GAO Says Many Federal Programs Lack Clear Goals and Data to Show Whether They Work
A new Government Accountability Office review says many federal agencies cannot clearly show whether programs are solving the problems they were created to address because the programs lack defined goals or useful performance data.
The report, publicly released July 21, 2026, examined 15 federal programs at five agencies. The programs provide direct services to a specified population, and the findings reach areas including health care, public safety and disaster support.
What the review found
GAO found that many of the programs reviewed did not have clearly defined goals or relevant data that could be used to assess progress. Without those basics, agencies may have difficulty determining whether a program is producing its intended results or identifying where changes are needed.
The report is an oversight finding and recommendation. It is not a determination that every program reviewed failed, and it does not say that all federal programs are ineffective.
That distinction matters. A program can continue providing services while its administrators lack a reliable way to measure how well it is meeting its stated purpose. GAO’s concern is that incomplete goals and performance information make it harder to evaluate effectiveness, not that the review established failure across the programs.
Why performance data matters
GAO said weak performance information limits Congress’s and agency leaders’ ability to determine whether taxpayer-funded programs are delivering their intended results. That can affect decisions about whether programs should continue, change or receive additional oversight.
The review’s broader discussion covers federal programs supported by a government that spends trillions of dollars annually. The report therefore places program measurement in the context of decisions involving large public expenditures, even though the review itself focused on 15 programs at five agencies.
For people who rely on federal health care, public-safety or disaster-support services, the immediate issue is not a funding cancellation announced by GAO. It is whether agencies have the information needed to identify problems, improve delivery and demonstrate that services are addressing the needs they were designed to meet.
GAO’s recommended approach
GAO said agencies should use a three-step approach to improve performance assessment: define program goals, collect and use relevant data, and monitor results.
Those steps are intended to connect a program’s purpose with evidence about its performance. Clearly defined goals establish what an agency is trying to accomplish. Relevant data can show whether progress is being made. Ongoing monitoring can help leaders respond when results fall short or conditions change.
The recommendations give Congress and agency leaders a framework for questioning how programs are managed and how results are reported. They also provide a basis for demanding better measurement before spending decisions are continued or changed.
A broader oversight concern
The July report follows other GAO work identifying weaknesses in federal management and oversight. In an annual report released May 12, GAO identified 97 new matters and recommendations related to duplication, overlap and fragmentation. The agency said unresolved actions could produce more than $100 billion in future financial benefits.
In a separate report released June 23, GAO found limited progress by the Office of Management and Budget and selected agencies in implementing new government-wide performance-management requirements.
Together, the reports point to an accountability question that extends beyond any single agency: whether federal officials have consistent, usable information for deciding what works, what needs improvement and where public resources may be producing less than intended.
What happens next
GAO’s report does not itself cancel funding or impose a deadline on the agencies. The identified programs and agencies will need to be considered by Congress and agency leaders as they review performance and spending.
The source material available for this report does not identify all 15 programs or the five agencies. A complete list would require review of the full GAO report. The central finding, however, is clear: agencies need stronger goals, better data and regular monitoring to show whether federally funded programs are delivering the results they promise.
Sources
- Federal Programs: Assessing and Improving Effectiveness, Government Accountability Office
- 2026 Annual Report on Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Government Accountability Office
- OMB and Selected Agencies Need to Fully Address New Requirements, Government Accountability Office
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
