What GAO Found From fiscal years 2022 through 2024, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) granted humanitarian parole—temporary permission to stay in the United States—to approximately 259,000 Ukrainians and their eligible family members. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) received $3.78 billion across three Ukraine supplemental appropriations in fiscal years 2022 through 2024 to provide refugee assistance to Ukrainians granted humanitarian parole and other eligible populations. Refugee assistance can include short-term cash and medical assistance, as well as supports like employment services and language training. Nationwide, about 135,000 Ukrainian parole beneficiaries received refugee assistance through programs administered by HHS in fiscal years 2022 through 2024 based on the most recent data available. The number served in each state ranged from fewer than 50 to over 24,000. Number of Ukrainians Granted Humanitarian Parole That Received HHS Refugee Assistance by State, Fiscal Years 2022–2024 Combined Selected state agencies and other HHS grantees GAO interviewed reported conducting outreach to Ukrainians and providing assistance with initial resettlement, housing, and legal services. Grantees also reported expanding service availability to underserved geographic areas and sometimes providing remote services. HHS allocated almost half of the appropriated funds ($1.79 billion) based on population estimates of Ukrainians granted humanitarian parole and the remaining funds ($1.99 billion) based on estimates of other populations eligible for services from HHS, such as certain eligible Cubans and Haitians. It allocated most of the funds to state-administered programs that provide cash and medical assistance and refugee support services, such as employment services, language training, and case management. HHS generally oversaw grantees serving Ukrainians within its existing framework for program oversight. HHS required grantees to report certain program and financial information, reviewed grantee reports and data, and conducted program monitoring reviews. GAO searched 31 selected monitoring reports from fiscal years 2022 through 2024 for findings specific to Ukrainian beneficiaries or instances of fraud overall. Across the selected reports, GAO identified one corrective action specific to serving Ukrainians, in which HHS required the grantee to update its eligibility training curriculum. Why GAO Did This Study Russia’s February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine has caused devastating loss of life and a humanitarian crisis. Almost 6 million people have fled Ukraine as of December 2025, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, includes a provision for GAO to conduct oversight of refugee assistance provided under Ukraine supplemental appropriations. This report addresses who Ukrainian parole beneficiaries are, the HHS refugee assistance they received, how HHS allocated refugee assistance funds from Ukraine supplemental appropriations, and how HHS provided related technical assistance to and oversight of states and other grantees. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, including the Ukraine supplemental appropriations. GAO also reviewed related HHS policy guidance, monitoring reports, and other documents. GAO analyzed HHS financial data from fiscal years 2022 through 2025 and program data from fiscal years 2022 through 2024, based on availability. GAO also analyzed available DHS data on the number of Ukrainians and their eligible family members paroled into the United States in fiscal years 2022 through 2024. Additionally, GAO interviewed HHS officials, officials from three states, and representatives from five national resettlement agencies that served large numbers of Ukrainian beneficiaries. For more information, contact Kathryn A. Larin at larink@gao.gov.

Why This Matters Chemical fertilizers account for up to 45 percent of input costs for some crops. Engineered biofertilizers may reduce these costs and increase crop yields. Key Takeaways Engineered biofertilizers are made of microbes and other organic materials that improve nutrient supply in soil. The lack of a clear definition for biofertilizers leads to uncertainty about whether existing regulations apply. Current regulations may also not be equipped for genetically engineered microbes, which may hamper U.S. competitiveness. The Technology What is it? Biofertilizer technology uses organic materials, such as microbes (bacteria, fungi, and algae) to make agricultural products that enhance plant growth, improve soil health, and increase nutrient supply. Engineered biofertilizers use genetic engineering and combine multiple strains of microbes to improve these effects. These products may increase crop yield by 5 to 20 percent, although results vary by crop and local conditions. How does it work? Biofertilizers are typically applied to seeds as a coating or to soil as a powder or liquid. They work through several direct and indirect mechanisms (see figure). For example, biofertilizers can convert soil nutrients, such as potassium and phosphorus, into soluble forms accessible to plants. With genetically engineered biofertilizers, microbes are altered to be more effective. For example, tools such as CRISPR (a gene-editing technology) can be used to transfer a beneficial trait from one microbe species to another or to tailor a microbe for specific crop types or environments. How Biofertilizers Work – Selected Mechanisms How mature is it? Biofertilizers have been used in commercial agriculture since the 1890s. We identified two engineered biofertilizers containing genetically engineered microbes introduced in the 2020s. While engineered biofertilizers appear promising in the lab, real-world effectiveness is unclear. According to researchers, biofertilizers containing multiple strains of microbes can enhance plant health more than single-strain formulations can. Researchers have also found that genetic engineering can help to design and optimize various strains to work synergistically to enhance biofertilizer effectiveness. Studies suggest that biofertilizer use is more widespread in some South American countries than in the U.S. For example, Brazil uses biofertilizers in general on over 90 percent of its soybean acres, compared to 15 percent in the U.S. A 2020 study estimated that Brazil’s biofertilizer use provides over $15 billion in net savings annually on nitrogen fertilizer. The biofertilizer market is growing. According to a market intelligence firm, in 2025, the U.S. market stood at $640 million and is expected to reach $1.3 billion by 2031. In contrast, the U.S. chemical fertilizer market is expected to exceed $39 billion by 2031. Opportunities Economic benefits. Fertilizer costs have increased due to tight global supplies, energy shocks, and trade disruptions.Increased crop yields and reduced fertilizer costs could mean more profit for U.S. farmers. Because biofertilizers can reduce the need for chemical fertilizers, they may reduce the effect of price volatility, including for nitrogen and other fertilizers that can be derived from critical minerals, such as potash and phosphate rock. Environmental benefits. Biofertilizers may improve soil health and mitigate pollution by reducing the amounts of chemical fertilizers used and their associated runoff. Runoff can flow into rivers and oceans, causing harmful algal blooms and dead zones, which threaten human health and fisheries. Challenges Regulatory uncertainty. The U.S. lacks a clear regulatory definition for biofertilizers, which leads to uncertainty about whether they are subject to existing regulations. Failing to follow regulatory requirements can be costly for manufacturers. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency, in 2020, levied a $300,000 penalty under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to one company selling an unregistered biofertilizer. Regulation of engineered microbes. Researchers believe that the current U.S. regulatory system is not well equipped to regulate genetically engineered microbes, leading to a large burden on industry, which may impede innovation and further complicate reviews of biofertilizers that use these microbes. Unclear cost-effectiveness. In 2023, an industry survey found that farmers not using biofertilizers would use them if their profitability could be demonstrated. This survey also found that the lack of widespread acceptance of biofertilizers was associated with a need for further education. Policy Context and Questions What could improve the quality and reliability of engineered biofertilizers? How effective are engineered biofertilizer products in protecting U.S. farmers from the impacts of fertilizer price increases and volatility? To what extent can existing regulatory frameworks support effective development and use of new and existing engineered biofertilizers? Selected GAO Work Precision Agriculture: Benefits and Challenges for Technology Adoption and Use, GAO-24-105962. Selected Reference Esraa E. Ammar, Hadeer A. Rady, Ahmed M. Khattab, et al.. “A comprehensive overview of eco-friendly bio-fertilizers extracted from living organisms.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 30 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30260-x. For more information, contact Sarah Harvey at HarveyS@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In the 2025 filing season, the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) tax return processing and customer service performance were similar to prior years. IRS did not meet its 13-day goal to process paper returns but took fewer days to do so in 2025 (16) than in 2024 (20). IRS also answered about 9 million phone calls in both years. IRS’s backlog of taxpayer correspondence remained above pre-pandemic levels at the end of filing season and fiscal year 2025 as IRS continued to struggle balancing demands of phone service and correspondence. But IRS does not have a plan to reduce the backlog. Without a plan, IRS risks not effectively reducing its backlog and may provide less timely service to taxpayers. In 2025, IRS experienced large-scale changes to its workforce. IRS adjusted operations to comply with new directives, including return to in-person work. IRS data show that 17,047 employees—around 17 percent of IRS’s workforce as of January 2025—left IRS via deferred resignation and early retirement programs in 2025. This included 5,162 filing season staff in units that process returns and provide customer service. However, the 2025 filing season was mostly insulated from these changes. IRS required filing season staff who accepted deferred resignation or early retirement to stay until after the filing season. IRS officials told GAO that IRS is developing a new strategic workforce plan to align with the current administration’s priorities, and its prior plans are on hold. If IRS’s new plan does not address its workforce challenges, IRS will be unable to systematically identify future workforce needs and strategies for related goals. IRS 2025 Separations via Deferred Resignation and Early Retirement Programs Note: For more details on IRS’s 2025 separations data, see figure 9 in GAO-26-108116. IRS had vacancies and turnover in leadership roles throughout 2025, including having seven different commissioners through August. IRS officials were uncertain about the status of some workforce changes like agency reorganization plans, and some modernization efforts for filing season functions have been in flux, such as activities to digitize paper documents. However, IRS lacks a team that is responsible for day-to-day management of agency reforms and ensuring quality information is shared across IRS. Without such an implementation team, IRS may struggle to ensure that reform efforts are successful and sustainable, which could in turn hinder IRS’s ability to provide quality services to taxpayers. In addition, in December 2025 amid implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), an IRS internal report stated that critical technology systems would not be ready for the 2026 filing season start. It also stated that return processing and customer service functions would enter the season undertrained or understaffed, which could result in errors and poor service for taxpayers. Why GAO Did This Study During the annual tax filing season, IRS processes millions of tax returns and issues hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer refunds. IRS also provides customer service to tens of millions of taxpayers. IRS carried out the 2025 filing season and its plans for 2026 during a time of swift, immense change for the federal workforce. IRS’s workforce changes and recent tax law changes could exacerbate the agency’s long-standing challenges to process tax returns on time and meet customer service demands. GAO was asked to review IRS’s 2025 filing season performance. This report assesses IRS’s (1) staffing levels and processing and customer service performance during the 2025 filing season, and (2) through the end of fiscal year 2025, and (3) workforce planning and modernization efforts for future filing season operations. GAO reviewed IRS and Department of the Treasury documentation, executive orders, and OBBBA tax provisions. GAO analyzed IRS staffing and performance data related to tax return processing and customer service during and after the 2025 filing season. GAO visited one IRS processing facility and interviewed IRS officials and stakeholders from three tax industry groups.

What GAO Found GAO performed agreed-upon procedures solely to assist the Secretary of the Senate in ascertaining whether the Senate Office of Public Records Revolving Fund’s (Fund) fiscal year 2024 receipts were supported by information from the Senate Office of Public Records and the Senate Disbursing Office. The procedures that GAO agreed to perform were related to the Senate Office of Public Records’ processes over receipts, associated deposits, and Fund reconciliations. The Secretary of the Senate is responsible for the sufficiency of these agreed-upon procedures to meet its objectives, and GAO makes no representation in that respect. The report provides the details on the agreed-upon procedures and the results of performing each of the procedures. GAO communicated exceptions it noted for the conducted procedures to Senate Office of Public Records officials for their review and explanation. Senate Office of Public Records officials’ responses are incorporated within the report. The Secretary of the Senate in an email response stated that she had no comments on the report. Why GAO Did This Study The Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration requested that GAO perform procedures on the Fund’s fiscal year 2024 receipts. The Senate Office of Public Records receives, processes, and maintains for public inspection records, reports, and other documents filed with the Secretary of the Senate. The receipts are generated from selling printed copies of those public documents. Per Office of Public Records procedures, receipts are deposited into the Fund at the Senate Disbursing Office. For more information, contact Cheryl E. Clark at clarkce@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), states are required to measure the performance of their public schools. They must also identify three categories of low-performing schools for support and improvement, including those that need comprehensive support and improvement (CSI)—among the lowest-performing schools in the nation. The number of CSI schools increased from 6.5 percent of all public schools in school year (SY) 2019–20 to 7.3 percent in SY 2022–23. Most of this increase was due to schools that were recategorized from needing additional targeted support and improvement (ATSI) to needing CSI because they did not meet their state’s criteria to exit ATSI. CSI schools in SY 2022–23 were more academically challenged and economically disadvantaged than the CSI schools identified in SY 2019–20. For example, more CSI students experienced deep poverty in SY 2022–23 than in SY 2019–20. Overall, 46 percent of CSI schools identified in SY 2019–20 had exited improvement status by SY 2022–23. Factors influencing the chances of a school exiting CSI status included student characteristics and size. For example, large- and medium-sized schools had increased chances of exiting, while schools with a higher percentage of poor students had decreased chances of exiting. Educators GAO interviewed commonly identified six strategies as key to exiting CSI, with effective leadership critical to all of them (see figure). Many of these strategies are interrelated. For example, schools can use data to measure changes in school culture and monitor sustained improvements. Educators GAO interviewed also described various ways to sustain improvements. For example, in an elementary school that had recently exited CSI, school leaders said they continued to observe and provide feedback to teachers even though this type of monitoring was no longer required. Educators also described persistent challenges to exiting CSI related to student attendance and teacher shortages and turnover. Key Strategies Educators Identified to Help Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools Exit Why GAO Did This Study Decades of educational reforms have demonstrated that turning around the lowest-performing schools in the U.S. remains a complex challenge. Schools identified for CSI must include (1) not fewer than the lowest-performing 5 percent of all Title I schools in the state, (2) all public high schools failing to graduate a third or more of their students, and (3) Title I schools previously identified as needing additional targeted support that have not improved within a state-determined number of years. Senate Report 115-289 includes a provision for GAO to review school improvement activities. This report examines (1) the national landscape of school improvement, such as characteristics associated with schools identified for and exiting CSI; and (2) strategies that helped schools exit CSI and challenges faced, according to selected educators. To describe the national landscape of school improvement, GAO used SY 2019–20 and SY 2022–23 Department of Education data (the most recent available). GAO used these data to estimate which school characteristics increased or decreased a school’s chances of being identified for and exiting CSI status. GAO also interviewed Education officials and reviewed relevant federal laws and state documents. To identify strategies that helped selected schools exit improvement status, GAO analyzed responses from interviews with educators in three states, eight districts, and 14 schools and held five discussion groups with teachers in selected schools. GAO selected (1) states and districts to reflect variation in approaches to school improvement and (2) schools to provide a mix of current and exited CSI schools in urban, rural, and suburban locations. For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at nowickij@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Department of Transportation (DOT) Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) grants program funds demonstration projects that use advanced transportation technologies, such as autonomous vehicles and drones. In the first 3 years of the program, DOT received 1,073 applications from a variety of community sizes, entity types, and technology areas. As of September 2025, DOT has announced awards of around $289 million, which is 58 percent of the total authorized and appropriated funding for the program in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), for 135 SMART projects. While citing challenges that delayed the implementation of their projects, recipients GAO interviewed had generally positive views of the SMART program. Recipients reported challenges in procuring the necessary technology and equipment, which affected their project’s timeframes. As of September 2025, most SMART projects were not yet completed, but DOT officials expect many projects to be completed by the end of 2026. However, recipients also identified positive effects of the SMART program, including that the program allows them to test and demonstrate innovative technology solutions. Further, some recipients said the program allowed them to speed up the research or project timeframe compared with the timeline if they relied on local funding. DOT has collected information about SMART projects but has not fully aligned its efforts with key practices for a lessons-learned process. The IIJA states that DOT should develop a lessons-learned process to identify technologies that can be successfully used in future deployments. In addition, GAO has identified key practices to building a comprehensive, documented lessons-learned process. Key Practices for a Lessons-Learned Process DOT’s current efforts do not fully align with these practices for lessons learned. For example, DOT has not analyzed information it collected from the SMART projects to identify lessons learned. DOT officials told GAO they have not developed a plan to align future activities with these practices because they were focused on awarding grants and not on planning for the analysis of program results. Developing and implementing a lessons-learned plan that incorporates key practices will help ensure that DOT can identify and share the results of the SMART program, particularly as projects are completed and recipients report their results to DOT. Without such a plan, DOT could miss opportunities to communicate lessons that could help improve the safety and reliability of transportation systems more broadly. Also, by better understanding lessons from the SMART program projects, communities can benefit from successes and may facilitate the adoption of advanced technologies. Why GAO Did This Study In 2021, the IIJA created the SMART program to fund demonstration projects that use advanced technologies and systems to improve transportation efficiency and safety. The SMART program provides discretionary grants that support projects across eight technology areas, and recipients include state, city, and tribal governments. The IIJA authorized and appropriated $500 million for the program between fiscal years 2022 and 2026. In February 2026, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 transferred $204.9 million in unobligated balances from the SMART grants program to support appropriations for other purposes. The IIJA included a provision in statute for GAO to review the SMART program. This report addresses the characteristics of SMART program applicants and projects, perspectives of selected recipients on the program, and how DOT plans to identify lessons learned from the program. GAO reviewed DOT data on the applicants and projects selected for awards from fiscal years 2022 through 2024 and interviewed DOT officials on the SMART grant program. GAO also interviewed 17 selected grant recipients reflecting a range of community sizes and technology areas, on the program and their projects. In addition, GAO compared DOT efforts to identify lessons learned from the program with key practices GAO identified and federal guidance for developing lessons learned.

What GAO Found The Department of Defense (DOD) established the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program in 2020 to ensure that defense industrial base (DIB) companies comply with cybersecurity requirements. In response to concerns about the complexity of the program’s initial framework, in 2024 DOD streamlined requirements and revised program implementation plans. DOD plans to implement this program over the next 3 years. Although DOD does not have a strategic plan for the CMMC program recorded in a single document, it has developed several planning documents to guide implementation. GAO found that DOD’s implementation plans addressed six of seven key elements of a comprehensive strategy, as shown in the figure below. Extent That DOD’s Plans for the CMMC Program Rollout Addressed Key Elements of a Comprehensive Strategy, as of September 2025 DOD partially addressed the element related to identifying key external factors that could affect the program’s ability to meet its goals. While DOD has taken steps to develop strategies to address program risks, it has not systematically assessed and documented the external factors that could affect the department meeting its goals. For example, the department relies on private sector stakeholders to conduct assessments of DIB companies to determine if they comply with the program’s requirements. However, DOD did not assess and document how it intends to mitigate the risk of private sector capacity being insufficient to meet its needs for assessments, according to DOD officials. Although DOD officials told GAO that department leaders can issue waivers if external factors cause significant challenges, such waivers would not address underlying challenges. Additionally, depending on the frequency and number of waivers DOD uses, the process could undermine the long-term viability of the CMMC program and its intent to verify that companies are implementing federal cybersecurity requirements. By assessing and documenting key external factors and developing approaches to address them, DOD would better understand program implementation risks and be better positioned to take action to mitigate those risks. Why GAO Did This Study DOD relies on hundreds of thousands of private companies for goods and services, ranging from weapon systems to maintenance. In doing business with DOD, these companies often use and store sensitive information in their computer systems. Malicious cyber actors have targeted defense contractors’ networks and systems to access sensitive DOD data. Senate Report 118-188, accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, includes a provision for GAO to review DOD’s implementation of the revised CMMC program. GAO’s report evaluates, among other things, the extent to which DOD has a comprehensive strategy to guide implementation. GAO reviewed DOD’s CMMC policies and planning documentation and interviewed DOD officials involved in implementing and managing this program. GAO also interviewed DOD officials and industry representatives who support DIB companies to implement CMMC requirements.

What GAO Found Health professionals often work in demanding and stressful environments, which can affect their well-being and mental health. The COVID-19 pandemic led to new and worsening mental health conditions for many health professionals, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The health professional workforce includes over 17 million people working in clinical and non-clinical positions, according to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Clinical health professionals include physicians, nurses, and behavioral health professionals. Non-clinical health professionals include health care support personnel such as administrative staff. GAO found there is a range in the prevalence of mental health conditions experienced by health professionals that varies by profession, according to literature. Commonly studied mental health conditions among health professionals include depression, anxiety, substance use disorder, and the related topic of suicide. GAO also reviewed literature on burnout, which is a common expression of mental health among health professionals. Examples of prevalence data from GAO’s literature review include the following studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Depression and anxiety. An estimated 34 percent of health care workers reported experiencing symptoms of depression and 57 percent reported experiencing symptoms of anxiety in 2022, according to a CDC analysis of nationally representative generalizable data of health workers. Substance use disorder. Seven percent of nurse respondents reported substance use disorder from 2020 through 2021, according to a non-generalizable online survey administered to nurses. Burnout. An estimated 46 percent of health care workers reported experiencing burnout often or very often in 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic, up from an estimated 32 percent in 2018, according to a CDC analysis of nationally representative data on health workers. HHS officials identified three grant programs that specifically targeted mental health among health professionals. These grant programs provided $103.2 million in COVID-19 relief funding to 45 grant awardees (grantees), from calendar years 2022 through 2024. Grantees included organizations such as hospital systems and universities, among other entities. See table for characteristics of these three grant programs. Characteristics of HHS Grant Programs Focused on Addressing Health Professional Mental Health, January 2022 through December 2024 Grant program Purpose Target beneficiaries Award amount (number of grantees) Promoting Resilience and Mental Health Among Health Professional Workforce Supported adopting and expanding programs to promote mental health and resiliency Health care providers and workforce $30.1 million (10 grantees) Health and Public Safety Workforce Resilience Training Program Supported training activities to address mental health conditions and promote resiliency Health care students and workforce $67.1 million (34 grantees) Health and Public Safety Workforce Resiliency Technical Assistance Center Provided technical assistance to the grantees from grant programs listed above 44 grantees from programs listed above $5.9 million (1 grantee) Source: GAO analysis of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Notice of Funding Opportunities and Grant Award Data | GAO-26-107951 Grantees conducted a variety of activities to support health professionals’ mental health, including providing mental health screening and services and training individuals on resilience, according to analyses by the Technical Assistance Center (TAC), HHS data, and interviews with selected grantees. To oversee the grant programs from calendar years 2022 through 2024, HHS reviewed annual reports submitted by grantees and conducted regular meetings with grantees, among other activities. HHS also contracted with an external evaluator to assess the programs’ outcomes. These activities were designed to oversee the progress and performance of the grantees in meeting their goals and objectives. Grantees reported that they have faced challenges implementing HHS grant programs. They also cite benefits of the grant programs on addressing mental health among health professionals, according to a 2024 and a 2025 interim analyses by the TAC. Examples of reported challenges were related to resources, organizational commitment to well-being, and stigma. Some grantees also reported benefits, such as higher job retention and reduced depression and anxiety of grant program participants as compared to non-participants, according to GAO analysis of data and two interim TAC analyses. Why GAO Did This Study The Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act includes a provision for GAO to review federal grant programs addressing mental health conditions and substance use disorder among health professionals. This report describes available information on the prevalence and severity of such conditions among health professionals from studies published from 2020 through February 2025, the most recent available at the time of our analysis; characteristics of three grant programs; and HHS’s oversight of these grant programs, among other things. For this report, GAO (1) conducted a literature review of 50 sources to identify information on prevalence and severity of mental health conditions and substance use disorders among health professionals; (2) reviewed information from HHS and grantees across the three grant programs, such as annual grantee performance reports and data; and (3) interviewed officials from HHS and representatives of six selected grantees and four stakeholder organizations, such as the American Nurses Association. GAO provided a draft of this report to HHS. The Department provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact Alyssa Hundrup at HundrupA@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In February 2025, the Department of Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) stopped assessing student loan servicers on accuracy and call quality due to lack of staff capacity, according to agency officials. Prior to discontinuing these quarterly assessments, FSA assessed servicers on these metrics for two quarters through the following actions. Accuracy. FSA would review data for borrowers in servicer systems and compare it to data in FSA systems to determine if servicers were keeping accurate records for borrowers. Call quality. FSA would review phone calls between borrowers and servicers to determine if servicers were providing good and accurate customer service. The decision to stop assessing these performance metrics occurred shortly after the new administration began issuing presidential directives and guidance on downsizing the federal workforce in January 2025. Education reported that between January and December 2025, the number of staff at FSA dropped from 1,433 to 777, a reduction of 656 personnel. Prior to FSA discontinuing this oversight, most servicers did not meet the performance standards for accuracy and faced corresponding financial penalties of about $850,000. FSA continued to assess servicer performance on their other performance metrics, which it characterized as less labor intensive to monitor. Student Loan Servicer Performance on Accuracy Metric In September 2025, FSA officials said Education was working to implement more efficient oversight methods that leverage data analysis and exploring possible changes to the contract performance standards. However, as of December 2025, FSA was not using any replacement methods for overseeing accuracy and call quality and had not changed the performance standards. By not assessing servicer accuracy and call quality, FSA lacks assurance that borrower records are correct and that servicers are giving borrowers quality information. Inaccurate records can result in borrowers being billed for incorrect amounts or placed in the wrong repayment status. Additionally, borrowers need to be given accurate information when they call for help. Addressing these gaps in servicer oversight will assist Education in carrying out its statutory responsibilities and also help the government avoid overpaying servicers for poor performance. Why GAO Did This Study FSA is statutorily responsible for managing federal student aid programs and overseeing contracted student loan servicers. The servicers process loan payments, provide borrowers with information on repayment plans and forgiveness options, and maintain loan records. In April 2024, FSA implemented new contracts for its student loan servicers that set performance standards for student loan servicers on six metrics, including accuracy and call quality. Under these contracts, FSA enforces financial penalties if servicers do not meet performance standards related to these metrics. GAO was asked to review Education’s capacity to carry out its statutory responsibilities. This report examines the extent to which recent staffing reductions have affected how FSA carries out its responsibilities to oversee loan servicers. Additional reports will examine related topics at other offices within Education. For this report, GAO reviewed FSA documentation, servicer performance and billing reports, and relevant laws. GAO also interviewed FSA officials as well as representatives of borrower advocacy organizations.

What GAO Found For an estimated 77 percent (about 12,300) of the nation’s museums, the condition of at least one building system (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) or building issue puts their collections at risk of damage or loss, according to GAO’s survey of museums. An estimated 73 percent, or about 11,900 museums, cited at least one building system or facility issue that poses a potential health or safety concern. Further, GAO estimates that nearly half of museums identified physical accessibility, such as inaccessible entrances, as a potential concern. Museum representatives said they have no options but to store collections in areas that experience water leaks or uncontrolled temperature or humidity. Fine Art Stored in Bathroom (left) and Tribal Files and Artifacts Stored in Basement That Experiences Flooding Risk (right) The total cost to repair museums nationwide is unknown. Stakeholders cite challenges with limited museum resources to conduct facility assessments and expertise required to report accurate cost estimates for repairs. An estimated 85 percent (about 13,700) of museums report having a backlog of deferred maintenance and repair, and an estimated 80 percent expect deferred maintenance to persist or increase in the next 3 years based on projected budgets and planned projects. An estimated 49 percent, or about 7,900 museums, have a deferred maintenance backlog of more than $100,000 each. Common challenges to addressing facility repair cited by museums in response to GAO’s survey are funding availability and construction costs. Specifically, funding is a key challenge to addressing maintenance and repairs for an estimated 85 percent of museums. An estimated 80 percent of museums use donations or fundraising to address repairs. However, reliance on fundraising can pose challenges, particularly in rural areas with limited funding opportunities, or for museums with limited expertise or capacity for fundraising. Why GAO Did This Study Museums preserve history and serve an educational role. However, many museums are in aging buildings, and their building systems may need repair or replacement to prevent damage to collections. While the federal agency, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), supports museum programs and services, museums are prohibited from using IMLS funds for building construction. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024, includes a provision for GAO to study the availability and conditions of museum facilities. This report examines the reported physical conditions of museum facilities and the estimated cost and challenges to addressing facility repair needs. GAO’s scope included public (other than federal) and private nonprofit museums, excluding museum disciplines focused on living collections, like zoos. GAO conducted a sample survey generalizable to an in-scope population of nearly 16,700 museums in 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey results can be found on the “Additional Data” link of GAO’s website. GAO visited 17 museums across two Tribal Nations, six states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. GAO selected these jurisdictions based on state or territorial funding for museum facilities, the number of natural disasters experienced in the last 5 years, and geography. GAO also interviewed officials from IMLS; local and tribal museums; state museum associations; and other museum stakeholders, including the American Alliance of Museums; Association of Tribal Archives, Libraries, and Museums; and Small Museum Association. For more information, contact David Marroni at marronid@gao.gov.