What GAO Found Between 2018 and 2024, the U.S. Department of State (State) provided an estimated $375 million to support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East’s (UNRWA) educational activities in the West Bank and Gaza. These funds supported UNRWA’s education system, including teacher salaries, facilities, and maintenance. Because the Palestinian Authority provides textbooks to UNRWA free of charge, no U.S. funds went toward the purchase of textbooks. Until July 2025, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) also supported education-related projects in the West Bank and Gaza, such as providing vocational training handbooks. United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) School in the West Bank UNRWA and State took steps to identify and address problematic content in educational materials used in UNRWA schools. UNRWA reviewed textbooks and provided guidance to teachers on addressing identified content that did not align with UN values. However, UNRWA has faced some challenges in implementing its approach to address problematic content, such as teacher and community resistance. In addition, audits have found weaknesses in UNRWA’s educational activities and use of Palestinian textbooks, while also noting its commitment to principles such as neutrality. UNRWA has taken certain steps to address the issues raised in these audits. In the years that State provided funding to UNRWA, it monitored UNRWA’s actions to identify and address problematic content such as reviewing UNRWA reports and conducting field visits to schools. Since 2018, annual appropriations acts required State to report on certain UNRWA issues, including steps UNRWA took to ensure its educational materials are consistent with the values of human rights, dignity, and tolerance, and do not induce violence. State submitted six reports since 2018, three of which were submitted after the statutory deadline. This includes the 2019 report, which was submitted 92 days late. State also did not always address all the reporting requirements that Congress established. For example, in its 2022 report, State did not report on steps that UNRWA took to ensure that its educational materials did not induce incitement. Finally, although State developed standard operating procedures for ensuring report accuracy in response to a 2019 GAO recommendation, it did not always follow these procedures. Given the U.S. no longer funds UNRWA and State is no longer required to report to Congress on UNRWA, GAO is not making recommendations for improving State’s reporting. Why GAO Did This Study In the West Bank and Gaza, UNRWA schools use textbooks developed by the Palestinian Authority to educate students and prepare them for post-secondary education. However, UNRWA has identified problematic content in these textbooks, such as material that is counter to UN values of neutrality, nonviolence and nondiscrimination. The October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel heightened concerns about UNRWA, including Israeli allegations that the textbooks radicalized youth and that UNRWA employees had connections to Hamas and other terrorist organizations. The U.S. is historically the largest source of funds to UNRWA, but additional funding was paused in January 2024 and subsequently all funding ended. In June 2019, GAO reported that State had taken actions to address potentially problematic content in UNRWA educational materials but that its reporting to Congress omitted required information and contained inaccurate information. GAO was asked to update these findings. This report addresses (1) U.S. funding for educational assistance in the West Bank and Gaza for calendar years 2018 through 2024, (2) the extent to which UNRWA and State identified and addressed potentially problematic educational materials, and (3) the extent to which State submitted required related reports, and how it developed the reports and ensured their accuracy. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed State and UNRWA financial data, reviewed relevant documents, analyzed State’s annual reports to Congress, and interviewed U.S. government officials. GAO also conducted fieldwork in Israel, the West Bank, and Jordan to visit an UNRWA school and interview Israeli, Palestinian Authority, and UNRWA officials, among others. For more information, contact Latesha Love-Grayer at LoveGrayerL@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Some communities facing water scarcity are turning to water recycling as a strategy to replenish and conserve their existing water sources. Water recycling (reuse) involves treating wastewater or other unusable water so that it can be used by the public. In addition to replenishing and conserving existing water sources, water recycling can reduce the need to import water from other regions and improve resilience to droughts and other disasters, such as wildfires. In 2021 the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Large-Scale Water Recycling Program. This program awards grants to fund up to 25 percent of a project with an estimated total cost of at least $500 million. In 2024 Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation selected five projects to receive grants totaling about $308 million of the $450 million appropriated for the program. The selected projects will serve rural, suburban, and urban communities in Southern California and Utah. Project documents describe multiple potential benefits to their communities once the projects are completed, including reduced strain on the Colorado River by millions of gallons per day, assistance in providing water to millions of customers, and the creation of at least an estimated 24,000 jobs. Projects the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation Selected for the Large-Scale Water Recycling Program in 2024 Project (State) Grantee Estimated production of recycled water (in millions of gallons per day) Agency-selected grantsa (in millions) Chino Basin Resiliency Project (California)b Inland Empire Utilities Agency 13.4 $10.9 Los Angeles Groundwater Replenishment Project (California) Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 18.4 60.0 Pure Water Southern California Program Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 115.0 125.5 VenturaWaterPure Program (California) City of San Buenaventura 3.2 90.5 Washington County Regional Reuse System (Utah) Washington County Water Conservancy District 4.5 21.2 Total   154.5 $308.0 Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Reclamation and grantee information. | GAO-26-107888 aReclamation obligates (or awards) funding when a financial assistance agreement is executed; funding disbursed to the project grantee is considered expended. GAO refers to the amounts that Reclamation assigns to projects before the funds are obligated as “agency-selected grants.” bThe full name of this project is Advanced Treatment of Recycled Water to Enhance Chino Basin Resiliency Project. Sites in California and Utah for Large-Scale Water Recycling Projects As of December 2025, Reclamation had obligated $236.5 million for three of the projects. Reclamation officials said the agency would obligate the remaining $71.5 million for the other projects after Interior approves the execution of the grant agreements. Officials said, as of December 2025, Interior was continuing to review the other grants. Also, Reclamation has not yet selected projects for the remaining $142 million because of a department-level review of the grants and program. Reclamation's grant selection process and the selected projects aligned with the relevant IIJA criteria for the Large-Scale Water Recycling Program. Reclamation officials identified some challenges implementing the program as described below: The IIJA does not include project feasibility study costs as an eligible use of funds. All five grantees told GAO that they needed to develop or update these studies to apply for project funding. Reclamation addressed this challenge by developing a separate funding opportunity to fund the feasibility studies. The IIJA does not address how a law requiring Interior to fund all approved projects for insular areas (e.g., Guam) affects grant funding. Reclamation decided to exclude projects from insular areas from the selection process to ensure that grants from other areas could be considered. Reclamation’s efforts to identify challenging external factors and to implement strategies to address these challenges are consistent with key practices for evidence-based policymaking, such as assessing the environment. Reclamation officials said these strategies could help the agency distribute the funding sooner and manage the federal government’s investment. By reporting its experience with the program, Reclamation could provide decision-makers such as Congress with information that can be used to improve how the Large-Scale Water Recycling Program or future water recycling programs are implemented. Why GAO Did This Study Population growth and drought are among the factors that place increasing demands on the U.S. water supply. In 2021 the IIJA directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Large-Scale Water Recycling Program. The IIJA includes a provision for GAO to submit a report to Congress about the grant selection process for the program. This report examines the extent to which Reclamation’s grant selection process and selection criteria aligned with relevant IIJA criteria, and examines the projects selected and the challenges Reclamation and grantees experienced with the program’s implementation. GAO compared program and project documentation, including Interior’s guidance, with IIJA criteria and federal grant regulations. GAO also assessed Reclamation efforts against key practices for evidence-based policymaking. GAO developed these practices based on federal laws and guidance and past GAO work. In addition, GAO conducted site visits with each project grantee in California and Utah. GAO also interviewed Reclamation officials about the application and selection processes, stakeholders about the intended benefits of the projects, and both officials and grantees about any implementation challenges.

What GAO Found Since 2020, the Department of Defense’s (DOD) telework and remote work policies have changed to reflect federal guidance on the use of these flexibilities by federal employees. In January 2025, DOD directed the return to in-person work for all employees in compliance with a presidential memorandum requiring all executive branch employees to work in-person on a full-time basis, with limited exceptions. According to officials, as of July 2025, about 8 percent (62,000 of 780,000) of DOD employees had not returned to in-person work, with 6 percent (45,000) of those due to deferred resignation status or other exemptions and another 2 percent (17,000) due to reasonable accommodations. DOD data for pay periods ending in calendar year 2024 shows that most work was conducted in person. Percentage of DOD Civilian Employee Hours by Work Type in Calendar Year 2024 GAO reviewed data for 13 selected dates from December 2021 through February 2025 and found that, although between 65 and 68 percent of DOD civilian employee positions were eligible for telework or remote work, data on actual employee eligibility were incomplete. Therefore, data on the number of teleworkers and remote workers DOD previously reported are likely inaccurate. For example, in May 2024, DOD publicly reported it had 61,549 remote employees. One month later in June 2024, DOD told GAO that it had 35,558 remote employees. The Office of Personnel Management and DOD policy require the collection of data about position and employee eligibility for telework and remote work, but DOD officials told GAO there is no formal process in place to ensure eligibility data are accurate, timely, or complete. Without formal processes for collecting data on employee eligibility, DOD lacks visibility into the use of these flexibilities and may not be able to ensure compliance with DOD policy to collect accurate and reliable data on use of these flexibilities. DOD has not formally evaluated the effects of telework and remote work programs in relation to its agency goals, but officials reported perceived benefits and challenges. For example, officials told GAO their use of these flexibilities maintained or improved mission productivity and efficiency and supported employee recruitment and retention. Conversely, officials said that telework reduced opportunities for collaboration and information sharing and decreased morale and retention of employees ineligible for telework or remote work. Without clear and specific requirements for the formal evaluation of telework and remote work programs, DOD cannot determine if these programs help meet agency goals, including those related to recruitment and retention. Why GAO Did This Study DOD’s use of telework and remote work flexibilities has evolved since the department first issued its policy over a decade ago, with peak usage during the COVID-19 pandemic. In January 2025, the President issued a memorandum directing all agencies to require employees to return to in-person work on a full-time basis, essentially ending widespread use of these flexibilities at DOD, with limited exceptions as approved by the Secretary of Defense. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, includes a provision for GAO to review the status of DOD’s telework and remote work programs. This report (1) describes DOD policies since 2020; and assesses the extent to which DOD (2) collected data on civilian employee telework and remote work eligibility from December 2021 through February 2025 and used these programs in 2024, and (3) has evaluated the effects of using telework and remote work in meeting agency goals. GAO reviewed federal and DOD telework and remote work policies; analyzed data on DOD employee telework and remote work eligibility and use; and interviewed officials from DOD and from 19 DOD components.

What GAO Found Since 2015, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued nine rules (regulations) that establish a framework for preventing foodborne illness under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) enacted in 2011. Separately, FDA has completed most but not all requirements that GAO identified in the law. The nine rules are significant because they help clarify the specific actions that industry must take at different points in the global supply chain to prevent contamination of human and animal food. For example, one rule sets standards for businesses that grow, harvest, pack, or hold fruits and vegetables. Another rule addresses hazards that could cause illness, death, or economic disruption of the U.S. food supply. In addition to issuing the rules, FDA has completed 41 of 46 requirements GAO identified in FSMA. For example, FDA has issued guides that are intended to describe in plain language what businesses need to do to comply with rules, and conducted various studies FSMA required. The requirements FDA has not completed are to issue guidance on hazard analysis and preventive controls for human food; issue guidance to protect against the intentional adulteration, or tampering, of food; report on the progress of implementing a national food emergency response laboratory network; publish updated good agricultural practices for fruits and vegetables; and establish a system to improve FDA’s capacity to track and trace food that is in the U.S. FDA officials cited competing priorities and an October 2024 agency reorganization as reasons for not fully completing these requirements. In March 2025, FDA officials told GAO they intend to establish the system FSMA requires to help track and trace food by July 2028. However, they did not provide specific time frames for completing the other requirements. Doing so, and then taking action to complete them, would help ensure that industry and others have the information they need to effectively implement FSMA’s preventive framework. FDA’s efforts to assess how the nine rules are helping to prevent foodborne illness have largely focused on monitoring industry compliance with three rules. This includes overseeing hazards that could affect food safety. However, FDA has not developed a performance management process to guide the agency’s efforts to assess the results of the nine rules. Key practices for federal performance management emphasize the need for agencies to define what they are trying to achieve, collect relevant information, and use that information to assess how well they are performing and identify how they could improve. FDA officials said the agency prioritized implementing the rules over assessing the results. But developing a performance management process would better position FDA to assess the results of the rules, with the ultimate goal of helping prevent foodborne illness. Why GAO Did This Study Each year, foodborne illnesses sicken millions of Americans and cause thousands of deaths. In 2011, Congress enacted FSMA, which shifted the focus of FDA’s food safety program from reacting to, to preventing those illnesses. FDA helps ensure the safety of 80 percent of the U.S. food supply, including fruits and vegetables, processed foods, dairy products, and most seafood. GAO was asked to review FDA’s efforts to implement FSMA’s preventive framework. This report examines the extent to which FDA has (1) issued rules and completed requirements included in selected sections of FSMA and (2) assessed how the rules are contributing to preventing foodborne illness. GAO focused on sections of FSMA that provide a foundation for creating a modern, risk-based framework for food safety. GAO compared FDA’s efforts with requirements in FSMA and key practices for federal performance management, which GAO developed based on federal laws, guidance, and past GAO work. GAO also interviewed agency officials and 17 selected stakeholders, representing industry associations, consumer advocacy groups, and state and local regulators.

What GAO Found GAO identified nine requirements and leading practices to oversee and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in awards, including grants, contracts, and loans. As shown in the table, the Federal Communications Commission’s Universal Service Program for Schools and Libraries had documented procedures for all nine. GAO found that the other four selected programs—the Department of Commerce’s CHIPS for America Fund, Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (now repealed), Department of Health and Human Services’ Health Center Program, and Department of Energy’s Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs—did not always incorporate these requirements and leading practices in their documented policies and procedures. GAO Assessment of Agencies’ Design of Selected Requirements and Leading Practices for Selected Programs Selected requirements and leading practicesa Universal Service Program for Schools and Libraries CHIPS for America Fund Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fundb Health Center Program Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs 1. Dedicated entity to lead fraud management activities ● ● ● ● ● 2. Senior Management Council to assess and monitor deficiencies in internal control ● ● ○ ● ● 3. Maintain agencywide and program-specific risk profiles ● ● ● ○ ◐ 4. Assess program specific risks, including fraud ● ● ● ◐ ○ 5. Determine risk responses and document an antifraud strategy ● ● ● ◐ ○ 6. Implement specific control activities to prevent and detect fraud ● ● ● ● ● 7. Establish collaborative relationships with stakeholders and create incentives to help ensure effective implementation of the antifraud strategy ● ● ● ● ○ 8. Conduct risk-based monitoring and evaluate all components of the Fraud Risk Framework ● ● ◐ ◐ ○ 9. Evaluate audits, including recovery audits and single audits ● ○ ● ● ● ● Fully met  ◐ Partially met  ○ Not met Source: GAO. | GAO-26-107444 aGAO identified leading practices and requirements from key guidance documents that it deemed most relevant for oversight of awards. bThis program was statutorily repealed. Pub. L. No. 119-21, § 60002, 139 Stat. 72, 154 (July 4, 2025). Until agencies establish, document, and implement procedures to fully address these requirements and leading practices, the programs will continue to face increased risks of fraud, waste, and abuse. Why GAO Did This Study Proactively managing payment integrity risks is especially important for programs on which agencies expect to spend a large amount of funds. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, and CHIPS and Science Act provided the five agencies in GAO’s review about $227 billion to support their federal programs, including those administering awards of federal financial assistance such as grants. GAO was asked to review agencies’ oversight of federal awards to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. This report examines (1) what requirements and leading practices agencies can use to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of federal awards and (2) the extent to which selected programs had policies and procedures that included these to oversee federal awards to help address financial payment and fraud risks. GAO identified legal requirements and leading practices based on guidance documents for overseeing federal award programs and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse in federal awards. GAO selected five programs based on funding, among other factors, and evaluated whether agencies established policies and procedures for the five selected programs that included those requirements and leading practices.