Featured Stories
Special Education: Improved Allocation of Resources Could Help DOD Education Activity Better Meet Students' Needs
WASHINGTON, April 17 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Special Education: Improved Allocation of Resources Could Help DOD Education Activity Better Meet Students' Needs
Fast Facts
Military families can find it hard to get special education services for their children with disabilities--especially in overseas locations.
Students' individualized education programs outline how many minutes of specialized instruction they are legally required to receive. But Department of Defense schools don't consider this information for special education staffing.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 17 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Special Education: Improved Allocation of Resources Could Help DOD Education Activity Better Meet Students' Needs
Fast Facts
Military families can find it hard to get special education services for their children with disabilities--especially in overseas locations.
Students' individualized education programs outline how many minutes of specialized instruction they are legally required to receive. But Department of Defense schools don't consider this information for special education staffing.This may contribute to not having staff available to deliver enough specialized instruction, or to delays in services.
Our recommendations address this and other issues we found.
Highlights
What GAO Found
The Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) operates DOD's school system and provides special education and related services for about 15 percent of its students worldwide. However, GAO found that related services provided by the military branches for students in overseas locations--such as physical therapy--were often limited or unavailable, resulting in service delays or disruptions. These services are required by students' individualized education programs--legally binding written plans describing the services students are to receive. GAO found delays in service delivery for students in 44 of DODEA's 114 overseas schools for 2022-2023 (see figure). Further, from school years 2018-2019 through 2022-2023, at least six cases took more than a year to resolve. Service delays and disruptions can negatively affect students' academic progress, according to related service providers and parents GAO interviewed.
Days Taken to Resolve Services Delays for DODEA Students' Physical and Occupational Services, School Year 2022-2023
GAO also found that DODEA's staffing formulas for special education teachers are based on student headcounts and do not consider the required service minutes (i.e., minutes of specialized instruction) specified in students' individualized education programs. Because required service minutes can vary widely among students, allocating staff without considering them may contribute to staffing shortages and to delays in delivering required services.
DODEA school staff and parents at the schools GAO visited identified several key obstacles to providing special education, including insufficient training and guidance. First, at 12 of 14 schools, paraeducators (staff providing extra help to students) reported receiving little to no onboarding training for special education. For example, paraeducators across all three DODEA regions told GAO they had not received DODEA-required crisis training, despite working with students with behaviors needing crisis response. Further, all regional officials and DODEA staff in 13 of 14 schools described insufficient procedural guidance on how to implement DOD's special education policies. School staff at seven schools said that without clear guidance, service delivery is inconsistent across schools. DODEA officials said they will update procedural guidance by school year 2025-2026, and staff should refer to DOD policy in the interim. Communicating which resources staff should currently use to interpret DOD policy--consistent with DODEA's goals for internal communication--would help promote a shared understanding of how to comply with DOD special education policy.
Why GAO Did This Study
Meeting the educational needs of children with disabilities attending DODEA schools poses unique challenges. For example, children in military families often relocate frequently, which requires finding appropriate special education and related services each time.
Senate Report 118-58 includes provisions for GAO to examine special education and related services at DODEA schools. GAO examined (1) the extent to which DOD makes these resources available to meet the needs of DODEA students and (2) key obstacles to providing these resources to DODEA students that were reported by DOD staff and families.
GAO analyzed DODEA data on student enrollment, staffing, and service provision. GAO also visited 14 DODEA schools in seven military communities worldwide, selected for variation in number of students with disabilities and location. Across the visits, GAO held 98 group interviews with DODEA teachers, principals, and other stakeholders. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws and policies and interviewed DOD and DODEA officials.
Recommendations
GAO is making five recommendations to DOD, including to (1) incorporate students' required service minutes into special education staffing formulas, (2) ensure paraeducators receive required crisis training, and (3) communicate the resources staff should currently use to interpret DOD special education policy. DOD partially agreed with all five recommendations, as discussed in the report.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness directs the DODEA Director to revise its special education staffing formulas to incorporate students' service minute requirements specified in IEPs among the factors it considers. (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.
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness directs the DODEA Director to ensure that any special education paraeducators who work with students who may need behavioral supports receive crisis training. (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.
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness directs the DODEA Director to provide supplemental instructional materials to special education teachers agencywide to help them adapt the general education curriculum for students with IEPs. (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.
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness directs the DODEA Director to make more specialized reading interventions accessible across all DODEA locations to students with specific learning disabilities, including dyslexia, that impact their ability to read. (Recommendation 4)
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.
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness directs the DODEA Director to communicate its timeframes for its new procedural guidance on special education and what resources staff should use to interpret the DOD policy while that guidance is being developed. (Recommendation 5)
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.
See All 5 Recommendations
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107053
Coast Guard: Documented Guidance for Notifying Congress of Investigations Needed
WASHINGTON, April 17 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Coast Guard: Documented Guidance for Notifying Congress of Investigations Needed
Fast Facts
The Coast Guard investigates a range of issues and can inform Congress about them, which can assist in congressional oversight. But the Coast Guard didn't inform Congress about a 2020 series of investigations that found the Coast Guard Academy frequently mishandled allegations of sexual assault.
The Coast Guard's guidance is unclear about which investigations require proactive congressional notification.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 17 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Coast Guard: Documented Guidance for Notifying Congress of Investigations Needed
Fast Facts
The Coast Guard investigates a range of issues and can inform Congress about them, which can assist in congressional oversight. But the Coast Guard didn't inform Congress about a 2020 series of investigations that found the Coast Guard Academy frequently mishandled allegations of sexual assault.
The Coast Guard's guidance is unclear about which investigations require proactive congressional notification.For example, some guidance says to notify Congress of "controversial, emergent, and complex national issues" but doesn't define that clearly.
Our recommendation addresses this.
Highlights
What GAO Found
The Coast Guard, within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has notified Congress in instances when statutorily required or requested to do so and, absent such a requirement or request, has also sometimes voluntarily and proactively notified Congress of investigations and related information. More specifically, the Coast Guard has notified Congress about certain aspects of administrative, criminal, and regulatory investigations in instances where notification is, and is not, required by statute. For example, the Coast Guard is required by statute to provide an annual report to Congress on the number of allegations of sexual assault and harassment involving members of the Coast Guard made during the year. Although not statutorily required, the Coast Guard has also notified Congress on information pertaining to investigations, such as outcomes of investigations that led to senior officers being relieved of their commands.
However, there is no DHS-wide policy regarding notifying Congress of investigations, and the Coast Guard's policy provides limited guidance and is spread across several documents addressing external communication.
For example:
* Coast Guard senior leaders are to consult with core congressional oversight committees on controversial, emergent, and complex national issues. For these issues the service is to enter into consultation to identify and address congressional interests. However, there is no agency guidance defining "controversial, emergent, and complex national issues."
* The Coast Guard may develop action plans to communicate internally and externally about high-profile, critical, or controversial issues, including the pending release of high-profile investigations (e.g., internal Coast Guard investigations). However, there is no agency guidance for the disclosure of such investigations.
Coast Guard officials indicated that they used judgment in applying the relevant policies. DHS officials told us that proactive congressional notification--those made absent a statutory requirement or congressional request--must be made on a case-by-case basis after considering numerous factors, including the level of congressional interest and the potential effects of notification on any ongoing investigations.
Coast Guard officials stated that while Coast Guard and DHS policies generally do not document factors to consider when determining which investigations and related information should lead to proactive congressional notifications, they do consider certain factors (e.g., the oversight value of the information and constituent impact) and could document them. Documenting its guidance for determining the investigations and other related information that warrant proactive congressional notification could better ensure the Coast Guard communicates with Congress when appropriate and provides Congress consistent opportunities for oversight.
Why GAO Did This Study
The U.S. Congress reviews, monitors, and oversees the executive branch's implementation of public policy and federal agencies' operations. In a series of investigations called "Operation Fouled Anchor," the Coast Guard Investigative Service examined more than 100 separate allegations of sexual assault that occurred between 1990 and 2006 at the Coast Guard Academy. Coast Guard leadership did not notify Congress of Operation Fouled Anchor until media reporting was imminent on the investigation in June 2023.
GAO was asked to review issues related to the Coast Guard's notification of investigations to Congress. This report examines (1) when the Coast Guard has notified Congress of investigations and (2) the extent to which the Coast Guard has policies to decide whether to proactively notify Congress of investigations and other related information.
GAO reviewed and analyzed Coast Guard reports submitted to Congress from 2019 through 2024 and policies for communicating investigative and related information to Congress. GAO interviewed Coast Guard and DHS officials.
Recommendations
GAO recommends that the Coast Guard document guidance for determining the investigations and related information that warrant congressional notification absent a statutory requirement or congressional request. DHS concurred with the recommendation and stated that the Coast Guard will update its guidance.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected Recommendation Status
United States Coast Guard The Commandant of the Coast Guard should document guidance for determining the investigations and other related information that warrant congressional notification absent a statutory requirement or congressional request. (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.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107481
Army Corps of Engineers: Communication with Users on Water Storage Fees and Cost Estimates Could Be Improved
WASHINGTON, April 17 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Army Corps of Engineers: Communication with Users on Water Storage Fees and Cost Estimates Could Be Improved
Fast Facts
The Army Corps of Engineers stores water in its reservoirs for local water utilities and other municipal and industrial water users. These users pay annual fees to the Corps, which cover their share of operation and maintenance costs.
Corps officials say they communicate with users about these fees annually, but we found they often provide few details beyond the amount.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 17 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Army Corps of Engineers: Communication with Users on Water Storage Fees and Cost Estimates Could Be Improved
Fast Facts
The Army Corps of Engineers stores water in its reservoirs for local water utilities and other municipal and industrial water users. These users pay annual fees to the Corps, which cover their share of operation and maintenance costs.
Corps officials say they communicate with users about these fees annually, but we found they often provide few details beyond the amount.Users told us it's unclear what their fees are covering, and that they have few opportunities to discuss fees with the Corps. Clearer communication from the Corps can help users plan for their annual fee more easily.
Our recommendations address these and other issues we found.
Army Corps operations and maintenance work includes erosion control and prevention
Highlights
What GAO Found
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) enters into agreements with municipal and industrial water users, such as local water utilities, for reservoir storage space. Users must annually reimburse the federal government for their portion of the reservoir's operations and maintenance (O&M) cost, and such reimbursements can be considered user fees. The Corps district offices GAO spoke with followed many key practices for setting user fees. For example, the Corps accounted for the total costs of providing the service and established user-specific fees.
However, these district offices did not follow a key practice related to sharing information with users to help assure them that the fees are set fairly and accurately. The 10 Corps district offices GAO spoke with communicated limited fee information and offered few opportunities for users to discuss the fee. For example, two districts did not provide users with any supplemental information beyond the fee amount and one user in these districts told GAO they regularly request supplemental information from the Corps to better understand their fee. The other eight districts provided users with some supplemental information, but multiple users in those districts told GAO that such information lacked key details on specific O&M costs and activities.
Example of Corps Operations and Maintenance Work
Replacement of riprap stone protection on the outlet channel bank.
Five of the 10 Corps districts GAO spoke with did not provide users with legally required 5-year O&M cost estimates, and the Corps does not yet have an oversight mechanism to ensure these estimates are provided. By law, the Corps is required to notify water users of anticipated O&M costs for the upcoming fiscal year and the following 4 years. Water users can review these estimates to be informed about future costs, such as dam safety risk assessments, which are scheduled every 10 years. All five of the users GAO spoke with who were not provided the estimates said they would be helpful for planning purposes. In December 2024, Corps officials told GAO that headquarters is in the early stages of developing and establishing a mechanism to oversee these estimates but did not provide documentation of this effort. Developing such a mechanism will help assure Corps headquarters that districts provide users with information needed to effectively plan and administer their water supply storage.
Why GAO Did This Study
Nationwide, the Corps oversees over 400 water storage agreements that collectively provide about 11 million acre-feet of storage in exchange for users sharing O&M costs with the Corps. Prior GAO work found user concern with certain aspects of the Corps' annual O&M user fee process, including variations in annual fees and a lack of detailed information about them. The James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 includes a provision for GAO to review the Corps' practices associated with O&M fees.
This report examines the extent to which the Corps has (1) managed its annual O&M user fee process consistently with selected key practices for federal user fees and (2) developed the 5-year O&M cost estimates as required by law.
GAO selected a nongeneralizable sample of 14 water storage agreements from 10 Corps districts according to criteria such as water storage capacity, reviewed agency documents, and interviewed Corps officials and municipal and industrial water users. GAO compared the Corps' current practices to GAO's federal user fee design guide and a 2014 legal requirement.
Recommendations
GAO is making three recommendations to the Department of Defense to improve how the Corps both communicates annual O&M fees and provides 5-year O&M cost estimates. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works agreed with all three recommendations and described planned actions to implement them.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Department of Defense The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works should ensure the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers develop a policy to help ensure effective communication of annual O&M fees to users. Such a policy could include provisions providing users information that explains, in plain language, what activities the fee pays for as well as providing users with a specific opportunity to discuss the fee. (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.
Department of Defense The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works should ensure the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers develop and implements an oversight mechanism to ensure that all non-federal users receive the legally required 5-year O&M cost estimates each year. (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.
Department of Defense The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works should ensure the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provide estimating instructions for the 5-year O&M cost estimates and consider including recapitalization costs in those estimates. (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-25-107242
Department of Defense: DEI Workforce Reductions
WASHINGTON, April 17 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Department of Defense: DEI Workforce Reductions
Fast Facts
The Department of Defense made changes to its diversity, equity, and inclusion workforce, as required by a 2024 law. Among other things, the law
Stated that DOD may not establish new or fill vacant DEI positions
Set limits on pay rates for civilian employees with duties related to DEI
Executive orders in 2025 further directed federal agencies, including DOD, to end DEI programs.
We reviewed data on civilian, military, and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 17 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Department of Defense: DEI Workforce Reductions
Fast Facts
The Department of Defense made changes to its diversity, equity, and inclusion workforce, as required by a 2024 law. Among other things, the law
Stated that DOD may not establish new or fill vacant DEI positions
Set limits on pay rates for civilian employees with duties related to DEI
Executive orders in 2025 further directed federal agencies, including DOD, to end DEI programs.
We reviewed data on civilian, military, andcontract personnel employed to develop and implement DEI policy across DOD. In response to the law, DOD reduced its DEI workforce. DOD further eliminated all remaining DEI positions to implement the executive orders.
Highlights
What GAO Found
Provisions within the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, enacted on December 22, 2023, required the Department of Defense (DOD) to make changes to its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) workforce. In addition, executive orders issued in January 2025 directed the termination of federal DEI programs and activities and further directed DOD to abolish all DEI offices.
GAO found that DOD reduced its civilian workforce in response to the fiscal year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act by abolishing certain DEI positions and restructuring others. Prior to these changes, according to officials,
* DOD did not widely use contractors to develop and implement DEI activities across the department, and
* DOD's workforce supported and implemented its DEI program goals and efforts by developing training, supporting DEI committees and working groups, maintaining and analyzing data, and responding to reporting requirements.
After DOD restructured its DEI workforce in response to the law, DOD took steps to implement the 2025 executive orders by abolishing or restructuring all 41 remaining civilian and military positions with primary duties related to DEI; disbanding a federal DEI advisory committee; and initiating a task force to oversee efforts to abolish DEI offices.
Results of DOD Implementation of Executive Orders on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Positions
Note: For more details, see figure 1 in GAO-25-107397.
Why GAO Did This Study
Senate Report 118-58 contains a provision for GAO to review DOD's DEI workforce, including the number and grade of federal civilian, military, and contract personnel employed to develop and implement DEI policy across the department. This report provides observations on (1) how DOD's implementation of provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 changed the number of federal civilian and military personnel it employs to develop and implement DEI policy; (2) how DOD used contractors to develop and implement DEI activities; and (3) how DOD's workforce supported and implemented its DEI efforts.
GAO reviewed policy and other documents, guidance, and memorandums regarding DOD's DEI workforce. GAO further collected DOD DEI workforce data from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and each military service; searched relevant data systems for DEI contracts; identified and reviewed congressional reporting requirements related to DEI work; collected and assessed DEI training information and requirements; and interviewed cognizant officials.
For more information, contact Cathleen A. Berrick at berrickc@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107397
Drug Control: DOD and National Guard Align Counterdrug Policies and Guidance with Federal Laws
WASHINGTON, April 15 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Drug Control: DOD and National Guard Align Counterdrug Policies and Guidance with Federal Laws
Fast Facts
Drug overdose deaths in the U.S., including those from fentanyl, surged over the past 25 years.
To reduce drug trafficking and criminal activity, the Department of Defense and the National Guard help support federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement. The counterdrug support services they offer include information analysis, translation and transcription, and air and ground surveillance.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 15 (TNSrep) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Drug Control: DOD and National Guard Align Counterdrug Policies and Guidance with Federal Laws
Fast Facts
Drug overdose deaths in the U.S., including those from fentanyl, surged over the past 25 years.
To reduce drug trafficking and criminal activity, the Department of Defense and the National Guard help support federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement. The counterdrug support services they offer include information analysis, translation and transcription, and air and ground surveillance.
DOD and the National Guard Bureau work to ensure their counterdrug policies match up with the activities described in federal laws. DOD periodically updates its guidance to further clarify what counterdrug activities can be conducted.
Highlights
What GAO Found
As of February 2025, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Guard Bureau align their respective counterdrug policies with current federal laws. GAO did not find that the policies created limitations in terms of the counterdrug activities that DOD and the National Guard can conduct under the law. Section 284 of title 10, U.S. Code establishes categories of authorized counterdrug activities that DOD's counterdrug instruction groups into mission categories. Additionally, under section 112 of title 32, U.S. Code, members of the National Guard can perform counterdrug activities in accordance with a drug interdiction and counterdrug activities plan submitted by a state governor and approved by the Secretary of Defense.
Helicopter Used by the National Guard for Aerial Reconnaissance and Illegal Drugs Seized
DOD updated counterdrug policies and guidance during fiscal year 2020 through fiscal year 2024 to clarify limitations on implementation of counterdrug activities. However, GAO did not find that these changes prevented DOD personnel from conducting these activities. For example:
* In February 2021, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum that prohibits DOD counterdrug program-funded analysts from engaging in activities that would require additional authorities for collecting intelligence. According to DOD officials, this change was made to clarify what types of information counterdrug program-funded analysts are allowed to collect in accordance with the law and DOD guidance.
* In March 2022, DOD issued guidance that limited counterdrug support to community-based organizations that are specifically identified in federal law. According to DOD officials, this change was made to ensure that National Guard outreach aligned with federal law.
* In April 2024, DOD updated guidance to clarify that, while National Guard counterdrug analysts can analyze data extracted from digital devices such as cell phones, they cannot perform the extraction themselves. According to DOD officials, this change in guidance was made to ensure that National Guard counterdrug analysts were not involved in the handling of evidence.
Why GAO Did This Study
Drug overdose deaths in the U.S., including from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl, surged during the past 25 years, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Congress appropriated approximately $1.33 billion dollars for the National Guard Counterdrug Program during fiscal year 2019 through fiscal year 2024. This program supports federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement with drug interdiction activities in 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and U.S. Virgin Islands.
The joint explanatory statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, includes a provision for GAO to review certain DOD and National Guard Bureau counterdrug instructions and examine whether they limit support for counterdrug efforts under the law. This report evaluates the extent to which (1) DOD and National Guard Bureau align their counterdrug policies with applicable federal counterdrug laws; and (2) DOD's changes in guidance during fiscal year 2019 through fiscal year 2024 clarified how counterdrug activities could be conducted.
GAO identified and reviewed federal counterdrug laws; evaluated relevant DOD and National Guard Bureau policies; and reviewed changes in DOD policies and guidance related to the implementation of domestic counterdrug activities during the past 6 fiscal years. GAO also interviewed DOD, federal law enforcement, and state National Guard officials. GAO also conducted site visits to locations in California and Texas.
For more information, contact Diana Moldafsky at moldafskyd@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107590
