GAO Reports
Here's a look at Government Accountability Office reports
Featured Stories
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: Review of the FY 2024 Financial Statement Audit
WASHINGTON, March 26 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: Review of the FY 2024 Financial Statement Audit
Fast Facts
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is a federally funded, nonprofit corporation. It was established to fund and evaluate research aimed at helping patients, doctors, and policymakers make better health care decisions.
This institute is required to have its financial statements audited annually, and we're required to review those audits. The institute's auditor issued
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 26 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: Review of the FY 2024 Financial Statement Audit
Fast Facts
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is a federally funded, nonprofit corporation. It was established to fund and evaluate research aimed at helping patients, doctors, and policymakers make better health care decisions.
This institute is required to have its financial statements audited annually, and we're required to review those audits. The institute's auditor issuedan unmodified (clean) opinion on its FY 2024 financial statements, concluding that they fairly presented the institute's financial position and activities.
We reviewed certain aspects of this financial audit and found no significant issues requiring attention.
Highlights
What GAO Found
Based on the limited procedures GAO performed in reviewing the independent public accounting firm's (IPA) fiscal year 2024 audit of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's (PCORI) financial statements, GAO did not identify any significant issues that it believes require attention. Had GAO performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to its attention that it would have reported.
The IPA provided an unmodified audit opinion on PCORI's fiscal years 2024 and 2023 financial statements. Specifically, the IPA found that PCORI's financial statements were presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Further, for fiscal year 2024, the IPA did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that it considered to be material weaknesses or any reportable noncompliance with the selected provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements it tested. PCORI concurred with the IPA's conclusions.
GAO's review of PCORI's fiscal year 2024 financial statement audit, as differentiated from an audit of the financial statements, was not intended to enable GAO to express--and it does not express--an opinion on PCORI's financial statements or conclude on the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting. Furthermore, GAO does not express an opinion on PCORI's compliance with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements. The IPA is responsible for its reports on PCORI dated February 19, 2025, and the conclusions expressed therein.
GAO provided a draft of its report to PCORI and the IPA for review and comment. PCORI's Chief Financial Officer provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated in the final report. An IPA partner responded that the IPA had no comments on the draft report.
Why GAO Did This Study
This report presents the results of GAO's review of PCORI's fiscal year 2024 financial statement audit. PCORI is a federally funded, nonprofit corporation that is neither an agency nor establishment of the U.S. government. PCORI's purpose is to help patients, clinicians, policymakers, and others make informed decisions about health and health care options.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires PCORI to obtain an annual financial statement audit from a private entity with expertise in conducting financial audits. The act includes a provision for the Comptroller General of the United States to review the audit and report the results to the Congress annually. GAO's objective was to review the results of PCORI's fiscal year 2024 financial statement audit. To satisfy this objective, GAO (1) read and considered various documents relating to the IPA's independence, objectivity, and qualifications; (2) analyzed key IPA audit documentation; (3) read PCORI's fiscal years 2024 and 2023 financial statements, the IPA's audit report on the financial statements, and the IPA's report on internal control over financial reporting and compliance; and (4) met with IPA representatives and PCORI management officials.
For more information, contact Cheryl E. Clark at clarkce@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107986
Bank Capital Reforms: U.S. Agencies' Participation in the Development of the International Basel Committee Standards
WASHINGTON, March 26 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Bank Capital Reforms: U.S. Agencies' Participation in the Development of the International Basel Committee Standards
Fast Facts
U.S. and foreign banking regulators work together to develop international capital standards for large banks through the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The Committee issued final Basel III standards in 2017 and 2019.
U.S. regulators and the Committee aimed to limit variability in the way banks calculate risks under the capital standards to produce more
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 26 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Bank Capital Reforms: U.S. Agencies' Participation in the Development of the International Basel Committee Standards
Fast Facts
U.S. and foreign banking regulators work together to develop international capital standards for large banks through the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The Committee issued final Basel III standards in 2017 and 2019.
U.S. regulators and the Committee aimed to limit variability in the way banks calculate risks under the capital standards to produce morecomparable measures. U.S. regulators also aimed to better align the international standards with U.S. requirements.
U.S. regulators worked actively in the development of the standards, considered external comments, and analyzed potential impacts of proposed reforms.
Headquarters of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
Highlights
What GAO Found
Capital plays a critical role in ensuring bank safety and soundness. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, an international body of bank supervisors, sets nonbinding minimum regulatory capital standards for large banks. The committee relies on its members to implement the standards in their jurisdictions. The U.S. members of the Basel Committee are the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
Standard-development process. The Basel Committee process for developing the standards involved multiple rounds of analyses, discussion, and review. Each final standard underwent at least one round of public comments and quantitative studies assessed potential impacts on banks' regulatory capital. Decisions were made by consensus, with groups negotiating and agreeing on the scope of work, alternatives to analyze, actions to take or not take, and standards to propose and finalize. Staff from all U.S. members participated in these groups. GAO found collaboration among U.S. members throughout this process generally reflected best practices for interagency collaboration (such as leveraging information and including relevant participants).
External comments and impact analyses. U.S. members informed their positions by reviewing public comments on proposals, meeting with industry representatives, contributing to and using quantitative impact studies, and conducting their own analyses. These activities helped provide insight into the potential impacts of proposed reforms and identify alternative approaches. GAO found that the information U.S. members collected and analyses they conducted generally reflected key elements for regulatory analysis (such as consideration of alternatives and evaluation of benefits and costs).
U.S. members' negotiating priorities. U.S. members had two overarching reform priorities for the final Basel III standards. One was to better align certain regulatory standards for non-U.S. banks with their parallel U.S. requirements to promote a more level playing field. U.S. members also shared the Committee's priority to address weaknesses in the Basel framework--they sought to improve and balance the simplicity, comparability, and risk sensitivity of bank capital standards. For example, previous standards allowed banks more leeway in the way they modeled the risks of their assets (to help determine how much regulatory capital to hold to offset the risks). The Committee, including U.S. members, prioritized reforms that constrained banks' use of internal models to help increase the comparability of risk-weighted assets across banks. GAO's analysis of U.S. documents showed that U.S. members participated actively in the working groups that developed the standards to further their reform priorities.
Why GAO Did This Study
The Basel Committee released initial Basel III standards in 2010, followed by additional reforms that resulted in final Basel III standards in 2017 and 2019. These updated standards, which have not yet been implemented in the U.S., revised methods for estimating a bank's risks, which affect its regulatory capital requirements.
GAO was asked to review U.S members' actions during the final Basel III negotiations. This report examines (1) how the Basel Committee organized the work to develop the standards, (2) information and analyses U.S. members considered to inform their positions, and (3) U.S. members' priorities for reform and actions taken to further those priorities. This is the public version of a sensitive report GAO issued in December 2024. Information on U.S. members' actions during the development of the standards and their positions on reforms has been omitted.
GAO analyzed U.S. members' internal sensitive documents related to the development of the standards. These included internal briefing notes, talking points, analyses, and other documents prepared for the negotiations during 2011-2019. GAO also analyzed Basel Committee consultative documents, quantitative impact studies, other publicly released documents, and the final Basel III standards. GAO interviewed officials from the four U.S. members responsible for the final Basel III negotiations and Basel Committee Secretariat staff (who support the work of the Committee and its component groups).
For more information, contact Michael Clements at clementsm@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107995
Navy Shipbuilding: Enduring Challenges Call for Systemic Change
WASHINGTON, March 25 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Navy Shipbuilding: Enduring Challenges Call for Systemic Change
Fast Facts
We testified that the Navy hasn't increased the number of ships in its fleet over the past 20 years--despite nearly doubling its shipbuilding budget. Its acquisition practices consistently result in growing costs and delivery delays. For example, the Navy's frigate program began construction before completing ship design and expects the first ship to deliver at least 3 years late.
As adversary threats grow, the
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 25 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Navy Shipbuilding: Enduring Challenges Call for Systemic Change
Fast Facts
We testified that the Navy hasn't increased the number of ships in its fleet over the past 20 years--despite nearly doubling its shipbuilding budget. Its acquisition practices consistently result in growing costs and delivery delays. For example, the Navy's frigate program began construction before completing ship design and expects the first ship to deliver at least 3 years late.
As adversary threats grow, theNavy needs to take a new approach to increase its fleet size. To start, it could apply leading ship design practices used by commercial shipbuilders and address other recommendations we've made over the last decade.
A Rendering of an FFG 62 Constellation Class Frigate
Highlights
What GAO Found
Although maritime threats have been growing, the Navy has not increased its fleet size as planned over the past 20 years. Over this period, GAO has found that the Navy's shipbuilding acquisition practices consistently resulted in cost growth, delivery delays, and ships that do not perform as expected. For example, GAO identified schedule risks in 2024 for the Constellation class frigate program. Counter to leading ship design practices, construction for the lead ship started before the ship design work was complete, and delivery is expected to be delayed by at least 3 years.
The Navy's recent practices with the frigate program are similar to its prior performance with its Littoral Combat Ship and Zumwalt Class Destroyer programs. Both programs were hampered by weak business cases that over-promised the capability that the Navy could deliver. Together, these two ship classes consumed tens of billions of dollars more to acquire than initially budgeted and ultimately delivered far less capability and capacity to fleet users than the Navy had promised. The Navy cannot expect to look within its existing playbook to find answers. Current challenges can provide the Navy leadership with the impetus to look for solutions outside of the existing defense acquisition paradigm. Specifically, the Navy can innovate by using effective, proven ship design practices and product development approaches that are rooted in the approaches of industry-leading companies worldwide.
GAO has previously identified leading ship design practices used by commercial ship buyers and builders that the Navy can use to achieve more timely, predictable outcomes for its shipbuilding programs.
Leading Practices Supporting Timely Ship Design and Delivery
While the Navy strives to improve its shipbuilding performance, marginal changes within the existing acquisition structures are unlikely to provide the foundational shift needed to break the pervasive cycle of delivery delays and cost overruns. Leading practices offer the Navy a near-term path toward restoring credibility with the operational fleet, Congress, and the taxpayers. More importantly, over the long-term, these leading practices can help the Navy redefine its shipbuilding acquisition process, achieve its goals related to the number of ships needed to compete against potential adversaries, and reinforce the superiority of the Navy fleet.
Why GAO Did This Study
Although the Navy has seen a near doubling of its shipbuilding budget over the past 2 decades, acquisition challenges have resulted in consistent failure to increase its ship count as planned. GAO has regularly reported that the Navy's shipbuilding acquisition approach does not align with innovative practices that promote timely, predictable development and delivery of new, fully capable ships.
This statement addresses (1) challenges that Navy practices pose to achieving desired shipbuilding outcomes, and (2) leading commercial practices that could improve Navy results over both the near term and far term.
This statement is based on information from GAO-25-108136, GAO-24-106546, GAO-24-105503, and GAO-23-106222, among others. Information about the scope and methodology of prior work on which this statement is based can be found in those products.
Recommendations
GAO has made 90 recommendations to the Navy since 2015 to improve its shipbuilding acquisition practices and outcomes. The Navy agreed with many of them. However, the Navy has only fully or partially addressed 30; 60 remain unaddressed. GAO's leading practices, observations on the industrial base, and open recommendations provide a starting point for the Navy to develop a holistic approach to improve its shipbuilding outcomes.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-108225
Federal Workforce: OPM Needs to Take Additional Actions to Improve the Federal Early Career Talent Pipeline
WASHINGTON, March 20 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Federal Workforce: OPM Needs to Take Additional Actions to Improve the Federal Early Career Talent Pipeline
Fast Facts
The Office of Personnel Management's Pathways Programs serve as a pipeline for bringing young employees into the federal government. But the programs have seen a 64% decrease in the number of hires since FY 2013.
Although efforts have increased the number of hires, OPM should do more to improve the programs, including:
Getting more data on year-to-year hiring fluctuations
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 20 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Federal Workforce: OPM Needs to Take Additional Actions to Improve the Federal Early Career Talent Pipeline
Fast Facts
The Office of Personnel Management's Pathways Programs serve as a pipeline for bringing young employees into the federal government. But the programs have seen a 64% decrease in the number of hires since FY 2013.
Although efforts have increased the number of hires, OPM should do more to improve the programs, including:
Getting more data on year-to-year hiring fluctuations
Collecting feedback from program participants
Looking at lessons-learned to help recruit, hire, retain, and manage its early career talent pipeline
Our recommendations address these issues.
Highlights
What GAO Found
When it was established in 2010, Pathways consisted of (1) an internship program for current students, (2) a recent graduates program, and (3) the Presidential Management Fellows (PMF) program for individuals who obtained advanced degrees within the preceding 2 years. On Feb.19, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order (EO) 14217, which began the process of terminating the PMF program. The EO did not address the internship or recent graduates program that remain part of Pathways and include the majority of program participants.
GAO's analysis of OPM's data found that the overall hiring trend has shown a 64 percent decrease since the implementation of the programs in fiscal year 2013 but has fluctuated within that timeframe. OPM has analyzed and reported on hiring trends. But OPM has not determined the information needed to identify factors that impact hiring trends or developed a plan to collect and assess that information, which would better position it to understand hiring fluctuations.
While OPM has taken steps to collect feedback from agencies on the challenges of Pathways, it did not collect feedback from its participants. Without a plan to collect and evaluate feedback data from all participants, OPM is unable to determine whether participants are satisfied with the programs or faced challenges.
OPM has not established a lessons-learned process for Pathways. OPM identified agency successes in recruitment and outreach that may be used to improve Pathways hiring. Although OPM meets with agency officials about using Pathways, agencies continue to request additional information on making Pathways more effective. Without a process in place to collect and share lessons learned, OPM is missing an opportunity to leverage stakeholders' knowledge to improve the government's ability to recruit, hire, retain, and manage its early career talent pipeline.
Why GAO Did This Study
Pathways Programs (Pathways) can provide an early career pipeline for students and recent graduates to the federal government. According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Pathways are the primary vehicle for recruiting and placing students and recent graduates into federal internship and fellowship positions.
GAO was asked to review federal internship programs. This report examines the extent to which OPM has (1) increased internship and fellowship opportunities through Pathways, (2) collected information on any challenges from agencies and participants that could be used to improve Pathways, and (3) established a lessons-learned process for recruitment and outreach. GAO reviewed federal statutes, regulations, and guidance on Pathways. GAO also analyzed OPM data on Pathways hires from fiscal years 2013 to 2023--the most recent years of data--to identify demographic and other information on Pathways hires. GAO also interviewed OPM officials and organizations knowledgeable about students' advancement to obtain their views on OPM's efforts to increase internships and fellowships through Pathways.
Recommendations
GAO recommends that OPM develop and implement plans to collect and assess evidence to understand Pathways hiring trends, collect and evaluate feedback data from Pathways participants, and collect and share lessons learned associated with recruitment and outreach for Pathways. OPM concurred with all three recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Office of Personnel Management The Director of OPM should develop and implement a plan to collect and assess the evidence OPM needs to identify factors impacting hiring trends of existing Pathways Programs. (Recommendation 1)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Office of Personnel Management The Director of OPM should develop and implement a plan to collect and evaluate feedback data from Pathways participants on their satisfaction with existing Pathways Programs. (Recommendation 2)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Office of Personnel Management The Director of OPM should develop and implement a process for collecting and sharing lessons-learned associated with recruitment and outreach for existing Pathways Programs. (Recommendation 3)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-106658
