in light of the changes. GAO reviewed documentation on DHS’s various oversight mechanisms and how they changed between fiscal year 2024 and July 2026. GAO also analyzed ICE data on the number of facilities that detain noncitizens for over 72 hours and the average daily population from April 2025 to April 2026. GAO interviewed officials responsible for conducting oversight from various offices within DHS. Thu, 05 Nov 2026 07:19:18 -0500 /products/gao-27-109299 Superfund: EPA Should Collect and Use Information on the Effectiveness of Its Recovery of Cleanup Costs https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-107925 What GAO Found The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund to finance cleanup costs at Superfund sites where responsible parties cannot be found or cannot pay. In fiscal years 2006 through 2024, the Trust Fund received about $34 billion in constant 2024 dollars, mostly from General Fund transfers. Congress appropriated about $32.8 billion from the Trust Fund for the Superfund program over this period. Revenue from the reinstated Superfund taxes provided substantial funds for the program in fiscal year 2024. In fiscal years 1996 through 2024, the time frame for which reliable data were available, EPA spent about $25.8 billion at nonfederal National Priorities List (NPL) sites. Remedial activities were the largest category, accounting for about half of EPA’s expenditures at these sites. Through its efforts to hold potentially responsible parties accountable for cleanup, EPA has identified at least one such party for most nonfederal NPL sites, according to EPA data. However, EPA has faced challenges recovering costs. Challenges include having fewer experienced potentially responsible party search staff over the last 10 to 15 years and a limited ability to hold such parties liable. GAO estimates that in fiscal years 1996 through 2024, EPA recovered less than half of what it spent at nonfederal NPL sites. EPA Expenditures and Amounts Recovered from Potentially Responsible Parties at Nonfederal NPL Sites, Fiscal Years 1996–2024 Note: Deleted sites are those where cleanup is complete. This analysis includes 1,622 National Priorities List (NPL) sites and expenditures from the Superfund Trust Fund. It is a point-in-time estimate since cost recovery efforts are ongoing, according to EPA officials. EPA has established some Superfund performance goals and measures to ensure it takes timely cost recovery steps but does not have such tools to assess the effectiveness of its cost recovery across nonfederal NPL sites. EPA officials said they have not done this because cost recovery is a continuous process that may take years to complete. However, measuring the effectiveness of its cost recovery performance—such as by region—would allow EPA to determine how much of the billions of dollars in cleanup costs it is recovering and what kinds of efforts work best to successfully recover costs. This would help EPA determine resource needs and target enforcement efforts. Why GAO Did This Study The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, established the Superfund program to address sites with hazardous substances. Hazardous substances found at Superfund sites have been linked to a variety of human health and environmental problems. The program is administered by EPA, which lists the most contaminated sites on the NPL. Superfund site cleanups are often expensive and lengthy. EPA funds cleanups when it cannot identify parties responsible for the contamination, or when such parties fail to act. The Trust Fund was primarily financed by revenue from Superfund taxes until they expired in 1995. In 2021, Congress began reinstating some Superfund taxes. GAO was asked to review EPA funding, expenditures, and cost recovery at nonfederal NPL sites. This report examines, among other things, (1) funding that the Trust Fund and Superfund program received; (2) amounts EPA spent at nonfederal NPL sites; and (3) the extent to which EPA has identified potentially responsible parties, recovered cleanup costs, and assessed the effectiveness of its cost recovery efforts. GAO analyzed EPA and budget data, visited Superfund sites, and interviewed EPA officials. Thu, 05 Nov 2026 07:15:02 -0500 /products/gao-27-107925 International Collaboration: Federal Banking Agencies Actively Participated in Standard-Setting Bodies https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-108190 What GAO Found The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency help develop financial standards by participating in international standard-setting bodies, such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. These banking agencies also conduct joint work with or provide technical assistance to certain bodies in which they are not members. Federal Banking Agencies’ Participation in Key International Standard-Setting Bodies, 2010–2025 The banking agencies were active participants in developing or updating international standards, guidelines, or informational publications from 2010 through 2025. Along with other standard-setting body members, they helped develop 22 standards and at least 120 guidelines and informational publications, according to GAO’s review of standard-setting body documentation and agency staff. Members generally are expected but are not legally required to implement standards domestically, whereas implementation of guidelines and informational publications is encouraged but not expected. The banking agencies implemented international standards primarily through domestic rulemaking. For example, Basel Committee implementation-monitoring reports state that, as of May 2026, the banking agencies had proposed 27 rules to implement the Basel standards, 18 of which had been finalized. They also adopted some guidelines and informational publications developed by international standard-setting bodies. Standard-setting bodies promoted implementation through assessments, peer reviews, and other monitoring activities. However, agency staff stated that domestic policy objectives and internal deliberations primarily drove agency implementation actions. The banking agencies used several mechanisms to oversee their participation in standards development. Through multilayered internal review processes, senior officials reviewed staff work, while agency leaders approved policy positions and represented their respective agencies in key meetings. The agencies are also subject to several external forms of oversight and transparency, including congressional hearings and reporting, public consultations by standard-setting bodies, and disclosures in annual reports. Why GAO Did This Study Some Members of Congress have raised questions about the transparency of international standard setting. For example, some Members of Congress have stated that the banking agencies have implemented domestic regulations that closely reflect international standards developed with limited input from U.S. stakeholders. GAO was asked to review federal banking agencies’ participation in developing international standards. This report examines, for 2010 through 2025, (1) the extent to which federal banking agencies participated in the development of international standards; (2) how the federal banking agencies have implemented the standards and how standard-setting bodies promote their implementation; and (3) the mechanisms for overseeing the federal banking agencies’ development of international standards, among other objectives. GAO analyzed federal banking agency documents, including policies, procedures, and annual reports; standard-setting body publications; and relevant academic and policy literature. GAO also interviewed officials from the banking agencies. GAO also interviewed 18 stakeholders—eight academics, three private sector lawyers, and seven advocacy organizations—selected for their expertise in international financial standard setting and range of views on oversight of developing such binding agreements or nonbinding instruments. For more information, contact Michael E. Clements at clementsm@gao.gov. Thu, 05 Nov 2026 07:11:03 -0500 /products/gao-27-108190 District of Columbia Charter Schools: Key Changes Made to Academic Accountability System https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-109048 What GAO Found The DC Public Charter School Board (PCSB) uses a multi-step process, including interviews and public hearings, to screen applicants. PCSB also requires applicants to meet several decision criteria (see figure). In the past 5 years PCSB has made a few key changes to the charter school application process. Changes include requiring that charters fill a demonstrated need and that prospective schools complete a preapplication process. Additionally, PCSB has shifted the application timeline to the fall from the spring. DC Public Charter School Board (PCSB) Application Decision Criteria Note: For more details, see figure 1 in GAO-27-109048 In the last 5 years, two schools applied for new charters and PCSB denied both. By comparison, in the prev

Reports News from the GAO Reports News from the GAO. https://www.gao.gov/rss/reports.xml Thu, 05 Nov 2026 10:46:00 -0500 GAO https://www.gao.gov/themes/custom/gao_uswds/img/gao-logo-rss.gif Reports News from the GAO https://www.gao.gov/rss/reports.xml Feed provided by GAO. Immigration Detention: Changes In Inspections of ICE Facilities Raise Questions About Oversight https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-109299 What GAO Found Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detention facility inspections have changed at the same time that the number of immigration detention facilities and the size of the detained population have increased. From April 2025 to April 2026, following a January 2025 Executive Order, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) added over 40 detention facilities that detain noncitizens for over 72 hours. The average daily population of detained noncitizens grew by over 50 percent, to 61,817 individuals, over the timeframe. From fiscal year 2024 to July 2026, three of the four DHS entities that conducted inspections changed the frequency (decreased or increased) or stopped conducting inspections. Changes to Inspections Conducted by DHS Entities from Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 to July 2026 ICE relies on these inspections to identify deficiencies in its facilities and ensure compliance with its detention standards. However, the frequency of inspections has in some cases decreased, there is an increased reliance on self-inspections, and processes for these inspections have changed. ICE has not used evidence, such as data on deficiencies identified through inspections and performance information such as the extent to which facilities are in compliance with their contracts, to determine the effects of these recent changes on facility conditions. By using evidence to determine these effects and applying the results to improve oversight, ICE could ensure that facilities provide sound conditions and care for noncitizens, in accordance with its standards. Why GAO Did This Study ICE is authorized to detain noncitizens apprehended for violations of immigration law pending removal proceedings or execution of a removal order. ICE guidance states that ICE must detain noncitizens in the most humane manner possible. ICE has established detention standards that dictate how facilities should operate. ICE relies on various DHS entities within and outside of ICE to assess compliance. These inspections identify deficiencies related to medical care and food service, among other areas. GAO was asked to review compliance with detention standards and related oversight. This report examines (1) changes to DHS inspections of detention facilities since GAO’s last report on this topic (GAO-25-107580) and (2) ICE's use of evidence to inform its oversight of detention facilities in light of the changes. GAO reviewed documentation on DHS’s various oversight mechanisms and how they changed between fiscal year 2024 and July 2026. GAO also analyzed ICE data on the number of facilities that detain noncitizens for over 72 hours and the average daily population from April 2025 to April 2026. GAO interviewed officials responsible for conducting oversight from various offices within DHS. Thu, 05 Nov 2026 07:19:18 -0500 /products/gao-27-109299 Superfund: EPA Should Collect and Use Information on the Effectiveness of Its Recovery of Cleanup Costs https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-107925 What GAO Found The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund to finance cleanup costs at Superfund sites where responsible parties cannot be found or cannot pay. In fiscal years 2006 through 2024, the Trust Fund received about $34 billion in constant 2024 dollars, mostly from General Fund transfers. Congress appropriated about $32.8 billion from the Trust Fund for the Superfund program over this period. Revenue from the reinstated Superfund taxes provided substantial funds for the program in fiscal year 2024. In fiscal years 1996 through 2024, the time frame for which reliable data were available, EPA spent about $25.8 billion at nonfederal National Priorities List (NPL) sites. Remedial activities were the largest category, accounting for about half of EPA’s expenditures at these sites. Through its efforts to hold potentially responsible parties accountable for cleanup, EPA has identified at least one such party for most nonfederal NPL sites, according to EPA data. However, EPA has faced challenges recovering costs. Challenges include having fewer experienced potentially responsible party search staff over the last 10 to 15 years and a limited ability to hold such parties liable. GAO estimates that in fiscal years 1996 through 2024, EPA recovered less than half of what it spent at nonfederal NPL sites. EPA Expenditures and Amounts Recovered from Potentially Responsible Parties at Nonfederal NPL Sites, Fiscal Years 1996–2024 Note: Deleted sites are those where cleanup is complete. This analysis includes 1,622 National Priorities List (NPL) sites and expenditures from the Superfund Trust Fund. It is a point-in-time estimate since cost recovery efforts are ongoing, according to EPA officials. EPA has established some Superfund performance goals and measures to ensure it takes timely cost recovery steps but does not have such tools to assess the effectiveness of its cost recovery across nonfederal NPL sites. EPA officials said they have not done this because cost recovery is a continuous process that may take years to complete. However, measuring the effectiveness of its cost recovery performance—such as by region—would allow EPA to determine how much of the billions of dollars in cleanup costs it is recovering and what kinds of efforts work best to successfully recover costs. This would help EPA determine resource needs and target enforcement efforts. Why GAO Did This Study The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, established the Superfund program to address sites with hazardous substances. Hazardous substances found at Superfund sites have been linked to a variety of human health and environmental problems. The program is administered by EPA, which lists the most contaminated sites on the NPL. Superfund site cleanups are often expensive and lengthy. EPA funds cleanups when it cannot identify parties responsible for the contamination, or when such parties fail to act. The Trust Fund was primarily financed by revenue from Superfund taxes until they expired in 1995. In 2021, Congress began reinstating some Superfund taxes. GAO was asked to review EPA funding, expenditures, and cost recovery at nonfederal NPL sites. This report examines, among other things, (1) funding that the Trust Fund and Superfund program received; (2) amounts EPA spent at nonfederal NPL sites; and (3) the extent to which EPA has identified potentially responsible parties, recovered cleanup costs, and assessed the effectiveness of its cost recovery efforts. GAO analyzed EPA and budget data, visited Superfund sites, and interviewed EPA officials. Thu, 05 Nov 2026 07:15:02 -0500 /products/gao-27-107925 International Collaboration: Federal Banking Agencies Actively Participated in Standard-Setting Bodies https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-108190 What GAO Found The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency help develop financial standards by participating in international standard-setting bodies, such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. These banking agencies also conduct joint work with or provide technical assistance to certain bodies in which they are not members. Federal Banking Agencies’ Participation in Key International Standard-Setting Bodies, 2010–2025 The banking agencies were active participants in developing or updating international standards, guidelines, or informational publications from 2010 through 2025. Along with other standard-setting body members, they helped develop 22 standards and at least 120 guidelines and informational publications, according to GAO’s review of standard-setting body documentation and agency staff. Members generally are expected but are not legally required to implement standards domestically, whereas implementation of guidelines and informational publications is encouraged but not expected. The banking agencies implemented international standards primarily through domestic rulemaking. For example, Basel Committee implementation-monitoring reports state that, as of May 2026, the banking agencies had proposed 27 rules to implement the Basel standards, 18 of which had been finalized. They also adopted some guidelines and informational publications developed by international standard-setting bodies. Standard-setting bodies promoted implementation through assessments, peer reviews, and other monitoring activities. However, agency staff stated that domestic policy objectives and internal deliberations primarily drove agency implementation actions. The banking agencies used several mechanisms to oversee their participation in standards development. Through multilayered internal review processes, senior officials reviewed staff work, while agency leaders approved policy positions and represented their respective agencies in key meetings. The agencies are also subject to several external forms of oversight and transparency, including congressional hearings and reporting, public consultations by standard-setting bodies, and disclosures in annual reports. Why GAO Did This Study Some Members of Congress have raised questions about the transparency of international standard setting. For example, some Members of Congress have stated that the banking agencies have implemented domestic regulations that closely reflect international standards developed with limited input from U.S. stakeholders. GAO was asked to review federal banking agencies’ participation in developing international standards. This report examines, for 2010 through 2025, (1) the extent to which federal banking agencies participated in the development of international standards; (2) how the federal banking agencies have implemented the standards and how standard-setting bodies promote their implementation; and (3) the mechanisms for overseeing the federal banking agencies’ development of international standards, among other objectives. GAO analyzed federal banking agency documents, including policies, procedures, and annual reports; standard-setting body publications; and relevant academic and policy literature. GAO also interviewed officials from the banking agencies. GAO also interviewed 18 stakeholders—eight academics, three private sector lawyers, and seven advocacy organizations—selected for their expertise in international financial standard setting and range of views on oversight of developing such binding agreements or nonbinding instruments. For more information, contact Michael E. Clements at clementsm@gao.gov. Thu, 05 Nov 2026 07:11:03 -0500 /products/gao-27-108190 District of Columbia Charter Schools: Key Changes Made to Academic Accountability System https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-109048 What GAO Found The DC Public Charter School Board (PCSB) uses a multi-step process, including interviews and public hearings, to screen applicants. PCSB also requires applicants to meet several decision criteria (see figure). In the past 5 years PCSB has made a few key changes to the charter school application process. Changes include requiring that charters fill a demonstrated need and that prospective schools complete a preapplication process. Additionally, PCSB has shifted the application timeline to the fall from the spring. DC Public Charter School Board (PCSB) Application Decision Criteria Note: For more details, see figure 1 in GAO-27-109048 In the last 5 years, two schools applied for new charters and PCSB denied both. By comparison, in the prev

Preview limited to 12,000 characters per version. Native snapshots remain available in the source history.