Descriptions and evaluations of the vocational education services delivered to special populations, the effects of the Carl D. Perkins Act of 1984 in modernizing the vocational education system, the impact of vocational education on academic skills and employment opportunities, and other topics as mandated by Congress in the Act (section 403[a]).

Healthcare decision makers in search of reliable information that compares health interventions increasingly turn to systematic reviews for the best summary of the evidence. Systematic reviews identify, select, assess, and synthesize the findings of similar but separate studies, and can help clarify what is known and not known about the potential benefits and harms of drugs, devices, and other healthcare services. Systematic reviews can be helpful for clinicians who want to integrate research findings into their daily practices, for patients to make well-informed choices about their own care, for professional medical societies and other organizations that develop clinical practice guidelines. Too often systematic reviews are of uncertain or poor quality. There are no universally accepted standards for developing systematic reviews leading to variability in how conflicts of interest and biases are handled, how evidence is appraised, and the overall scientific rigor of the process. In Finding What Works in Health Care the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends 21 standards for developing high-quality systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. The standards address the entire systematic review process from the initial steps of formulating the topic and building the review team to producing a detailed final report that synthesizes what the evidence shows and where knowledge gaps remain. Finding What Works in Health Care also proposes a framework for improving the quality of the science underpinning systematic reviews. This book will serve as a vital resource for both sponsors and producers of systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) disposes of plutonium-contaminated debris from its 27 nuclear weapons facilities at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), an underground repository in Carlsbad, New Mexico. After four years of operational experience, DOE has opportunities to make changes to the costly and time-consuming process of "characterizing" the waste to confirm that it is appropriate for shipment to and disposal at WIPP.  The report says that in order to make such changes, DOE should conduct and publish a systematic and quantitative assessment to show that the proposed changes would not affect the protection of workers, the public, or the environment.

Regulatory standards are already on the books at the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address health risks posed by inhaling tiny particles from smoke, vehicle exhaust, and other sources. At the same time, Congress and EPA have initiated a multimillion dollar research effort to better understand the sources of these airborne particles, the levels of exposure to people, and the ways that these particles cause damage. To provide independent guidance to the EPA, Congress asked the National Research Council to study the relevant issues. The result is a series of four reports on the particulate-matter research program. The first two books offered a conceptual framework for a national research program, identified the 10 most critical research needs, and described the recommended timing and estimated costs of such research. This, the third volume, begins the task of assessing the progress made in implementing the research program. The National Research Council ultimately concludes that the ongoing program is appropriately addressing many of the key uncertainties. However, it also identifies a number of critical specific subjects that should be given greater attention. Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter focuses on the most current and planned research projects with an eye toward the fourth and final report, which will contain an updated assessment.

Audits provide essential accountability and transparency over government programs. Given the current challenges facing governments and their programs, the oversight provided through auditing is more critical than ever. Government auditing provides the objective analysis and information needed to make the decisions necessary to help create a better future. The professional standards presented in this 2018 revision of Government Auditing Standards (known as the Yellow Book) provide a framework for performing high-quality audit work with competence, integrity, objectivity, and independence to provide accountability and to help improve government operations and services. These standards, commonly referred to as generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS), provide the foundation for government auditors to lead by example in the areas of independence, transparency, accountability, and quality through the audit process. This revision contains major changes from, and supersedes, the 2011 revision.