Official source comparison

Observed versions 232 & 233

The extracted text differs.

Reports News from the GAO Reports News from the GAO. https://www.gao.gov/rss/reports.xml Thu, 12 Nov 2026 08:54:27 -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. IRS Taxpayer Services: Challenges in Measuring the Benefits of Customer Service Investments https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-108701 What GAO Found The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) invests in services to help taxpayers meet their tax obligations, such as in preparing and filing tax returns. IRS provides services through its website, telephone assistance, correspondence, and in-person assistance centers. Taxpayer services offer potential benefits, such as increasing tax compliance and reducing taxpayer burden that, if measured, could help inform investment decisions (see figure). Measuring benefits is difficult because of challenges with having sufficient skilled staff and funds to develop data and methodologies for long-term measurement, among others. Potential Benefits to Consider in Making Taxpayer Services Investment Decisions In 2024, IRS called for a reexamination of how its actions—including taxpayer services—affect revenue. IRS has since started a research effort designed to inform investment decisions on services based on their costs and revenues. IRS officials said they have no plans for that research effort to analyze data on other benefits, such as taxpayer satisfaction or burden, although they could do so in the future. In 2007 and 2008, IRS reports had similarly called for more analysis of compliance and revenue benefits to support services investment decisions. Although IRS did not provide documented results from these calls for analysis, GAO identified five IRS studies of how services affected compliance or taxpayer satisfaction. For example, a 2013 study found that lack of satisfaction with services may contribute to noncompliance. GAO identified 12 studies that measured the benefits of taxpayer services in the national tax administrations of other countries. All these studies cited some positive association between taxpayer services and benefits. For example, two studies in Belgium and in Germany found that customer-oriented service approaches were associated with lower costs to comply for business taxpayers. In addition, some of these and other studies highlighted challenges with measuring benefits similar to those GAO identified. Why GAO Did This Study Provisions in what is commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) provided funding for IRS to improve various tax administration operations, including the ways it provides services to taxpayers to help them comply with tax requirements. Improving taxpayer services could yield financial and other types of measurable benefits. However, in prior work, GAO found that data to analyze such benefits generally are not readily available. The IRA includes a provision for GAO to oversee distribution and use of IRA funds. This report describes (1) the challenges that tax administrations face in measuring the benefits of taxpayer service investments; (2) ongoing and planned efforts and past research by IRS to measure the benefits of taxpayer services to inform investment decisions; and (3) the work done in tax administrations in states and other countries to measure the benefits of taxpayer services to inform investment decisions. GAO summarized studies from a literature search of relevant research and reviewed information that the Federation of Tax Administrators collected by surveying its members on measuring taxpayer service benefits. GAO also interviewed IRS officials and stakeholders such as officials from the Taxpayer Advocate Service, Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, and organizations that coordinate with U.S. state and international tax administrations. For more information, contact Jessica Lucas-Judy at lucasjudyj@gao.gov. Tue, 10 Nov 2026 07:12:56 -0500 /products/gao-27-108701 401(k) Plan Investments: DOL Can Take Steps to Prepare for Expected Private Equity Growth https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-106779 What GAO Found Private equity is one type of investment within a broad, undefined category called alternative assets. It differs from publicly traded equity in who can invest in it, how it is valued, and what disclosures are required, among other things. GAO’s review of selected research papers that analyzed private equity investment fund performance found no consensus on the performance of private equity relative to publicly traded equity, which is an important consideration when making investment decisions. GAO found a range of performance findings among research papers we reviewed, as well as ranges in data analyzed, benchmarks for performance comparisons, and methodologies. For example, one group of papers found that private equity funds outperformed publicly traded equity for the sample of funds they analyzed during the specific time-periods studied. The size of the overperformance varied widely. In one paper the benchmarks did not include a risk premium, the excess return that some experts believe a private equity investment should provide to justify higher investment risks. Another group of papers found that private equity funds underperformed publicly traded equity during the time-period studied, accounting for the underlying risk or fees, which can be higher for private equity than for publicly traded equity products. Our review of these papers also found that there is no consensus on how to effectively benchmark private equity performance. Financial regulations require open-end management investment companies (e.g., mutual funds) reporting investment performance data to include a benchmark that is the average annual total returns of an appropriate broad-based securities market index. Our review found a range of benchmarks for private equity fund returns, including several publicly traded equity indexes and custom indexes. Given the complexity of private equity and its recent use in 401(k) plans, plan sponsor and industry association representatives GAO interviewed said that plan sponsors need education on key aspects of private equity, such as how its valuation differs from traditional investments, like mutual funds. Consumer organization representatives also told us that participants should understand certain aspects about private equity, such as its illiquidity. Under law, the Department of Labor (DOL) is authorized to provide not only regulations, but also other guidance, as needed, to promote retirement security. However, GAO found that DOL has not yet issued specific guidance to help sponsors and participants better understand basic aspects of private equity. For example, the agency has not issued guidance to plan sponsors to help these fiduciaries to better understand how private equity’s liquidity and valuation differ from traditional investments, and how it is regulated, among other things. In addition, the agency has not issued guidance to participants, such as a fact sheet, to help them understand how private equity differs from traditional investments. By providing guidance to both plan sponsors and to participants, DOL can help them understand this asset type, which is expected to grow among 401(k) plan investment options. Why GAO Did This Study Private equity is historically reserved for certain investors, including wealthy individuals or institutional investors, like pension plans. Recent industry developments and federal actions suggest that more products offered to 401(k) plans may soon have more significant allocations to this asset class. However, little is known about the extent to which private equity is used in 401(k) plans and how its use might be communicated to plan sponsors and to participants, who rely on their 401(k) investments to safeguard retirement. GAO was asked to review 401(k) plan investments’ use of private equity. GAO examined research on private equity investment performance against publicly traded equity benchmarks and how private equity investment information is communicated to 401(k) plan sponsors and participants, among other objectives. To answer these questions, GAO analyzed available federal and private data sources, conducted a literature review of selected research papers, assessed a selection of disclosures, including Securities and Exchange Commission and other fund documents, and interviewed industry representatives, consumer advocates, and officials from the U.S. and four countries. Tue, 10 Nov 2026 12:54:05 -0500 /products/gao-27-106779 Veteran Lending: Early Planning Is Critical to Assessing VA’s New Foreclosure Avoidance Program https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-108908 What GAO Found The Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Partial Claim Program is intended to help borrowers with VA-guaranteed loans avoid foreclosure. Under this new program, VA reimburses the loan servicer for a borrower’s missed payments and certain fees, allowing the borrower to become current on the loan. The borrower repays that amount—the partial claim—without interest when they sell or refinance the home, when they pay off the loan, or when the loan reaches maturity. The servicer collects the payment and sends it to VA. How the VA Partial Claim Program Works VA previously offered a temporary partial claim program to help borrowers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and drew on that experience in implementing the new program. According to VA, under that program VA and servicers encountered documentation problems and difficulty tracking partial claim amounts. To address these issues, VA changed the program model and revised its application and payment processes. VA expects these changes to reduce administrative costs. VA has taken steps to implement the Partial Claim Program. These include developing policies and processes, soliciting stakeholder feedback, hosting training, developing oversight policies, and modifying its data system. The program became effective on June 15, 2026, although servicers have until November 28, 2026, to finish implementing the program. VA officials said they intend to begin analyzing program trends and outcomes in December 2027. VA has planned a high-level approach to assessing program effectiveness but has not developed a comprehensive plan to do so. For example, VA’s planned approach does not isolate the program’s effects on borrowers or consider program design questions. Without a comprehensive plan, VA and Congress will not have timely and credible evaluation results needed to make decisions about the program and identify changes that could improve outcomes for veteran borrowers, help prevent foreclosure, and reduce costs to taxpayers. Early planning is critical because the program is authorized for 5 years, ending July 30, 2030, and requires congressional reauthorization to continue. Early planning is also important to ensure VA collects the data needed for any evaluations. Why GAO Did This Study VA guarantees millions of home loans and bears financial risk when borrowers default and homes are foreclosed upon. In July 2025, the VA Home Loan Program Reform Act authorized VA to plan and administer the VA Partial Claim Program for 5 years. The Continuing Appropriations Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction, and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026, requires GAO to report on the VA Partial Claim Program annually. This first report examines (1) how VA used lessons learned from previous loss mitigation programs to develop the Partial Claim Program and the steps VA has taken to implement it and (2) the extent to which VA followed key program evaluation practices. GAO reviewed VA policies, processes, and plans related to the VA Partial Claim Program and assessed VA’s efforts against Office of Management and Budget program evaluation standards. GAO interviewed VA officials and representatives of 10 organizations, including lenders 

Reports News from the GAO Reports News from the GAO. https://www.gao.gov/rss/reports.xml Thu, 12 Nov 2026 10:39:23 -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. Preparedness Grants: Improved Transparency and Communication Needed https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-109434 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) preparedness grants help the nation potentially prevent acts of terrorism and other threats and prepare for events like the upcoming Summer Olympic Games in 2028. However, FEMA has not always been transparent in how it administers its grants. The Big Picture In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, FEMA, within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), implemented a suite of preparedness grants to address terrorist threats. FEMA has 13 preparedness grants totaling $2.9 billion for fiscal year 2026. The grants are designed to help nonfederal and non-governmental entities prevent, prepare for, and respond to terrorism and disasters, including mass shootings or incidents at transit systems or ports. FEMA also awards grants to prepare for special events, including the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the Summer Olympic Games in 2028. The grant funding helps communities build and sustain emergency management capabilities through training and exercises, purchasing equipment, improving planning and communication, and other activities to address national preparedness. In 2025, DHS terminated grants and paused funding, among other grant-related actions. For FEMA preparedness grants, these actions disrupted the awards cycle by delaying disbursements to recipients. In April 2025, a U.S. district court required FEMA to stop delaying disbursements while the case is ongoing. DHS also attached new conditions to grant awards, such as requirements for recipients to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. A U.S. district court prohibited DHS from enforcing the 2025 immigration-related conditions, but DHS attached similar conditions to 2026 grant awards. As of November 2026, lawsuits about these conditions remain ongoing. What GAO’s Work Shows Our body of work highlights FEMA’s recurring challenges in administering its preparedness grant programs, some of which are consistent with experiences recipients faced in 2025. Specifically, we found that FEMA has not been transparent about how it evaluates certain preparedness grant applications, has not consistently communicated changes to National Priority Areas with stakeholders, and did not consistently provide key information about the methodology it used for its risk model for several preparedness grant programs. Transparency To submit suitable projects for FEMA’s preparedness grants, applicants need complete information on how applications will be assessed. In July 2023, we found that FEMA included in its 2021 funding notice for transit security grants a required description of the criteria it would use to assess applications. However, the agency did not accurately describe how it would score key aspects of project merit, such as risk reduction. We also found that FEMA did not consistently award grants to the highest scoring applications as outlined in its 2021 funding notice. Similarly, we reported in September 2025 that FEMA’s port security grants announcement did not follow federal requirements to describe all criteria used to evaluate applications and make award recommendations. FEMA also did not describe how it weighted various criteria to generate an overall project score used to allocate funds. We concluded that potential applicants may not have had sufficient information to make informed decisions about which security improvement projects were likely to score highly or best aligned with the evaluation criteria FEMA considered in making award recommendations. Additionally, FEMA risked affecting the objectivity, fairness, and transparency of the award process.   National Priority Areas Because national priorities and conditions for grant funding can change year to year, grant applicants may need additional details on those changes to ensure their projects effectively address changed priorities or conditions. However, when DHS established the National Priority Areas in 2020, FEMA did not communicate to stakeholders this addition to the grant application process prior to implementing it, as we reported in January 2024. Additionally, FEMA’s efforts to conduct outreach—including information bulletins, email notifications, and listening sessions—did not effectively solicit input from stakeholders, such as recipients’ barriers to implementing the change. Further, we found that DHS had not fully documented its rationale for changes to the National Priority Areas for several years. Grantees also said not having information about changes to the priorities negatively affected their ability to plan and meet National Priority Area requirements. We concluded FEMA could better address stakeholders’ challenges by conducting targeted communication and soliciting feedback.   Risk Scoring Methodologies The use of recognized scientific practices for developing risk models can help ensure grant applicants understand how their individual risk scores are calculated and how their jurisdiction compares to others. However, in September 2018 and again in July 2023, we found that FEMA did not fully use recognized scientific practices in maintaining its risk assessment model for two of its homeland security grants (2018) and its transit security grants (2023), which were used to determine applicant eligibility and funding. For example, risk models did not consistently include information that would enable users or reviewers to understand the underlying assumptions and justifications for the model, such as the size of the weights assigned to the model’s components or the reasoning behind changes from one year to the next. Additionally, the transit security risk model did not include cyber threats, which DHS identified as a relevant threat for transit security in fiscal year 2019. We concluded that adherence to scientific practices for risk models could help ensure grant allocation approaches that rely on the risk model are reasonable, high quality, and credible. Challenges and Opportunities Terrorism and other hazards pose a persistent threat, and recipients of FEMA’s preparedness grants use them to help build and sustain preparedness capabilities over time, such as replacing expired personal protective equipment. Lack of transparency and disruptions to funding cycles threaten FEMA’s ability to route finite funding to where it reduces the most risk, while ensuring no community falls below a baseline level of capability. Striking that balance also depends on information flowing both ways—FEMA needs sound data to allocate well, and recipients need clarity on how allocation decisions are made. FEMA can improve its grants administration by addressing our open recommendations to: fully describe the criteria used to assess applications, ensure its evaluation processes is consistent with FEMA’s goals for distributing funds, ensure relevant threats are captured in its risk models for certain grants, and incorporate lessons learned from prior challenges before taking any future grant actions. For more information, contact Chris Currie at CurrieC@gao.gov. Thu, 12 Nov 2026 07:11:04 -0500 /products/gao-27-109434 K-12 Education: Data Show That Less than Half of Students Were Ready for Kindergarten in Selected States https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-108796 What GAO Found In general, GAO’s review of 11 studies found that publicly funded preschool programs contribute to children’s readiness for kindergarten in literacy, math, or both. Specifically, 10 studies found positive associations between preschool programs and kindergarten literacy scores, and seven of the studies that assessed math scores also found positive associations with these scores. One study did not find evidence of an effect in either area. These studies also suggest that public preschool programs affect student demographic groups differently. For example, one study found that English learners benefitted more from a public preschool program in Virginia than non-English learners. It also found that children from lower-income families benefited more from attending the program than children from higher-income families. GAO’s analysis of kindergarten entry assessment (KEA) data from five selected states also found a link between preschool, certain demographic factors, and kindergarten readiness. School districts with higher enrollment in public or private preschool were associated with higher kindergarten readiness in three of five selected states, according to GAO’s regression analyses. In addition, higher-poverty school districts were associated with lower readiness in four states. More broadly, GAO’s analysis of the five selected states’ KEA data shows that less than half of students were ready for kindergarten in each of those states. Readiness rates varied by developmental area (such as language, social, or motor skills), school district urbanicity, and student demographics (see figure). Kindergarten Readiness by Student Demographics in Five Selected States Note: For more details, see figure 3 in GAO-27-108796. Why GAO Did This Study The early elementary school years are widely understood as critical to helping children create a strong foundation for future academic success—which in turn supports the nation’s economic strength, national security, and civic health. Kindergarten is the main entry point to public school, but not all children enter with the foundational skills that enable them to be ready to learn. While there is no common definition of readiness across states, kindergarten readiness generally refers to the skills and abilities needed to succeed in school. GAO was asked to review students’ kindergarten readiness. This report describes findings from relevant research about the topic. It also provides information on kindergarten readiness in five selected states. GAO reviewed 11 research studies in peer-reviewed journals that examined the link between U.S. students’ attendance in publicly funded preschools and kindergarten readiness. GAO selected these studies in part because they examined preschool attendance in the last 10 years (school year 2015–2016 or later). GAO also analyzed KEA data from five states: Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, and Ohio. GAO used the most recent data available (either school year 2023–2024 or 2024–2025) that were comparable with federal data used in GAO’s analysis. GAO selected these states because they had publicly available and reliable KEA data and reported requiring a statewide KEA that assessed literacy and math in school year 2023–2024. This report follows one GAO issued in 2024 on how states assess kindergarten readiness (GAO-24-106552). For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at NowickiJ@gao.gov. Thu, 12 Nov 2026 07:18:17 -0500 /products/gao-27-108796 IRS Taxpayer Services: Challenges in Measuring the Benefits of Customer Service Investments https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-108701 What GAO Found The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) invests in services to help taxpayers meet their tax obligations, such as in preparing and filing tax returns. IRS provides services through its website, telephone assistance, correspondence, and in-person assistance centers. Taxpayer services offer potential benefits, such as increasing tax compliance and reducing taxpayer burden that, if measured, could help inform investment decisions (see figure). Measuring benefits is difficult because of challenges with having sufficient skilled staff and funds to develop data and methodologies for long-term measurement, among others. Potential Benefits to Consider in Making Taxpayer Services Investment Decision

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