What GAO Found Federal police officer primary duties include the preservation of the peace, crime prevention and detection, and responding to emergencies on or near federal property. At the end of fiscal year 2023, 17 agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, employed approximately 12,600 federal police officers within eight executive branch departments. The majority work for the Departments of Defense (49 percent) and Veterans Affairs (32 percent). Federal Bureau of Investigation Police Officers Seven of 17 federal agencies GAO surveyed stated that federal police officer activities have changed since fiscal year 2014. Agencies cited an increased threat environment, civil unrest, and the need for overtime to address staffing shortages as examples of changes in working conditions for federal police officers. Federal police officers generally do not receive enhanced retirement benefits. These enhanced benefits accrue at a higher rate over a shorter period of time than standard federal employee retirement benefits. However, if a department determines that a group of employees, such as federal police officers, meets certain criteria to receive enhanced retirement benefits, it notifies the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which will review the decision for statutory compliance. None of the eight executive branch departments GAO surveyed had done so for their federal police officers in the past 10 years. GAO's analysis of OPM data showed that federal police across these departments are on nine different pay plans and various specialized pay rates within some of those plans, creating variation. GAO identified a range of considerations regarding potential changes to federal police officers' retirement and pay provisions. These include whether to account for past service, whether federal police officers need to meet physical suitability standards, and whether to provide opt-in or opt-out options. Additionally, changes regarding retirement or pay could have budgetary effects on departments and agencies. For example, retroactively applying enhanced retirement benefits could be very costly to departments and agencies. Why GAO Did This Study Federal police forces play a key role in maintaining the safety and security of federal property, employees, and the general public. Federal law generally does not consider most of these officers to be law enforcement officers for the purpose of receiving enhanced retirement benefits and pay. However, over time, legislation has provided federal police forces at some agencies enhanced retirement benefits, even when they did not meet the legal statutory and regulatory definitions of a law enforcement officer. Some agencies have cited challenges recruiting or retaining federal police officers because of the difference in retirement benefits and pay compared to statutory law enforcement officers. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 includes a provision for GAO to report on considerations regarding retirement and pay issues for federal police officers. This report provides information on (1) characteristics and duties of the federal police officer workforce; (2) changes agencies can make regarding retirement and pay; and (3) considerations regarding implementation, finance, and workforce planning to help inform congressional decision-making regarding changes to retirement and pay. To conduct this work, GAO administered two surveys—one to eight departments and another to 17 components within these departments —to gather their perspectives. GAO analyzed past GAO and OPM studies on this topic and used OPM data to conduct analysis. For more information, contact Gretta L. Goodwin at GoodwinG@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Most lobbyists provided documentation for key elements of their disclosure reports to demonstrate compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended. For the third and fourth quarters of 2023 and the first and second quarters of 2024, GAO estimates that 97 percent of lobbyists who filed new registrations also filed quarterly lobbying disclosure reports as required for the quarter in which they first registered, 93 percent of lobbyists who filed quarterly lobbying disclosure reports provided documentation for lobbying income and expenses, and 95 percent of semiannual contribution reports included all reportable political contributions. These findings are generally consistent with GAO's findings since 2015. Lobbyists are required to report certain criminal convictions. GAO found that, of the 258 individual lobbyists in its sample, none failed to report a conviction. The figure below describes the typical filing and enforcement processes. Typical Lobbying Disclosure Process GAO found that most lobbyists surveyed reported some level of ease in complying with quarterly disclosure requirements and in understanding the definitions of terms used in quarterly lobbying disclosure reports. However, based on GAO's estimates, 21 percent of quarterly lobbying disclosure reports included individual lobbyists who had not properly disclosed covered positions—certain jobs in the executive and legislative branches—as required. To bring lobbyists into compliance, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia continues to contact lobbyists who have not filed their disclosure reports. From 2015 through 2024, the office received 3,566 referrals from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House for failure to file quarterly lobbying disclosure reports. As of December 2024, about 36 percent of these referrals were closed as in compliance, and about 63 percent were pending further action. Why GAO Did This Study The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended, requires lobbyists to file quarterly lobbying disclosure reports and semiannual contribution reports, among other requirements. The law includes a provision for GAO to annually audit the extent of lobbyists' compliance with the act. This report (1) determines the extent to which lobbyists demonstrated compliance with disclosure requirements, (2) identifies challenges or potential improvements to compliance that lobbyists report, and (3) describes the efforts of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia in enforcing compliance. This report is GAO's 18th annual review under the provision. GAO reviewed a stratified random sample of 100 quarterly lobbying disclosure reports filed for the third and fourth quarters of calendar year 2023 and the first and second quarters of calendar year 2024. GAO also reviewed a random sample of 160 contribution reports from year-end 2023 and midyear 2024. This methodology allowed GAO to generalize to the population of 67,577 quarterly disclosure reports with $5,000 or more in lobbying activity and 35,034 contribution reports. In addition, through a survey, GAO obtained the views of 99 different lobbyists on any challenges or potential improvements to aid compliance. GAO also interviewed U.S. Attorney's Office officials. GAO provided a draft of this report to the Department of Justice for review. The Department of Justice provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact Yvonne D. Jones at JonesY@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Department of State is responsible for coordinating U.S. assistance supporting international efforts to combat illicit narcotics, a role fulfilled by the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL). Fentanyl Seized in Nuevo Leon, Mexico GAO previously identified challenges State and INL face in determining the effectiveness of assistance they provide to foreign partners. Performance management can help INL identify whether the billions of dollars appropriated to help meet its mission are spent effectively and help achieve its goals. In September 2023, GAO found that INL's efforts to implement assistance to Mexico had been hampered by incomplete performance management efforts. As a result, the U.S. government could not demonstrate that the more than $3 billion of assistance it had provided to Mexico was spent effectively and helped achieve goals. GAO made three recommendations to INL to better ensure that it spends such assistance effectively. INL has taken steps to address these recommendations but has not fully implemented them. GAO also previously identified challenges State and INL face in monitoring and evaluating projects. For example, in March 2023, GAO found that State had not conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the collective efforts of U.S. agencies to combat cybercrime and ensure that programs were achieving intended goals. GAO recommended that INL conduct a comprehensive evaluation of capacity building efforts to counter cybercrime. State officials said that INL planned to conduct such an evaluation. INL has taken steps to address this recommendation but has not fully implemented it. In addition, GAO previously identified challenges INL faces in managing fraud risk in assistance to Mexico. Specifically, in March 2021, GAO found that INL had not fully assessed the potential risks of fraud in assistance to Mexico and made three recommendations to INL to help improve efforts in this area. While INL has developed a preliminary anti-fraud strategy for that assistance, it has not yet issued or implemented a final anti-fraud strategy. Why GAO Did This Study Combatting transnational crime and drug trafficking are long-standing national security priorities for the U.S., and the opioid crisis has been a public health emergency since 2017. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from misusing drugs, with more than 66 percent of these deaths involving synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, criminal organizations in Mexico supply most of the illicitly manufactured fentanyl smuggled into the U.S. INL's mission is to keep Americans safe by countering crime, illegal drugs, and instability abroad. This statement discusses four key areas where State and INL have faced challenges implementing programs overseas: (1) performance management, (2) program monitoring, (3) program evaluation, and (4) fraud risk management. This statement is based on GAO's prior work on a variety of State and INL programs. For that work, GAO analyzed State documents and data and interviewed agency officials. For a full list of the reports, see Related GAO Products at the conclusion of this statement.

What GAO Found Unusually long processing times in fiscal year 2023 had various negative effects on U.S. passport applicants. Processing of routine passport applications took more than 4 weeks longer than before the COVID-19 pandemic and expedited applications took more than 2 weeks longer. These delays' effects on passport applicants included delayed or cancelled travel. Several factors contributed to the processing delays. One primary factor was staff shortages stemming from a hiring freeze in fiscal year 2017. Other factors included unexpected fluctuations in application volume. For example, State received 21.6 million applications in fiscal year 2023, nearly 2 million more than it had expected. Backlog of Passport Applications at National Passport Center, Portsmouth, NH, 2023 State implemented short-term measures to mitigate the processing backlog in fiscal year 2023. For example, State required passport specialists to work up to 24 hours of overtime per month in fiscal year 2023. State data show that specialists worked more than 250,000 hours of overtime during the fiscal year. State is developing a long-term plan, known as the Transformation Roadmap, for projects to modernize processing and avoid future delays, but it has not identified milestones or resource needs for all of the projects. As of November 2024, State had developed 83 projects that included improving information technology and opening six new passport agencies. As of December 2024, State had defined milestones to measure progress for 24 projects it considered necessary for the roadmap's success, but it has not done so for the remaining 59. In addition, State has not identified the resources needed to fully implement the roadmap. State officials told GAO that the greatest risks to implementing the roadmap were insufficient staffing and funding. GAO's prior work has shown that defining milestones for agency reform efforts and determining planned projects' costs (e.g., staffing, funding, and other resources) are critical to the reforms' and projects' success. Taking such actions would better position State to complete its efforts to reduce the likelihood of future delays in passport processing and their negative effects on U.S. travelers and the travel industry. Why GAO Did This Study Issuance of U.S. passports is among the State Department's most visible and important public services. Moreover, its timeliness in adjudicating passport applications and issuing passports affects American citizens as well as the travel and leisure industry. In fiscal year 2023, State experienced a passport processing backlog, which led to substantially longer processing times than before the COVID-19 pandemic. GAO was asked to review State's passport processing backlog. In addition, a House Report included a provision for GAO to study passport processing times. This report examines (1) the time frames for State's processing of passport applications in fiscal year 2023 and the effects of processing delays on applicants; (2) factors that contributed to processing delays in fiscal year 2023; (3) State's actions to mitigate the backlog; and (4) the extent of State's long-term planning to prevent future delays. GAO reviewed State passport processing data and documents related to managing delays. GAO also interviewed State officials and visited or met with staff at four processing centers. GAO selected these centers on the basis of factors such as size, location, and volume of applications processed in 2023.

What GAO Found The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Community Navigator Pilot Program aimed to expand access to small business assistance resources for underserved communities. The program, which operated from December 2021 to May 2024, awarded grants to “hubs”—nonprofits, local governments, and other entities that partnered with smaller organizations, called “spokes” (see figure). Overview of SBA Community Navigator Pilot Program SBA data suggest the program served a higher proportion of clients from high-minority, high-poverty, and low-income areas compared to other SBA business assistance programs. Challenges that navigators identified included collecting sensitive client data and building effective partner networks. The Navigator Program aligned with one and partially aligned with four leading practices for pilot program design. SBA established clear, measurable program objectives, such as increasing use of SBA services among underserved business owners, and developed a data gathering strategy and assessment methodology. However, GAO identified opportunities for SBA to evaluate the pilot and mitigate broader program risks: Evaluation. SBA does not plan to evaluate outcomes of the pilot. However, evaluations play a key role in strategic planning and program management. Conducting an evaluation would capture lessons learned from pilot activities. Additionally, by assessing scalability and incorporating input from a broad array of SBA staff and partner organizations, the evaluation could inform current and future programs and congressional decision-making. Fraud mitigation. SBA took steps to address fraud risk for the program, such as completing a fraud risk assessment and training hubs on financial oversight. However, during application reviews, SBA staff did not consult local SBA offices with potential knowledge about applicants' risks. For example, staff in one district office said they could have flagged a local applicant that overstated its capacity to provide assistance. SBA officials said that to avoid potential bias and inconsistency, its competitive grant programs' application reviews do not include consultation with local SBA offices. However, GAO identified federal grantmaking agencies that incorporated local staff input while implementing safeguards to mitigate bias and maintain consistency. By developing procedures to obtain relevant information from local agency staff, SBA could improve its ability to assess applicants and address fraud risks. Why GAO Did This Study Racial and ethnic minorities, women, tribal groups, and other communities have historically faced barriers to accessing credit, capital, and other resources necessary to start and grow businesses, according to SBA. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 directed SBA to establish the Community Navigator Pilot Program, a new, short-term business assistance program to serve these communities. GAO was asked to review the Community Navigator Pilot Program. This report examines (1) how the program reached underserved small business owners, (2) the program's alignment with leading practices for pilot program design, and (3) the program's efforts to manage fraud risk. GAO analyzed SBA documents, interviewed officials, and compared the pilot program design and fraud risk management processes against leading practices. GAO also analyzed SBA and Census data and interviewed 18 navigators (chosen to reflect a mix of grant amounts, regions, and organization types) about their activities. GAO conducted three site visits reflecting a mix of geographic regions and organization types.