What GAO Found Property technology broadly refers to the use of software, digital platforms, and other digital tools used in the housing market. Property owners and renters use these technologies for functions including advertising, touring, leasing, and financial management of rental housing. These tools may incorporate computer algorithms and artificial intelligence. Selected Property Technology Tools Used in Rental Housing Property technology tools used for advertising, tenant screening, rent-setting, and facial recognition have both benefits and risks. For example, facial recognition technology can enhance safety, according to three industry associations and all 10 of the public housing agencies in GAO's review. However, these tools also may pose risks related to transparency, discriminatory outcomes, and privacy. For instance, potential renters may struggle to understand, and owners to explain, the basis for screening decisions made by algorithms. Facial recognition systems also might misidentify individuals from certain demographic groups, and property owners might use surveillance information without renter consent, according to advocacy groups GAO interviewed. The four federal agencies took several actions to address these risks. To combat alleged misleading and discriminatory advertising on rental platforms, agencies pursued legal action and obtained settlements requiring changes to advertising practices and improved compliance with the Fair Housing Act. They also took enforcement actions against tenant screening companies for using inaccurate or outdated data. However, all 10 public housing agencies stated public housing agencies would benefit from additional direction on use of facial recognition technology. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) current guidance to these agencies is high-level and does not provide specific direction on key operational issues, such as managing privacy risks or sharing data with law enforcement. More detailed written direction could provide public housing agencies additional clarity on the use of facial recognition technology and better address tenant privacy concerns. Why GAO Did This Study Some policymakers have raised questions about the use of property technology tools in the rental housing market, including their potential to produce discriminatory or unfair outcomes for renters. GAO was asked to assess various aspects of property technology use in the rental housing market. This report examines (1) the use of four selected property technology tools, (2) their potential benefits and risks for owners and renters, and (3) federal agencies' oversight of these tools.  GAO focused on four commonly used types of property technology tools (see figure). GAO reviewed studies by federal agencies and advocacy and industry groups; agency guidance and documentation; and rulemakings, legal cases, and enforcement actions issued in 2019–2024. GAO also interviewed officials of four federal agencies responsible for enforcing statutes that address housing discrimination; anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive acts affecting commerce; and the use of consumer credit reports; and representatives of 12 property technology companies, 10 public housing agencies, and nine advocacy or industry groups (nongeneralizable sample groups, selected for their expertise in or use of these technologies).

What GAO Found The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) does not have an educational plan to help ensure that its outreach and communication efforts for the adoption tax credit are effective. In 2011, GAO recommended that IRS should include relevant adoption stakeholders and clarify its documentation requirements for the credit. GAO also reported IRS audited a high percentage of returns that claimed the credit. In 2012, in response to GAO's recommendation, IRS took some steps to improve its adoption tax credit communications strategy. However, IRS does not currently have a comprehensive educational outreach plan to engage with adoption stakeholders and provide clear, consistent information to taxpayers. Examples of Qualified and Non-qualified Adoption Expenses Note: See figure 3 in GAO-25-107429 for more information on certain expenses. IRS has developed adoption tax credit materials but has not consistently provided the information to key adoption stakeholders, such as state agencies. Some stakeholders told GAO that having these materials would help them in assisting adoptive families. Additionally, some of these materials did not provide clear, consistent messages on how to accurately claim the credit. Also, IRS's list of approved documentation taxpayers should retain when claiming the credit is not easily accessible. As a result, taxpayers may (1) not know they are eligible for the credit, (2) inaccurately claim the credit, or (3) be unprepared if audited. GAO also found that the percentage of returns claiming the adoption credit were generally audited at the same rate as all individual tax returns for tax years 2012 through 2021. However, among adoption credits audited during this time, 41 percent were adjusted by IRS. The average increase to the credit was approximately $6,000 and the average decrease was approximately $7,000. IRS officials could not easily provide an explanation for these changes. An educational outreach plan for the adoption tax credit would help IRS ensure that adoptive families know about the credit, their eligibility, and other requirements. Such a plan is particularly important in light of changes to the credit that were enacted in July 2025. Improved education and guidance, along with more engagement with adoption stakeholders—such as the Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families—could help taxpayers avoid costly mistakes in either failing to claim the credit or doing so inappropriately. Improved understanding of the credit could also save IRS resources by reducing the need for expensive audits. Why GAO Did This Study In the United States, over 100,000 children are adopted annually. More than half of adoptions are performed through the public foster care system. Individuals can pay thousands of dollars in expenses to adopt a child. In 1996, the adoption tax credit was established and encourages adoptions by offsetting related costs. GAO was asked to review IRS's administration of the adoption tax credit. This report examines (1) IRS's outreach to educate individuals on the availability and requirements to claim the adoption tax credit, and (2) the frequency and results of audits IRS conducted on the adoption tax credit for tax years 2012 through 2021. GAO reviewed IRS's education efforts on the adoption credit and interviewed relevant officials. GAO also interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of seven adoption stakeholders, including state adoption and foster care agencies and nongovernmental organizations, including those that provide tax and legal assistance for adoptive families. Lastly, GAO reviewed the results of adoption tax credit audits for tax years 2012 through 2021, the most current data available.

What GAO Found The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provided different types of financial assistance to improve drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in fiscal years 2014 through 2023. Specifically, 14 of the agencies’ programs provided $35 billion in grants (at least 22,000 projects) and $29 billion in direct loans (about 4,800 projects) during this period. EPA, FEMA, and USDA took steps to reduce barriers to financial assistance faced by vulnerable communities—those likely to face challenges preparing for and recovering from disasters, such as rural and low-income areas. In this report, GAO used the term “vulnerable communities” to refer to communities defined in some programs’ authorizing statutes that may receive additional assistance under these programs. These statutes were not affected by recent executive orders or actions. Agencies provided technical assistance and allowed grantees to use assistance from other federal programs to meet requirements to provide matching funds, known as nonfederal cost share. However, FEMA has not adequately communicated about the option to use assistance from USDA programs to meet cost-share requirements in certain cases. EPA, FEMA, and USDA used national or state measures to assess the extent to which vulnerable communities benefitted from certain programs. However, EPA, FEMA, and USDA officials said that limited data about the geographical areas served by drinking water and wastewater utilities made it difficult to accurately assess who benefited from their programs. EPA created a mapping tool with the geographical service areas of drinking water systems, which may differ from municipal boundaries (see fig.). EPA plans to complete a similar tool for wastewater service areas in summer 2025. Using EPA’s mapping tools could enable EPA, FEMA, and USDA to more accurately identify the communities, including vulnerable communities, their programs are benefiting. Example Municipal Boundary and Drinking Water System Service Area Why GAO Did This Study Drinking water and wastewater utilities have experienced disruption or failure after disasters, threatening public health. For example, disasters in Mississippi in 2022 and North Carolina in 2024 left residents without potable water for weeks. Federal agencies provide assistance for utilities to build resilience against natural disasters—including communities in rural and low-income areas vulnerable to disasters. This report examines, among other things, (1) financial assistance that EPA, FEMA, and USDA provided to improve water infrastructure; (2) the extent to which these agencies addressed barriers vulnerable communities face accessing and participating in selected programs; and (3) how these agencies assessed the extent to which assistance reached vulnerable communities. GAO analyzed fiscal year 2014–2023 data for EPA, FEMA, and USDA programs that provided financial assistance for water infrastructure projects—the most recent data available during the review. GAO also reviewed relevant executive orders and agencies’ plans and actions taken to address barriers faced by vulnerable communities. Finally, GAO interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 14 utilities selected based on factors including vulnerability and disaster experience.