GAO: Federal Programs Still Lack Data to Show What Works
Federal agencies can often report how much money a program spent or how many people it served without being able to show whether the program improved the problem it was created to address.
That is the central finding of a Government Accountability Office assessment published July 21, 2026. GAO said many federal programs still lack clearly defined goals, useful performance measures and relevant data, limiting Congress’s and agency leaders’ ability to judge results.
The assessment covers programs tied to health care, public safety, disaster support, food assistance and veterans’ services. It does not conclude that every program is ineffective. Rather, it says decision-makers often do not have enough information to determine which programs are producing their intended results.
Spending and participation are not the same as results
GAO distinguishes among three kinds of information agencies use to manage programs.
Inputs are resources, such as federal funding, staff or equipment. Outputs are activities or services delivered, such as the number of people receiving benefits or disaster claims processed. Outcomes show whether conditions improved—for example, whether a public-safety effort reduced a risk or whether assistance produced better health or economic results.
Inputs and outputs can show that a program is operating. They do not, by themselves, establish that it is achieving its public purpose.
GAO said programs often lack measurable goals or the data needed to assess progress. Without those elements, agencies cannot reliably identify what needs to change, and Congress has less evidence when deciding whether to continue, revise or redirect funding.
Why the gap matters across government
Federal programs often operate alongside related efforts at the same agency or at other agencies. When programs do not define goals consistently or collect comparable performance information, policymakers have a harder time determining which approaches work better or whether efforts are unnecessarily fragmented.
GAO describes incomplete effectiveness information as a risk that can contribute to waste and inefficiency. It is not proof of fraud, unlawful spending or failure by every program. Better performance information can help policymakers coordinate related programs, target resources and identify services that need improvement.
GAO’s 2026 annual report on duplication, overlap and fragmentation identified a lack of consistent information on program effectiveness among the risks that can accompany poorly managed related programs. The report also said congressional and agency action on earlier recommendations had produced financial and operational benefits, while hundreds of matters remained open.
Three programs still need fuller performance systems
A more specific example comes from a GAO review published May 5, 2026. GAO examined 15 federal programs at five agencies that provide some amount of direct services solely to pregnant women, children through age 5, or their families.
Twelve of the 15 had federal performance-management processes that set goals, collected information and used it to assess results. GAO recommended that the remaining three programs fully develop those processes: the Preschool Development Grants Birth Through Five Program at the Department of Health and Human Services, the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program at the Department of Agriculture, and the Veterans Health Administration Maternity Care Coordinator Program at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
All three recommendations were listed as open in the review. HHS disagreed with its recommendation, USDA neither agreed nor disagreed, and VA agreed and said it anticipated completing a federal-level process by October 2026. Those positions and target dates are not the same as completed reforms.
The review also found that the 15 programs were fragmented across five agencies and overlapped to some extent, but GAO said they were not duplicative because they differed in beneficiary characteristics or services. GAO said completing the performance processes could help agencies assess results, identify potential improvements and target resources more appropriately.
What improvement can look like
GAO points to the Department of Homeland Security’s Securing the Cities program as an example of progress after oversight recommendations. The program helps state and local governments detect and deter nuclear terrorism.
In 2019, GAO found that DHS lacked information to fully track cities’ use of program funds or assess performance. In a 2024 review, GAO found that the program had established goals, performance measures and milestones and was conducting quarterly financial assessments. GAO said those changes put DHS in a better position to monitor performance and identify needed actions.
That example shows the value of performance management, but GAO also says additional evidence may be needed to determine whether a program is actually effective. Process evaluations examine whether a program is being implemented as intended. Outcome evaluations examine whether activities are aligned with desired results and whether changes are consistent with program goals. Impact evaluations compare results with what would have happened without the program.
The broader management problem
A separate GAO report published June 23 found that the Office of Management and Budget and four selected agencies had not fully implemented new requirements under the Federal Agency Performance Act of 2024.
GAO said OMB’s 2025 guidance did not fully address several statutory requirements for agency strategic reviews, including requirements involving senior leaders, stakeholders and annual reporting. GAO also found that none of the four selected agencies had fully implemented the new strategic-review requirements. The recommendations to OMB and the selected agencies were listed as open.
The federal performance framework calls for strategic goals, measurable priorities and regular, data-driven reviews. The next test will be whether agencies turn those requirements into usable evidence about outcomes—not simply reports on money spent and services delivered.
What readers should watch
For taxpayers, beneficiaries and lawmakers, the practical question is not only whether a program spends its money or reaches participants. It is whether agencies can show that the program is improving the conditions it was designed to address.
Watch for OMB guidance, agency strategic reviews, congressional oversight and updates on the three open recommendations involving HHS, USDA and VA. Evidence that agencies add measurable outcome goals, usable data and independent evaluations would show movement from activity reporting toward stronger accountability.
Sources
Look for updates to this story
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.