What GAO Found GAO identified three potentially transformative technologies that are trending toward maturity and may need congressional attention over the next 10 years. These technologies are: Neural implants for human augmentation. Currently, neural implants are only available to people with certain medical needs. Future implants might enable direct brain-to-brain communication, hands-free control of computers, or the rapid acquisition of new skills and abilities. General availability of neural implants could compromise users' privacy and security, depending on who can access data from such implants. In addition, differentiating between medical and augmentative uses would involve subjective value judgments and ethical questions. Policymakers could consider a variety of options, including determining whether to propose standards for the ethical development and use of neural implants or explore ways to ensure that privacy and security concerns are addressed. General purpose robots. General purpose robotics represents a fundamental shift from task-specific automation to flexible, adaptable machines capable of performing a wide range of tasks and potentially learning new tasks. Such robots could assist with a variety of tasks, including helping maintain infrastructure and assisting with disaster response. But their use could also lead to significant social impacts, such as risks associated with giving robots a level of autonomy in hazardous environments. Policymakers could consider a variety of options, including determining whether to explore a broad range of oversight, risk assessment, or control mechanisms (such as software controls requiring human confirmation) to help mitigate these concerns. Orbital debris removal technologies. There are more than 15,000 pieces of orbital debris currently tracked, with more than a million pieces that are too small to track but can still damage satellites and other spacecraft that provide important services. Technology is in development to actively remove, relocate, or repurpose large, non-tumbling debris. This could reduce the risk of a catastrophic cascade of collisions, but would not eliminate it because small or tumbling debris constitute the vast majority of dangerous debris. Additionally, further development and use of novel technologies may be hampered by possible legal difficulties posed by the Outer Space Treaty. Policymakers could consider a variety of options, including supporting targeted research to fill technological gaps or initiating legal analyses to develop solutions to legal difficulties. GAO is not making recommendations but has identified several policy considerations for the Congress and others to weigh as these technologies continue developing. Why GAO Did This Study Science and technology are constantly evolving, and there is a need for analysis of emerging trends of the future to help prepare for disruptions that may have major impacts in the lives of Americans. To address this need, GAO developed this report focused on technologies approximately 10 years on the horizon. The goal is to provide foresight into developing technologies that could have significant impacts on Americans. GAO described developments in these technologies and how they may be affected by various elements which may be useful for policymakers, such as legislative bodies, government agencies, or other groups, to consider. These elements include the five domains in the STEER framework: social impacts, technology drivers, environmental impacts, economic drivers, and the regulatory landscape. To conduct this work, GAO relied on a review of scientific literature from academic journals and position papers and held semi-structured interviews with eleven experts across the three technologies. GAO relied on the judgment of its engineers and scientists and consideration of the collected information to describe key aspects of the technological trends, including identifying technological developments, market conditions, or economies of scale that could further accelerate the maturity of these new technologies, and considerations for policymakers.

What GAO Found The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provides grant awards to organizations that support its mission to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans. This includes funding to engage in reproductive health-related activities, such as pregnancy testing and education that crisis pregnancy centers (CPC) offer. CPCs, also called pregnancy help organizations or pregnancy resource centers, are generally nonprofit, faith-based organizations that provide certain reproductive health-related services, encourage parenting and adoption, and do not perform or refer clients for abortion services. GAO found there is no standard definition of a CPC, and differing perspectives exist regarding their characteristics and total number. For example, in 2025, stakeholder estimates in the U.S. ranged from about 2,400 to 2,800 CPCs. Stakeholders reported the majority of CPC funding comes from private sources—such as individuals and nongovernmental organizations. The total amount of federal funds obligated to CPCs is unknown because CPCs are not easily identified in USAspending.gov—the official government-wide source of public data on U.S. spending— compared to some other organizations, such as hospitals. For those CPCs GAO was able to identify, GAO found that HHS directly obligated at least $34 million in federal funds across 16 CPCs to provide reproductive health-related services, from fiscal years 2018 through 2024. However, this analysis likely underestimates total obligations to all CPCs due to challenges identifying these organizations. Why GAO Did This Study GAO was asked to review the amount of federal funding that CPCs have received. This report describes what available data show about CPCs and the amount of federal funds obligated to CPCs in the U.S. and its territories from fiscal years 2018 through 2024 for reproductive health-related grants. In general, an obligation is a commitment made by a federal agency that creates a legal liability to make payment. GAO reviewed HHS grant documentation and analyzed data on HHS grant obligations for fiscal years 2018 through 2024. GAO also interviewed HHS officials and representatives from a nongeneralizable selection of stakeholders with a range of perspectives, such as CPCs and researchers. For more information, contact Mary Denigan-Macauley at DeniganMacauleyM@gao.gov.

What GAO Found  GAO performed agreed-upon procedures solely to assist the Secretary of the Senate in ascertaining whether information from the Senate Gift Shop and the Senate Disbursing Office supported the Senate Gift Shop Revolving Fund’s (Fund) fiscal year 2024 receipts and disbursements. The procedures that GAO agreed to perform were related to the Senate Gift Shop’s processes over (1) daily receipts, weekly deposits, and monthly reconciliations for the Fund’s receipts and (2) purchasing, invoice payment, and monthly reconciliations for the Fund’s disbursements. 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 details on the agreed-upon procedures and the results of performing each of the procedures. 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 and disbursements. The Senate Gift Shop is under the authority of the Secretary of the Senate and is responsible for offering members, staff, and the general public the opportunity to purchase Senate memorabilia and gifts. Sales receipts are deposited into the Fund at the Senate Disbursing Office and then used to purchase inventory items for resale, supplies, and other services. For more information, contact: Cheryl E. Clark at clarkce@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Retirement plan sponsors, typically a person’s employer, share participant information, including personally identifiable information (PII), with service providers, such as asset managers and record keepers, who help administer the plan. However, these providers may also use PII and other information to market financial products and services or, in some cases, sell this information, according to GAO’s review of 31 service provider privacy disclosures (see figure). As more entities gain access to participant data, the chance that their information may be inadvertently exposed increases, putting participants at greater risk of identity theft or other fraudulent activity. Service providers that GAO interviewed noted, however, that greater use and sharing of participant information helped them to more effectively target products and services that might benefit participants. 31 Retirement Plan Service Provider Policies on Sharing or Selling Participant Data Selected service provider privacy disclosures that GAO reviewed did not consistently incorporate leading privacy practices. Fair Information Practice Principles emphasize key data privacy protection principles, such as transparency in data practices and restrictions to prevent unauthorized uses of personal information. All 31 disclosures described their policies for the collection and use of personal information, in alignment with the principle related to transparency. However, many of the disclosures did not fully align with other principles. For instance, most disclosures (19 of 31) did not indicate that additional consent would be sought before sharing or otherwise using personal information beyond originally specified purposes, contrary to the principle related to use limitation. Federal agencies and states have taken some steps to protect consumer data privacy, but the Department of Labor (DOL) has not taken actions against retirement plans for sharing participant data. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) does not address data privacy explicitly, but DOL officials said that the agency believes that ERISA’s duties of prudence and loyalty should sufficiently deter plan sponsors and service providers from unauthorized uses of participant data. In addition, DOL issued cybersecurity guidance in April 2021 that discussed data privacy as a component of cybersecurity. However, DOL’s guidance does not include detailed information about good practices for sharing data about plan participants. Additional guidance would better position plan sponsors and service providers to understand acceptable uses of participant data and the circumstances in which they should obtain permission to use or disclose information about participants, particularly given potentially differing state requirements. Why GAO Did This Study About 126 million Americans participated in defined contribution retirement plans, with assets totaling over $9 trillion, as of 2023 (most recent data). As the number of participants and the volume of assets grow, so too does the importance of ensuring responsible handling of participants’ data. However, participants have filed several lawsuits alleging that service providers used their data for targeted marketing. GAO was asked to review retirement plan data privacy. This report examines (1) how selected retirement plans use and share participant data, (2) how selected service provider policies incorporate leading privacy practices, and (3) how federal agencies and selected states protect consumer data privacy as it applies to retirement plans. GAO assessed publicly available privacy disclosures from a nongeneralizable sample of 31 service providers selected based on size, among other factors. GAO identified the extent to which selected disclosures allowed participant data to be shared or sold for targeted marketing and compared the disclosures to recognized data privacy guidance. GAO also reviewed privacy disclosures from six selected plan sponsors. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations and interviewed officials from DOL and other federal agencies, among others. GAO also assessed state privacy laws and obtained information from officials in three selected states on the laws’ applicability to retirement plans.

What GAO Found The Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Veterans Affairs (VA) jointly operate the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program. Veterans experiencing homelessness receive HUD housing vouchers and VA case management delivered through local VA medical centers. VA has faced challenges hiring and retaining enough case managers. In fiscal year 2024, more than one-quarter of medical centers with two or more case managers had at least 20 percent of these positions unfilled (see figure). Factors contributing to vacancies included staff burnout and turnover. GAO analysis of VA data shows that annual case manager turnover ranged from 20 percent to 26 percent in fiscal years 2020–2024. Stakeholders at all eight sites GAO visited described periods of high turnover and persistent vacancies. The effects of insufficient staffing include reduced services for veterans and delays in admitting new participants. HUD-VASH Case Manager Staffing Levels in Fiscal Year 2024, by VA Medical Center Each dot represents a VA medical center’s staffing level for the Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program. VA has taken steps to improve case manager hiring but has not consistently collected data on reasons that prevented veterans from entering HUD-VASH. Of 174,045 instances of veterans not being referred to the program in 2020–2024, VA did not document the reason in 151,296 (87 percent), according to GAO’s analysis. With more complete data on the reasons, VA could better assess its unmet need, adjust hiring strategies, and allocate case managers accordingly. VA then would be better positioned to serve more veterans. HUD launched the Tribal HUD-VASH pilot program in fiscal year 2016 to test a new approach to serving American Indian/Alaska Native veterans and had served over 1,100 veterans as of April 2025, according to HUD. HUD’s program design aligns to some extent with leading practices GAO identified in prior work. For example, HUD communicated with stakeholders at all stages of the program. But HUD has not clearly defined the program’s objectives or how it will measure progress toward them. HUD also has not implemented an evaluation plan. By fully incorporating leading practices, HUD could help ensure it has the information needed to make informed decisions about the program. Why GAO Did This Study HUD estimated that 32,882 veterans experienced homelessness on a single night in January 2024. Some policymakers note that this population faces significant barriers, including high housing costs. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 includes a provision for GAO to review VA case management and the availability of affordable housing for veterans experiencing homelessness. This report examines, among other things, challenges reported by VA staff and stakeholders related to (1) hiring and retaining case managers for HUD-VASH, and (2) implementing Tribal HUD-VASH. GAO analyzed data on HUD-VASH case managers for fiscal years 2020–2024; reviewed VA and HUD policies and guidance; and reviewed HUD documentation on the Tribal HUD-VASH program. GAO interviewed officials from VA and HUD and housing and service providers at eight sites GAO visited (selected for geographic diversity and prevalence of veteran homelessness).

What GAO Found In recent years, while homeowners insurance premiums increased slightly nationwide, premiums grew more rapidly in certain areas of the country. Premiums as a percentage of 2023 median household income were highest in Florida, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. The average U.S. homeowners insurance premium rose 3 percent in 2019–2024, after adjusting for inflation. But rates in parts of certain states, particularly southern coastal areas at high risk of wind damage, increased 25 percent or more. Estimated Total Change in Homeowners Insurance Premiums After Inflation, 2019–2024 The risk of different types of natural disasters can affect premiums to varying degrees. For example, GAO found that homes in areas with a high risk of wind damage had premiums about 58 percent higher than similar homes in areas with a medium level of wind risk. Moving from a medium to high level of wildfire risk was associated with an 8 percent increase in premiums. Increased risk of natural disasters also can reduce the availability of homeowners insurance. Insurance is state-regulated. The time state regulators take to review requests to raise premiums varies, reflecting differences in regulations and regulator priorities. In 2020–2024, the longest median approval times were in Colorado (331 days) and California (305 days). Some homeowners in states in which regulators take longer to approve premium changes tend to have more difficulty obtaining insurance than in other states. Some states have undertaken efforts to improve the availability and affordability of homeowners insurance, and legislation was introduced in Congress to support these efforts. GAO identified federal policy options that could improve the availability or affordability of the insurance. Stakeholders GAO surveyed expressed the strongest support for options that encourage mitigation, such as tax deductions or credits for building or upgrading homes to better withstand natural disasters. Stakeholders expressed mixed views on direct federal insurance or reinsurance programs and had concerns about federal costs and private market effects. Why GAO Did This Study Homeowners insurance plays a critical role in helping Americans recover from natural disasters, such as hurricanes and wildfires. But insurers have experienced rising losses from such disasters and homeowners in some areas experienced reduced affordability and availability of insurance. That is, insurance prices were greater than some homeowners could afford, and some were not able to obtain insurance. GAO was asked to review issues related to homeowners insurance. This report examines trends in insurance availability and affordability, how insurance is priced and regulated, and views on federal policy options to increase availability and affordability. GAO analyzed 2019–2024 data on private homeowners insurance and 2014–2023 information on insurers of last resort. GAO reviewed reports from government agencies, insurance industry groups, and consumer advocacy organizations. GAO interviewed representatives of the Federal Insurance Office, four insurance industry groups, three consumer advocacy organizations, and four state insurance regulators. GAO also sent a structured questionnaire on proposed policy options to 15 organizations, selected to obtain a range of views. GAO received responses from four industry associations, three consumer organizations, and three state regulators, for a 67 percent response rate. GAO also visited four states to speak with regulators and other stakeholders. For more information, contact Alicia Puente Cackley at CackleyA@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Innovation Center) was established within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to test new approaches to health care delivery and payment—known as models—for use in Medicare or Medicaid. From 2011 through 2024, the Innovation Center obligated $11.4 billion for its activities. These included the testing of 70 models—24 of which were actively being tested as of January 2025. Total annual obligations peaked at $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2015 and have since decreased by nearly 40 percent to $789 million in fiscal year 2024. According to officials, these trends reflect the number of models the Innovation Center tests, among other factors. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Innovation Center) General Process for Model Development and Testing Of 70 models tested, the Innovation Center has expanded four models to be implemented nationwide. These four models achieved net savings during the testing period. In addition to expanding certain models, the Innovation Center has also incorporated elements into Medicare and tested successor models that iterate upon previous concepts. The Innovation Center uses selected performance management practices to regularly assess the performance of its efforts to test new health care delivery and payment approaches. For example, in May 2025, the Innovation Center established new long-term goals to outline the agency’s vision for its activities. It also developed corresponding near-term goals, including performance measures with targets and time frames. The Innovation Center uses this information to evaluate its progress toward its long-term goals, according to officials, and plans to regularly assess the outcomes of its activities against these near-term goals. Why GAO Did This Study In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act established the Innovation Center to test new health care delivery and payment approaches to reduce federal health spending. In 2012 and 2018, GAO reported on the Innovation Center’s progress in testing models, use of resources, and its assessment of its overall performance. GAO was asked to update its earlier work. In this report, GAO (1) describes the Innovation Center’s obligations from 2011 through 2024 and how it obligated the funds to develop and test models; (2) describes the outcomes of model testing; and (3) examines the extent to which the Innovation Center follows selected practices of performance management to assess its performance. GAO reviewed obligations data from fiscal years 2011 through 2024, reviewed model documentation and performance information, and compared efforts against selected performance management practices. GAO interviewed officials from the Innovation Center and CMS’s Office of the Actuary. For more information, contact Leslie V. Gordon at GordonLV@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Minority Business Development Agency’s (MBDA) mission is to promote the growth and competitiveness of minority business enterprises. These enterprises are statutorily defined as being at least 51 percent owned, operated, and controlled by one or more socially or economically disadvantaged individuals. MBDA supports these enterprises through a network of business centers designed to expand their access to capital, contract opportunities, and markets. In 2024, there were 39 active business centers. MBDA’s responsibilities include assessing business centers’ performance against annual program goals and monitoring their compliance with statutory and program requirements. GAO’s review of performance information for a sample of seven centers found that most reported exceeding annual goals in 2024. MBDA monitoring includes reviews of centers’ performance and financial reports and site visits by MBDA staff. In 2023, MBDA initiated performance improvement plans for five of the 39 centers for issues such as submitting incomplete reports. MBDA’s Key Activities for Monitoring and Enforcing Compliance at Business Centers Following executive orders issued in February and March 2025, MBDA and business centers lost access to the agency’s performance data platform, nearly all MBDA staff were placed on administrative leave, and cooperative agreements with business centers were terminated. In May 2025, staff reductions and some agreement terminations were rescinded by a preliminary injunction order issued by a federal district court. According to MBDA officials, the agency retained its performance data. In November 2025, the same court issued an order vacating agency actions under the March executive order and a permanent injunction prohibiting the federal government from implementing the executive order. However, in January 2026 the defendants, including MBDA, appealed the November 2025 decision. The appeal was pending as of February 27, 2026. Why GAO Did This Study The Minority Business Development Act of 2021 includes a provision for GAO to review MBDA’s programs, including business center compliance with program requirements. This report describes MBDA programs, its assessment and oversight of business centers, and the effects of executive orders issued in early 2025. GAO analyzed agency documents, notices of funding opportunity, and performance reports; reviewed laws, executive orders, and research literature; and interviewed MBDA officials, business center operators, and advocacy organizations. GAO also reviewed 2024 performance data for a nongeneralizable sample of seven business centers (selected in part for geographic diversity) and analyzed compliance and enforcement activity in 2021–2024. For more information, contact Courtney LaFountain at LaFountainC@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Teacher professional development is generally associated with higher student test scores, according to meta-analyses GAO reviewed. However, research is mixed about which specific elements of teacher professional development contribute to these higher scores. For example, one of the three meta-analyses that reviewed coaching—one specific element of teacher professional development—found a generally positive association between coaching and student test scores, while the other two meta-analyses found no association. Most teachers (67 percent) said collaborative learning opportunities with other teachers improved their teaching or their students’ learning, according to a nationally representative RAND survey of K-12 public school teachers from school year 2022–23. Similarly, teachers who responded to GAO’s nongeneralizable questionnaire said collaborative professional development was useful for their classroom teaching. For example, respondents said professional learning communities helped them share resources, exchange ideas, or reflect on teaching practices or issues in the classroom. Title II, Part A (Title II-A)—a formula grant program in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)—provides federal funds to states and school districts for activities such as teacher professional development. State and local officials from the three states and nine school districts GAO spoke with said that Title II-A’s flexibility and straightforward requirements helped them meet their communities’ educational needs. For example, New Mexico officials described using Title II-A funds to train school district officials on mentoring and recruitment, build a statewide cadre of mentors, and train teachers for leadership and administrative positions. In addition, officials from six of nine school districts reported that requirements applicable to Title II-A—which include that professional development be “data-driven” and “sustained (i.e., not stand-alone, one-day, or short-term workshops),” among others—helped to ensure that professional development is high quality or effective (see figure). Selected Requirements for Professional Development Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended Why GAO Did This Study Congress appropriated about $2.2 billion in Title II-A grants each year from fiscal years 2022 through 2024, making it the second largest formula grant program in the ESEA. GAO was asked to review whether Title II-A funds were being used in a manner likely to raise student achievement. This report describes (1) the elements of professional development that research finds to be effective, (2) the elements of professional development that teachers find most useful, and (3) the experiences of selected states and school districts using Title II-A to support effective instruction. GAO reviewed five meta-analyses that measured the effectiveness of teacher professional development and five U.S. Department of Education studies of randomized controlled trials of teacher professional development programs. In addition, GAO analyzed RAND’s nationally representative American Instructional Resources Survey reports from school years 2022–23 and 2023–24 and developed and disseminated a questionnaire to teachers understand the professional development elements they find useful. GAO also interviewed officials from the New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee state educational agencies and nine school districts to understand how these states and districts used Title II-A funds to improve instruction. GAO selected these states and school districts based on characteristics such as the level of state Title II-A funds received, geographic distribution, and urbanicity. For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at nowickij@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Section 961 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act directs the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to annually assess and report on (1) internal supervisory controls to oversee the work SEC staff perform and (2) procedures staff must follow in performing examinations, investigations, and securities filing reviews. Effective supervisory controls and staff procedures help ensure that SEC’s Divisions of Corporation Finance, Enforcement, and Examinations, and Office of Credit Ratings conduct their work with competence and integrity. GAO determined that SEC’s framework for assessing the effectiveness of internal supervisory controls aligned with federal internal control standards. GAO also found that in fiscal year 2024, SEC’s three divisions and one office implemented processes generally consistent with this framework. However, GAO identified needed improvements: The Division of Enforcement did not always apply specific, measurable testing standards to evaluate whether controls were operating effectively. Using such standards would reduce the need for evaluators to use professional judgment to interpret ambiguous evidence, enabling them to draw clearer and more objective conclusions. The Division of Corporation Finance did not have documented controls for supervisors to verify how staff conducted filing reviews. Instead, supervisors used undocumented oversight protocols. Establishing and using documented supervisory controls is important for ensuring consistent application of guidance and improving the quality of information available to investors. GAO found that the divisions’ and office’s assessments of staff procedures generally were consistent with applicable SEC guidance. However, the Division of Enforcement and the Office of Credit Ratings did not document several assessment steps in their plans, as SEC guidance recommends. Doing so would help communicate responsibility for the assessment and retain organizational knowledge. SEC’s section 961 Working Group—a staff-level coordination group for section 961 compliance—updated its guidance to encourage the divisions and office to adopt a framework for monitoring and revising staff procedures and to evaluate that framework. Adopting and evaluating such frameworks would help the divisions and office better identify and revise ineffective staff procedures. As encouraged by the 961 Working Group, the Division of Examinations performed an evaluation for the fiscal year 2024 assessment, but the other divisions and office did not. As a result, they missed opportunities to help ensure that SEC carries out its examinations, investigations, and filing reviews consistently. Why GAO Did This Study Section 961 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act contains a provision for GAO to report on SEC's internal supervisory control structure and staff procedures at least every 3 years. Among its objectives, this report examines the extent to which SEC in fiscal year 2024 (1) assessed the design and operating effectiveness of its internal supervisory controls, and (2) assessed the effectiveness of its staff procedures. GAO analyzed SEC’s policies and guidance for conducting section 961 assessments and developing and monitoring staff procedures, reviewed records supporting the fiscal year 2024 assessment processes, and interviewed SEC officials.

What GAO Found Since January 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has implemented significant personnel management changes in response to executive orders and other direction from the administration. Key changes include offering voluntary departure incentives, requiring employees to work in the office full time, and removing references to diversity, equity, and inclusion from SEC policies and procedures. About 18 percent of employees left SEC during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025. Most employees who departed took a voluntary departure incentive, and according to SEC, it did not conduct any involuntary terminations in response to executive actions in 2025. SEC also paused its leadership development program in 2025, in part due to uncertainty about the availability and timing of future advancement opportunities. SEC Employee Departures, Fiscal Year 2025 SEC’s 2024 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey results were positive overall and showed improvement in prior challenge areas, such as performance management and communication across divisions and offices. GAO interviews with SEC employees in May and June 2025 highlighted positive practices in these areas, such as supervisors’ use of formal and informal feedback to recognize performance. However, employees GAO spoke with raised concerns about the effect of workforce reductions (48 of 61 employees) and the cancellation of routine telework (43 of 61 employees). For example, 33 of the 61 said that departing employees had either unique knowledge or specific subject-matter expertise, resulting in a loss of institutional knowledge. A few employees (8 of 61) stated that as of the time of the interviews, they believed SEC had not yet experienced the full effects of these departures. SEC has made efforts to manage and assess the effects of its 2025 workforce changes. For example, it has taken steps to manage the effects of staff departures, including holding meetings with division and major office heads to identify skill and resource gaps and adjusting the targeted ratio of employees per senior officer. In December 2025, SEC also submitted a staffing plan that identified positions for potential hiring for each division and office. As SEC continues to address the effects of recent workforce changes, GAO will monitor its efforts through its triennial reports. Why GAO Did This Study SEC relies on a highly skilled workforce to carry out its mission as the primary regulator of the U.S. securities markets. That mission is to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act contains a provision for GAO to report triennially on the quality of SEC’s personnel management. GAO’s previous four reports (GAO-13-621, GAO-17-65, GAO-20-208, and GAO-23-105459) identified several challenges and included 11 recommendations, all of which SEC has addressed. This report addresses (1) key personnel management changes SEC has implemented since GAO’s 2022 report, (2) employees’ views on SEC’s personnel management, and (3) steps SEC has taken to manage and assess the effects of recent personnel management changes on its mission. GAO reviewed SEC documents and workforce data and interviewed SEC officials. GAO also analyzed SEC employee responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey from 2022 through 2024 (the latest available) and interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 61 SEC employees in nine mission-critical divisions and offices. For more information, contact Michael E. Clements at clementsm@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) launched its Cyber Workforce Dashboard in 2023 as a government-wide application for managing the cybersecurity workforce. The intended purpose of the Dashboard was to provide a comprehensive government-wide view of federal cyber workforce data and to allow agencies to benchmark their workforce data against other agencies. However, five of six selected agencies and OPM, the administrator of the Dashboard, reported they were not using the Dashboard. The General Services Administration was the one agency using it, primarily for workforce planning. All six selected agencies reported limitations with the Dashboard, including communications with OPM, access, functionality, and use of data. OPM reported many of the same types of limitations in managing the effort. Number of Office of Personnel Management’s Cyber Workforce Dashboard Limitations Experienced by the Six Selected Agencies Given the lack of use, the Dashboard is not meeting its intended purpose for the six selected agencies. Further, OPM does not know the extent of non-use by the almost 20 other federal agencies that have access to the Dashboard. Additionally, OPM has not solicited feedback on it. Regarding costs, according to OPM officials, the funds spent on the Dashboard effort since its inception were minimal and therefore not covered by a separate budget line item. Officials added that they did not have an estimate of exact costs or future planned costs. Without information on the extent of use among the more than 20 federal agencies, OPM is limited in knowing whether it should continue or terminate the effort. Expeditiously collecting and analyzing such information, soliciting feedback from agencies, and determining costs are essential to determining the future of the Dashboard. Why GAO Did This Study The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of the National Cyber Director (ONCD), and prior GAO reports have stated that the federal government faces a persistent shortage of cyber and IT professionals. Building and maintaining a talented cyber workforce is one of the federal government’s most important challenges. The Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 includes a provision for GAO to periodically evaluate federal agencies’ information security policies and practices. This includes evaluating agencies’ cybersecurity workforce management policies and applications, such as the Dashboard. This report (1) describes the Dashboard, (2) describes how selected federal agencies are using the Dashboard to support their workforce planning efforts, and (3) determines the extent to which the Dashboard is meeting its intended purpose. GAO randomly selected six agencies, divided into three tiers based on their reported fiscal year 2025 IT spending. GAO interviewed relevant OPM and agency officials and reviewed Dashboard documentation and usage metrics that OPM initially gathered after the Dashboard was launched. GAO also analyzed applicable guidance, best practices, and relevant Dashboard documentation.