What GAO Found Air cargo volume handled by Puerto Rico’s three international airports fluctuated between 2015 and 2024, hitting a low of 501 million pounds in 2019 before increasing to 621 million pounds in 2024, according to Bureau of Transportation Statistics’s air carrier data. The largest of these airports, Luis Muñoz Marín in San Juan, increased cargo volumes over this period, while volumes declined at the second largest airport, Rafael Hernández in Aguadilla. Mercedita Airport in Ponce is not regularly used as a cargo airport. Health care-related goods—including pharmaceuticals and medical devices—accounted for about half of the reported cargo volume leaving Puerto Rico, according to Census trade data. Air Cargo Traffic for International Airports in Puerto Rico (in pounds), 2015–2024 Note: Data do not include traffic between Puerto Rico’s airports. Mercedita International Airport, which annually handled between 0 and 50,000 pounds of cargo, is included in the total but not separately. According to air cargo stakeholders GAO interviewed, some conditions at Puerto Rico’s international airports can support existing air cargo operations, but improvements are needed for growth. Stakeholders noted recent improvements to airport infrastructure in San Juan, including expanding access roads. However, they also identified additional improvements needed, such as enhancing warehouses and cold storage space at all airports. They also identified needed operational improvements. For example, agency officials, including from U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Agriculture, noted that there were limited staff available to inspect cargo, which could affect timeliness should operations increase. Puerto Rico has pursued several initiatives to promote growth in air cargo operations, including seeking expanded authority for some air carriers to transfer cargo. In addition, Puerto Rico has developed an air cargo strategy and worked with health care manufacturers and the logistics sector to increase collaboration and standardize pharmaceutical handling practices at its international airports. Why GAO Did This Study Aviation is critical for delivering time-sensitive goods like health care products. With the growth of e-commerce, it is also a means to rapidly deliver consumer goods. Puerto Rico is promoting air cargo operations as a means of increasing economic development. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 includes a provision for GAO to study air cargo operations in Puerto Rico. This report describes (1) trends in air cargo operations from 2015 through 2024 at Puerto Rico’s three international airports, (2) conditions at these airports to support air cargo operations and improvements needed for growth, and (3) government and industry efforts to promote air cargo growth and potential effects of such growth. GAO analyzed Bureau of Transportation Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau air cargo data. GAO also interviewed officials from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland Security, and Transportation; interviewed Puerto Rico government officials, including airport officials at Puerto Rico’s three international airports; and reviewed associated documents from these entities. GAO also interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 29 air cargo stakeholders, including air carriers and health care manufacturers with perspectives on air cargo operations and infrastructure at Puerto Rico’s airports. GAO observed air cargo operations and infrastructure conditions in Puerto Rico. For more information, contact Danielle Giese at giesed@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provided significant supplemental funding for Tribes and programs that serve Tribes. As of December 19, 2025, the Bureau of Indian Affairs—under Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior—had 143 IRA-funded projects totaling about $360 million to support tribal electrification, community resilience, and fish hatcheries across its 12 regions. However, per an executive order, some funds were paused for disbursement in January 2025. This led to schedule delays and potential cost increases for projects, impacting Tribes, according to officials and tribal representatives we interviewed. In December 2025, Interior was conducting a review of all active IRA-funded projects to ensure alignment with administration priorities, according to communications we reviewed. Status of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Project Awards by Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Region, as of Dec. 19, 2025 In millions of dollars BIA region Total amount in IRA project awards (number of projects) Total amount initially paused as of Mar. 3, 2025 (percent of total awarded) Total amount obligated but not yet expended as of Dec. 19, 2025 (percent of total awarded) Total amount not yet obligated as of Dec. 19, 2025 (percent of total awarded) Alaska 119.9 (39 projects) 98.0 (82%) 39.1 (33%) 39.6 (33%) Eastern 20.0 (8 projects) 13.2 (66%) 5.1 (25%) 0.0 (0%) Eastern Oklahoma 10.9 (3 projects) 6.7 (62%) 2.8 (26%) 0.0 (0%) Great Plains 25.5 (11 projects) 8.6 (34%) 5.5 (22%) 0.5 (2%) Midwest 30.2 (9 projects) 25.9 (86%) 10.7 (35%) 5.8 (19%) Navajo 17.8 (3 projects) 17.4 (98%) 8.7 (49%) 0.0 (0%) Northwest 43.3 (34 projects) 11.6 (27%) 4.5 (10%) 5.9 (14%) Pacific 31.2 (19 projects) 21.8 (70%) 4.0 (13%) 12.6 (40%) Rocky Mountain 12.4 (3 projects) 2.2 (18%) 0 (0%) 0.0 (0%) Southern Plains 11.2 (3 projects) 1.5 (13%) 0 (0%) 1.5 (13%) Southwest 19.5 (4 projects) 14.7 (76%) 11.9 (61%) 0.0 (0%) Western 17.6 (7 projects) 7.3 (42%) 1.6 (9%) 5.0 (28%) Total 359.5 (143 projects) 229.0 (64%) 93.8 (26%) 70.9 (20%) Source: GAO analysis of data from the Department of the Interior’s Indian Affairs. | GAO-26-107940 Note: Amounts are for specific projects and do not include funds for administrative costs or funds not allocated to a specific region. Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding. Amounts paused as of March 3, 2025, refer to amounts paused after Executive Order 14154 of January 20, 2025, “Unleashing American Energy,” 90 Fed. Reg. 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025). According to BIA officials, previously obligated funds were later released in response to an April 2025 court order. Amounts not yet obligated prior to the executive order were placed under review but could be released on a case-by-case basis, according to officials. As of December 16, 2025, Interior was conducting an expanded review of all active IRA project awards to ensure alignment with administration priorities, according to communications we reviewed. Federal regional officials told GAO that IRA implementation increased overall workload and exacerbated existing regional workforce capacity challenges, impacting their ability to meet overall workload demands. For example, some regions faced competing priorities and assigned staff outside their area of expertise to implement IRA programs. Additionally, IRA implementation took place in the context of longstanding workforce capacity challenges, such as extended vacancies and a limited talent pool for hiring. Indian Affairs’ regional workforce has experienced varying degrees of attrition since fiscal year 2022, when the IRA was enacted. On average, Indian Affairs’ regional offices had a 10 percent annual staff attrition rate from fiscal year 2022 through fiscal year 2024. In fiscal year 2025, several changes to Indian Affairs’ workforce policies and staffing took place as part of government-wide efforts to downsize and restructure the federal workforce. These staffing changes were expected to reduce the regional workforce by at least 23 percent from the beginning of fiscal year 2025 through December 31, 2025, according to GAO’s analysis. Indian Affairs has taken actions to help meet IRA and overall workload demands, including authorizing overtime, using contractors, and increasing the number of officials certified to award funding to Tribes. However, officials and tribal representatives GAO interviewed identified opportunities for further actions to streamline existing policies, processes, systems, and requirements to reduce administrative burden for Indian Affairs staff and Tribes. Systematically identifying and assessing such opportunities, and developing a comprehensive plan to implement them, could enable the agency to better meet regional workload demands and support Tribes. Additionally, GAO found that assessing Tribes’ technical assistance needs and formally assessing the resources necessary for technical assistance to support expanded use of self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts—which create flexibilities for Tribes to administer federally funded programs—could help reduce regional workload to support long-term tribal development and resilience. Why GAO Did This Study The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provided $385 million to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for programs serving Tribes. Indian Affairs’ 12 regional offices provide services directly to Tribes or funding for tribally administered programs, including natural resources, real estate services, transportation, and tribal services. In November 2024, GAO reported that components implementing IRA programs in Indian Affairs’ Central Offices experienced increased workload that exacerbated existing capacity challenges, making meeting mission needs difficult across competing priorities. The IRA includes a provision for GAO to support oversight of the distribution and use of IRA funds. This report addresses IRA implementation in Indian Affairs’ regional offices, regional workforce capacity since the IRA was enacted, and opportunities to meet overall regional workload demands to support Tribes.

What GAO Found State and local government recipients of the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) program had obligated nearly all of their SLFRF awards, as of March 31, 2025—the most recent data available at the time of this review. The data include information received by Treasury through September 30, 2025. Specifically, states reported obligating all but $10.4 million of the $195.8 billion they received, and localities reported obligating all but $101 million of the $127.8 billion in awards they received. State and local government recipients generally had until December 31, 2024, to obligate the SLFRF awards they received. Funds that have not been obligated by that date generally must be returned to Treasury. Between March and October 2025, Treasury sent instructions to the state and local recipients that reported unobligated funds, requesting the return of those funds. As of November 2025, states and localities had returned $13.7 million of the total reported $111.4 million in unobligated funds. Further, states reported spending 80 percent ($156.3 billion) of their SLFRF awards, and localities reported spending 84 percent ($107.2 billion) of their awards as of March 31, 2025. Reported Spending of Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) by States and the District of Columbia, as of March 31, 2025 Both states and localities reported spending most of their SLFRF awards—53 percent ($82.6 billion) and 67 percent ($71.9 billion), respectively—to replace revenue lost due to the pandemic. States and localities generally have until December 31, 2026, to spend their awards. Why GAO Did This Study Overall, SLFRF allocated $350 billion to tribal governments, states, the District of Columbia, local governments, and U.S. territories to help cover a broad range of costs stemming from the health and economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. SLFRF recipients must regularly submit reports to Treasury on their use of SLFRF awards and the projects undertaken with them. The CARES Act includes a provision for GAO to monitor the use of federal funds to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. This report examines the SLFRF funding states and localities are required to report to Treasury. This report updates our October 2023, April 2024, and September 2024 reports on states’ and localities’ spending and uses of SLFRF. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed Treasury SLFRF project and expenditure data and interviewed Treasury officials. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations governing the SLFRF program and Treasury SLFRF program guidance, policies, and procedures. For more information, contact Jeff Arkin at arkinj@gao.gov.  

What GAO Found The Army, Navy, and Air Force have issued guidance to help facilitate command efforts to locate a service member who is deemed absent from their assigned duty location. However, the Marine Corps has not developed such guidance, as GAO recommended in 2022. GAO analyzed Army, Navy, and Air Force guidance and identified the following gaps that could hinder efforts to locate absent service members and mitigate related risks. Response time frames. Service guidance outlines response time frames with varying levels of specificity, resulting in different interpretations among officials regarding how quickly certain actions should be initiated. For example, Army guidance includes detailed time frames for actions such as alerting law enforcement, whereas Navy and Air Force guidance does not. Mental health. Army, Navy, and Air Force officials GAO interviewed commonly observed a link between service member absences and mental health and said that locating service members often intersects with efforts to prevent self-harm. However, guidance inconsistently addresses the interconnected nature of mental health issues and service member absences, and how such considerations should inform the command’s response. Safety. Army, Navy, and Air Force officials identified potential safety issues that may arise while searching for an absent service member, especially if the service member is experiencing a mental health crisis or has access to a firearm. However, guidance does not address these safety issues, potentially subjecting the absent service member or those trying to locate them to unnecessary risk. By addressing these gaps in guidance, the services can better position themselves to help prevent harm and save lives. Some services’ guidance for commanders and the military criminal investigative organizations (MCIO) lacks clarity on whether and when to classify an absence as voluntary or involuntary, which can significantly affect the urgency and comprehensiveness of search efforts. For example, Army guidance for commanders requires them to presume the service member is potentially in danger and to presume the absence is most likely involuntary after 48 hours unless available information indicates the absence should be considered voluntary. However, Department of Defense (DOD)-wide guidance does not have a similar provision, nor do the other military services’ guidance. In another example, Air Force MCIO guidance requires investigators to treat all absences as involuntary in the first instance, while guidance for the Army and Navy MCIOs does not. By revising guidance, commands and MCIOs will have a more consistent approach to absences and further their goal of quickly and safely locating absent service members. Why GAO Did This Study When a service member is absent from their unit, it may not be immediately clear if the absence is voluntary—that is, deliberate on the part of the service member—or involuntary, meaning the service member may be in danger. A timely and well-coordinated response to a service member’s absence is critical to establishing the facts and helping to ensure their safe return, if possible. House Report 118-125 includes a provision for GAO to review policies and procedures related to missing and absent service members. This report builds on GAO’s 2022 report on this topic and examines the extent to which DOD and the military services have clarified guidance for responding to incidents of absent service members, among other issues. GAO reviewed DOD guidance on responding to service member absences. GAO also visited a nongeneralizable sample of eight military installations, two per military service; reviewed the processes for responding to service member absences; and interviewed officials responsible for responding to such absences.

Why This Matters The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has primary responsibility for securing the 4,000-mile border between the United States and Canada. Border Patrol, within CBP, reported that apprehensions in this region more than tripled from fiscal year 2019 through fiscal year 2024. As we reported in 2024, the agency has not met agent staffing targets in recent years. GAO Key Takeaways Border Patrol’s efforts to secure our nation’s borders include apprehending people suspected of illicit activity such as entry without inspection and drug smuggling. Apprehensions and drug seizures. From fiscal year 2023 to 2024, the number of people Border Patrol apprehended along the northern border increased sharply (see fig.). From fiscal year 2019 through fiscal year 2024, the number of Border Patrol’s drug seizures in this region varied. Technology. CBP uses aircraft, vessels, and surveillance technology—such as cameras, radar sites, and sensors—as part of its efforts to secure the northern border. From fiscal year 2019 through fiscal year 2024, CBP’s deployment of this technology increased. Staffing. In this same 5-year period, the number of agents staffed along the northern border decreased, but CBP has initiatives underway to address this issue. In addition, there was a decrease in the staffing rate for Law Enforcement Information Systems Specialists who monitor surveillance technology. The staffing rate for this key position along the northern border has been below its target, and the agency does not have a plan with strategies to address the staffing gap. Developing such a plan could help Border Patrol better carry out its responsibility to secure the northern border. Border Patrol Apprehensions Along the Northern Border from Fiscal Year 2019 Through the First Half of Fiscal Year 2025 How GAO Did This Study We analyzed Border Patrol data on apprehensions and drug seizures, as well as CBP data on staffing and resources since fiscal year 2019. We visited six CBP units along the northern border, selected based on apprehension levels, among other factors. We also interviewed CBP officials from the other units along the northern border.

What GAO Found Under a 3-year pilot program, the Department of the Treasury’s Do Not Pay system has temporary access to the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) full Death Master File. Prior to the pilot, the system had access to a less-comprehensive version of the file which excluded state death records. In January 2026, Congress passed a bill that, if enacted, would make access permanent. In April 2025, Treasury reported that the first year of this pilot (calendar year 2024) resulted in identification and prevention or recovery of $113.5 million in improper payments. This amount, offset by $4.6 million in costs, represented a return on investment of about 23 times Treasury’s pilot costs. Treasury projects that the pilot will result in over $337 million in net benefits over 3 years. Death data collected by states are their property, and statute requires SSA to pay states for use of these data. In September 2023, SSA concluded negotiations on new contracts to obtain states’ death data. Under these contracts, SSA paid states $23.8 million in 2024, a significant increase from 2023. SSA’s Actual and Estimated Future Costs for State Death Records, 2023–2028 The Social Security Act, as amended, specifies that SSA shall reimburse states for specific costs associated with death data, including (1) a fee for use of the data and (2) the full documented cost of transmitting the data to SSA. However, GAO found that SSA did not obtain the required state cost information and therefore did not consider it during negotiations. Instead, SSA and the states agreed on a fee structure based on the timeliness of submission of death records. Agencies receiving state death data must pay SSA a proportional share of its costs in obtaining the data from states. Of the $25.9 million in estimated state death record costs for 2025, SSA’s proportional share is projected to decline, from 42 percent in 2024 to 23 percent in 2025, due to a methodology change. Specifically, SSA calculated its 2025 share based on the percentage of SSA’s total federal outlays rather than on costs of obtaining data. SSA estimated that its outlays were about 23 percent of the federal total, so it decided that would be its cost share for 2025. For the remaining 77 percent, SSA distributed 36 percent to Treasury and 41 percent to other agencies without regard to cost (each of the other agencies is to contribute the same amount, approximately $1.533 million). Why GAO Did This Study Improper payments remain a long-standing and significant problem in the federal government. GAO previously reported that one strategy to help prevent improper payments is up-front verification of eligibility through data sharing and matching. Agencies can verify the eligibility of applicants through Treasury’s Do Not Pay system—a centralized data-matching service for agencies to use in preventing and detecting improper payments. This service currently includes the full Death Master File, SSA’s compilation of deceased Social Security number holders, to help agencies prevent improper payments. This report (1) describes the first-year results of the 3-year pilot to include SSA’s full Death Master File in Treasury’s Do Not Pay system, (2) evaluates the extent to which SSA’s payments for state death data are based on states’ documented costs, and (3) evaluates the extent to which SSA is charging agencies a proportional share of its costs. GAO analyzed SSA and Treasury documentation and interviewed federal and state agency officials.

What GAO Found The Coast Guard has over 40,000 active-duty military personnel who often reside in communities near their Coast Guard duty stations. Coast Guard units are often situated along major waterways and coastlines in remote or high vacation rental areas. Coast Guard members and their families may experience incidents of hostility, harassment, and discrimination from members of their community. Coast Guard members reported 112 incidents of community hostility, harassment, or discrimination directed towards them or their family from fiscal years 1998 through 2024. Most of these incidents, which the Coast Guard calls social climate incidents, were perceived to be motivated by race or ethnicity. More than half of these incidents were reported from fiscal year 2019 through fiscal year 2024. For example, in one incident a Coast Guard member reported that a restaurant refused to provide them service because of their race. In another incident, a service member reported that they were subjected to racial slurs by a community member in a grocery store. Reported Perceived Motivation in Coast Guard Social Climate Incidents From Fiscal Years 1998 through 2024 GAO found that Coast Guard commands have generally followed the social climate incident policies outlined in the Coast Guard Civil Rights Manual. However, district commands reported different interpretations of the definition, specifically as to whether social climate incidents are limited to legally protected classes. As a result, the Coast Guard may not have implemented its definition of a social climate incident consistently. By clarifying its definition of these incidents, the Coast Guard could better ensure commands apply policies consistently. Furthermore, the Civil Rights Directorate (CRD) was unable to locate any documentation for six of the 30 reported social climate incidents from fiscal years 2020 through 2024 that GAO selected to review. Developing and implementing a standardized process for the collection and retention of documents would help the CRD better oversee and manage the response to social climate incidents. The CRD provides Coast Guard members access to an internal website that tracks all reported social climate incidents and displays incident trends, including the location and type of incident. However, seven of the nine Coast Guard district commands GAO interviewed were not aware of this tool. By ensuring that all commands are consistently made aware of available tools, the Coast Guard could better prepare them to prevent and respond to incidents related to the social climate in the communities they serve. Why GAO Did This Study The Coast Guard mandates that all personnel be treated fairly and with respect to successfully carry out its missions, including within the communities in which they live. According to the Coast Guard, social climate incidents can have a negative impact on service members and their families. Under the Coast Guard’s Civil Rights Manual, the CRD is the headquarters office responsible for overseeing the management of reported social climate incidents. According to the Manual, one of the CRD’s strategic goals is to conduct activities and develop tools that assist and support commands in proactively preventing unlawful discrimination. GAO was asked to examine policies and procedures that the Coast Guard has in place to track, monitor, and address social climate incidents. This report provides information on available data on social climate incidents, the extent to which the Coast Guard follows social climate incident policies and procedures, and how the Coast Guard responds to social climate incidents. GAO reviewed relevant laws and Coast Guard policies and procedures, analyzed Coast Guard data, and interviewed agency officials. Specifically, GAO interviewed CRD officials, including Civil Rights Service Providers. GAO also interviewed commands from all nine Coast Guard districts as well as commands from four of 36 Coast Guard sectors and selected units within those sectors. GAO reviewed available Coast Guard data on social climate incidents reported from fiscal years 1998 through 2024 and analyzed the underlying documentation for a non-generalizable sample of 25 social climate incidents reported from fiscal years 2020 through 2024.

What GAO Found DOE established the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) in December 2021 to manage the historic amount of funding appropriated to DOE for demonstration projects. Key responsibilities include managing projects and assessing lessons learned to improve project oversight. OCED projects vary in scale and cover diverse clean energy technologies, including hydrogen and advanced nuclear energy. Generally, at least 50 percent of the project costs are borne by the project awardees. As of November 2025, OCED had committed over $18 billion to about 100 projects, although 35 of these projects have been identified for termination. To manage projects, OCED developed a framework that included a phased project approach and independent assessments at key oversight points to reduce organizational biases. Previously, OCED estimated it would need 351 staff to be fully staffed for the expected number of demonstration projects. There have been significant changes at OCED in 2025 affecting its capacity, including a significant decrease in workforce and contract support. OCED lost 85 percent of its staff (from 285 staff to about 40) between January and June 2025. This included all independent assessment staff. Further, in February 2025, OCED issued a stop work order on almost all contracts supporting the office. Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) Workforce Changes from January 2025 to June 2025 and OCED’s Committed Funds and Projects as of November 2025 Currently, it is unclear how DOE plans to meet its statutory requirements to manage projects given OCED’s limited capacity. The office is unlikely to be able to conduct in-depth project reviews at key oversight decision points and an OCED official said the office will likely move some aspects of OCED’s oversight to other DOE offices. For example, the Office of Project Management agreed to conduct independent assessments, but that office lost about 60 percent of its staff in 2025. Without a plan to meet the statutory requirements of managing projects and assessing lessons learned, DOE faces increased risks of not having the capacity to manage and oversee billions of dollars of federal funding for demonstration projects. Why GAO Did This Study The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish a program for clean energy demonstration projects. Roughly $27 billion was appropriated to DOE for large-scale clean energy demonstration projects. Congress included a provision in the IIJA for GAO to examine the oversight of demonstration projects and recommend changes for the purpose of better carrying out the program. This report examines (1) recent changes at OCED and (2) DOE’s capacity to successfully manage projects given these changes.  GAO reviewed DOE and OCED documents, including policies, guidance, and award documentation. GAO also interviewed DOE officials and stakeholders, including surveying 45 recipients of OCED awards.

What GAO Found The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) does not know how many individuals are currently in prison that could have already transferred to home confinement or a residential reentry center (RRC), also known as a halfway house. BOP officials said they do not know because the dates individuals are eligible to transfer are not readily available. GAO found that some individuals have remained in federal prisons despite being eligible to relocate to home confinement or an RRC. For instance, GAO found that BOP did not apply all the earned time toward placement in RRCs and home confinement for 21,190 of 29,934 individuals reviewed, for reasons such as insufficient RRC capacity and court orders. However, the full scale of this issue is unknown due to the lack of readily available data on eligibility dates. Until BOP maintains and monitors such data, it cannot ensure individuals transfer on time and take corrective action when timely transfers do not occur. As a result, BOP cannot ensure individuals receive the services and have the opportunities available at an RRC or home confinement, such as finding employment and long-term housing and reconnecting with the community. BOP has reported that such services can also help reduce recidivism. Limited capacity in BOP contracted RRCs and home confinement spaces was a reason that individuals did not transfer on time, according to BOP officials. However, BOP does not know the full extent of this shortage because it has not comprehensively assessed its capacity and related budgetary needs. Without these assessments, BOP cannot ensure it has enough space for incarcerated individuals to transfer on time. BOP could also miss opportunities to increase revenues and decrease costs to the federal government. For instance, BOP said that individuals who have resided in an RRC are less likely to return to prison. GAO also found that BOP made roughly 65,000 late payments to contractors, including RRCs, from fiscal year 2022 through March 2025. As a result, the agency paid $12.5 million in interest penalties as part of $2.8 billion in payments to contractors. In addition, GAO found that BOP paid RRCs late about 70 percent of the time, from fiscal years 2023 through 2024. RRC staff said they face hardships due to the late payments—needing private loans to pay staff. One RRC representative said late payments have made some RRCs reluctant to bid for new BOP contracts, which can further complicate BOP’s plans to expand capacity. By implementing a corrective action plan to address its late payments, BOP could save federal funds and better position itself to expand RRC capacity. BOP’s Late Payments to RRCs and Other Contractors, October 2021–March 2025 Why GAO Did This Study BOP contracts with roughly 150 RRCs across the U.S. to help incarcerated individuals reenter their communities upon completion of their sentences. RRCs facilitate reentry services (e.g., employment services, drug treatment, and classroom education) to individuals who reside in RRCs or who are on home confinement. RRCs can help individuals rebuild ties to their community and reduce the likelihood that they will commit future crimes. GAO was asked to review BOP’s use of RRCs. This report examines, among other things, how many individuals in BOP custody are eligible to transfer to RRCs and home confinement; the extent BOP knows its RRC capacity needs across the U.S.; and the extent BOP has paid RRCs and other contractors on time. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, BOP policies and documents, and BOP data on RRCs, including payments to contractors. In addition, GAO selected seven RRCs and three BOP field offices and interviewed residents and staff. GAO selected locations based on criteria such as geographic dispersion and the size of RRCs within an area. GAO also interviewed BOP officials responsible for residential reentry management and oversight.