What GAO Found As of August 2024, the Export-Import Bank (EXIM) was monitoring the end use of a single transaction that it had continued to finance in fiscal year 2022, as summarized below: Two satellites for the government of Mexico. EXIM had provided financing to the government of Mexico for (1) a fixed-service satellite that launched in December 2012 and became operational in February 2013 and (2) a mobile-service satellite that launched in October 2015 and became operational in December 2015. In 2024, EXIM received all documents from the government of Mexico on time and subsequently determined that Mexico was in compliance with the bank's dual-use policy. EXIM did not finance any new exports under its dual-use authority in fiscal year 2023, according to EXIM authorization data and EXIM officials. Why GAO Did This Study EXIM's mission is to support the export of U.S. goods and services overseas through loans, loan guarantees, and insurance, thereby supporting U.S. jobs. In 1994, Congress passed legislation authorizing EXIM to facilitate the financing of U.S. exports of defense articles and services with both civilian and military applications, provided that the bank determines such dual-use items are nonlethal and primarily meant for civilian end use. Included in the same act was a provision for GAO, in consultation with EXIM, to report annually on the end uses of dual-use exports financed by EXIM during the second preceding fiscal year. This report (1) examines the status of EXIM's monitoring of dual-use exports that it continued to finance in fiscal year 2022, as of August 2024, and (2) identifies any new dual-use exports that EXIM financed in fiscal year 2023. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed EXIM documentation and data on dual-use exports and interviewed EXIM officials. For more information, contact Nagla’a El-Hodiri at 202-512-7279 or elhodirin@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Financial professionals providing retirement investors fiduciary investment advice must generally avoid conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest can arise from, among other things, proprietary products, payments from third parties, and compensation arrangements, among other things. The Department of Labor (DOL) issued a final rule in 2016 that expanded the definition of fiduciary investment advice. That rule was vacated in 2018. Firm responses to DOL's rule change varied. To comply, some firms moved toward standardized compensation for financial professionals, and away from compensation that can depend on recommendations, according to several industry association representatives. After the rule was vacated, some firms reversed certain practices established under the rule, and other firms kept their new practices. Conflicts of interest disclosures are not always clear or understood. GAO found many conflicts associated with recommending one product over another in a review of over two thousand descriptions of conflicts of interest in required disclosures. Firms' disclosures of conflicts are available to investors, although—based on GAO's review of disclosures and prior GAO work—investors may not review or understand these documents. Federal agencies encourage investors to ask professionals about conflicts of interest, but GAO's undercover calls found that doing so may not always produce helpful information. Mutual funds that compensate financial professionals are associated with lower average returns. GAO's analysis of Morningstar mutual fund data from 2018 to 2021 found that funds that compensate financial professionals based on whether their clients invest in those funds (a proxy for conflicts) is associated with lower average returns before fees. This could reduce retirement savings' growth over time and could make a difference of tens of thousands of dollars for investors in actively managed domestic equity funds at retirement. IRA fiduciary oversight lacking. By law, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has sole enforcement authority over firms and financial professionals acting as fiduciaries under the Internal Revenue Code for Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA fiduciaries). IRS's approach to protect IRA investors from the conflicts of interest of IRA fiduciaries who engage in prohibited transactions relies on the IRA fiduciary self-reporting to IRS and paying the applicable excise tax, according to IRS officials. According to IRS, the excise tax is intended to safeguard income for retired workers by taxing transactions deemed particularly objectionable because of the potential for abuse of fiduciary responsibilities by parties having conflicts of interests. IRS officials said their practice regarding IRA fiduciaries is to enforce prohibited transactions that DOL refers to them. However, DOL does not have authority to audit IRAs for prohibited transactions and, therefore, is generally unable to refer IRA fiduciaries to IRS for excise tax enforcement. Until IRS implements an audit process for IRA fiduciaries, IRA investors may continue to be exposed to adverse impacts of prohibited transactions that can jeopardize their financial security in retirement. Why GAO Did This Study The interests of financial professionals and firms often conflict with the interests of retirement investors. This could create risks for millions of investors with over $18 trillion dollars in retirement savings in 401(k) plans and IRAs. Although federal agencies have taken steps to mitigate such conflicts, GAO was asked to assess where issues around conflicts of interest and investment advice stand today. This report examines (1) industry changes to address the 2016 rule; (2) conflicts that can affect retirement investors, how they are communicated, and their association with investment returns; and (3) federal oversight of conflicts and actions that could improve oversight. GAO interviewed financial industry associations to identify industry changes, examined disclosures from over 15,000 firms and conducted undercover calls to 75 financial professionals to identify conflicts and determine how they are communicated. GAO also performed a regression analysis to assess the association between conflicts and investment returns; and reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations and interviewed agency officials and others.

This electronic supplement serves as a companion to GAO's report entitled, K-12 Education: Student, Teacher, and School Characteristics Associated with English Learners' Academic Performance, GAO-24-106360. This supplement presents technical information about regression analyses of three Department of Education Datasets. For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at (202) 512-7215 or NowickiJ@gao.gov.

What GAO Found English learners—most of whom were born in the U.S.—are a diverse and growing group of students. Between fall 2010 and fall 2020, English learners in U.S. public schools grew from 4.5 million to 5.0 million students. They speak more than 400 languages and represent a wide range of cultures, grade levels, experiences, and backgrounds. GAO's multivariate regression analyses of three Department of Education (Education) data sets identified a variety of student, teacher, and school characteristics associated with English learners' academic performance and progress towards English proficiency. Student characteristics: Characteristics including a student's school experience, demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics were associated with how they performed. For example, having positive feelings about school, being Asian, and being female were associated with higher reading scores. In contrast, feeling disconnected from school, frequent absences, having a disability, and being economically disadvantaged were associated with lower reading scores. Teacher characteristics: For some student groups, having a teacher of the same ethnicity was associated with higher scores in math or reading. Overcrowded classrooms and high levels of teacher absences were significantly associated with lower reading and math scores and less progress towards English proficiency. School characteristics: Characteristics such as school size and socioeconomic composition were associated with English learners' academic performance and progress toward English proficiency. Over time, schools with higher percentages of students enrolled in dual language immersion English instruction were associated with slightly higher rates of growth in reading scores. Why GAO Did This Study The House Committee on Education and the Workforce asked GAO to examine the academic achievement of English learners. Education provides supplemental funding to states to help ensure that English learners attain English proficiency and can meet the same academic standards that all children are expected to meet. As part of its oversight duties, Education collects state, national, and longitudinal data on English learners. To do this work, GAO conducted multivariate regressions using three data sources to explore which student, teacher, and school characteristics were associated with English learners' performance. Regressions are a statistical method that explores whether a relationship exists between two or more variables of interest. For example, a regression can look at whether a relationship exists between poverty and reading scores, while accounting for other factors that may affect the scores. Data Sources on English Learner Performance   Population Covered Years Analysis level Performance indicator(s)   Student Teacher School   EDFacts (State reading and English proficiency assessments) All K-12 public schools 2018, 2019, 2021     X Percent of students proficient in English Percent making progress towards English proficiency National Assessment of Educational Progress (National assessments) Sample of 4th and 8th grade students 2019 X X X Score on national reading and math assessments Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey (Longitudinal study) Sample cohort of kindergartners through fifth grade (2010-11 cohort) 2010-2016 X X X Growth in reading score over time Source: GAO summary of information from the U.S. Department of Education, The National Center for Education Statistics, within the department’s Institute of Education Sciences. | GAO-24-106360 For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at (202) 512-7215 or NowickiJ@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In June 2023, GAO identified 42 priority recommendations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS has implemented 16 of those recommendations leading to improvements in the National Flood Insurance Program, disaster response and recovery, noncitizen processing at the southwest border, CBP protection of U.S. trade revenue, the strategy to counter violent extremism, TSA's assessment of pipeline risks, and cybersecurity and IT management, among other areas. In August 2024, GAO identified 11 additional priority recommendations for DHS, bringing the total number to 37. One recommendation is related to training special agents of the U.S. Secret Service. The remaining 36 recommendations fall into the following seven areas: Emergency preparedness and response, Border security, Countering violent extremism and domestic terrorism, Domestic intelligence and information sharing, Information technology and cybersecurity, Chemical security, and Infrastructure, acquisition, and management. DHS's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or ensure that programs comply with laws and funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Jason L. Bair at (202) 512-6881 or bairj@gao.gov.