Why it Matters
More than 200 federal programs direct money, food, healthcare, and childcare toward one of the most vulnerable populations in the country: pregnant women, infants, and children under five. Yet a new federal watchdog report finds that three programs designed exclusively to serve that population are operating without any formal way to measure whether they are actually working.
The Government Accountability Office released its findings on May 5, 2026, concluding that three of the 15 federal programs providing direct services solely to pregnant women and young children lack a performance management process, meaning they set no formal goals, collect no standardized data, and have no mechanism to assess whether they are delivering results. The report recommends those three programs establish such processes.
For a federal government that spends billions annually on maternal and child health federal programs, the absence of basic accountability infrastructure in even a handful of programs raises questions that go beyond bureaucratic housekeeping.
A Crowded Field With Uneven Accountability
The scale of federal investment in early childhood services is substantial. The GAO identified more than 200 programs that provide some form of support to pregnant women, children through age five, and their families. Those services span food assistance, childcare, healthcare coverage, home visiting, and developmental support.
Within that broader universe, 15 programs are specifically structured to serve only this population. They are the most targeted instruments in the federal toolkit for early childhood programs performance management and maternal health.
Of those 15, the GAO found that 12 have functioning federal performance management processes. These programs set goals, collect program performance data, and use that information to evaluate whether they are meeting their objectives. That is the baseline standard for any federally funded program operating under modern accountability frameworks.
The remaining three do not meet that standard. The GAO's report does not name those three programs in the summary description that has been made publicly available, and the full report text was not fully indexed at the time of publication. But the finding itself is significant: programs designed to serve one of the most policy-prioritized populations in Washington are running without the basic infrastructure to know if they are succeeding.
What Performance Management Actually Means
The phrase "performance management process" can sound like bureaucratic jargon, but its absence has real consequences for early childhood services evaluation and for the families those programs are meant to help.
A performance management framework, at minimum, requires an agency to define what success looks like, collect data on whether it is achieving that outcome, and use that data to make decisions. Without it, program administrators cannot identify what is working, Congress cannot conduct meaningful oversight, and the public has no basis for evaluating whether its money is being spent effectively.
For programs targeting pregnant women and young children, where early interventions in nutrition, healthcare, and development have well-documented long-term effects, the stakes of poor program design or ineffective delivery are not abstract. Children who do not receive adequate support in their first five years face documented disadvantages in educational attainment, health outcomes, and economic mobility.
The GAO's finding that three programs serving this population lack even the foundational layer of childcare food assistance performance goals and outcome tracking is a gap that, by the watchdog's own assessment, needs to be closed.
The Broader Accountability Framework
The GAO report lands at a moment when federal spending on social programs is under significant political scrutiny. The current Congress and administration have both signaled interest in evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of domestic spending programs, particularly those administered through the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, the two agencies most closely associated with the programs in this space.
Programs like WIC, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, and Medicaid-linked maternal health services have long been central to federal programs for pregnant women and children. Head Start and related early childhood development initiatives represent another major cluster of investment. Whether the three programs flagged by the GAO fall within those larger umbrellas or represent smaller, less visible efforts is not confirmed in the available summary data.
What is clear is that the GAO's recommendation follows a well-established pattern in its oversight work: when programs lack performance management infrastructure, the watchdog calls for it to be built. The recommendation in this report is consistent with that posture.
Early Childhood Programs Performance Management as a Policy Lever
There is a policy argument, not just an accountability argument, for why early childhood programs performance management matters beyond compliance. When programs collect rigorous data on what they are delivering and to whom, that information can be used to improve service design, target resources more effectively, and make the case to appropriators for continued or expanded funding.
Programs that cannot demonstrate results are, in a resource-constrained environment, more vulnerable to cuts. Programs that can show measurable outcomes tied to clear goals are better positioned to defend their budgets and expand their reach.
For the three programs identified in the GAO report, the absence of a performance management process is not just a compliance gap. It is a structural vulnerability at a time when scrutiny of federal social spending is intensifying.
The GAO's recommendation is straightforward: establish the process. Whether the relevant agencies move quickly to do so, and whether Congress follows up to ensure compliance, will determine whether this report produces change or joins the long shelf of watchdog findings that go unimplemented.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.