Introduction

This is GAO’s second annual report to Congress in response to the statutory requirement that GAO identify and report annually on federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives, either within departments or governmentwide, which have duplicative goals or activities. This body of work can help to inform government policymakers as they address the fiscal pressures facing our national government. The first report in this series, issued in March 2011, presented 81 opportunities to reduce potential government duplication, achieve cost savings, or enhance revenue.

Like our March 2011 publication, this report identifies government duplication, overlap, and fragmentation as well as other cost savings and revenue enhancement opportunities. Its findings involve a wide range of government missions and touch virtually all major federal departments and agencies.

Letter

February 28, 2012

Congressional Addressees

This is GAO’s second annual report to Congress in response to the statutory requirement that GAO identify and report annually on federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives, either within departments or governmentwide, which have duplicative goals or activities.¹ This body of work can help to inform government policymakers as they address the fiscal pressures facing our national government. The first report in this series, issued in March 2011,² presented 81 opportunities to reduce potential government duplication, achieve cost savings, or enhance revenue.

This report for 2012 presents 51 areas where programs may be able to achieve greater efficiencies or become more effective in providing government services. Like our March 2011 publication, this report identifies government duplication, overlap, and fragmentation as well as other cost savings and revenue enhancement opportunities. Its findings involve a wide range of government missions and touch virtually all major federal departments and agencies.

Federal agencies and Congress have taken or planned a number of actions that respond to issues we raised in our March 2011 report. Consistent with the commitment expressed in that report, we have continued to monitor developments in the 81 areas we identified. In a companion publication, Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Reduce Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue,³ which we are releasing concurrently with this report, we describe the extent to which progress has been made to address the actions we identified a year ago. In summary, GAO’s specific assessment of progress as of February 10, 2012, showed that 4 (or 5 percent) of the 81 areas GAO identified were addressed; 60 (or 74 percent) were partially addressed; and 17 (or 21 percent) were not addressed.⁴ In addition, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) instructed agencies to consider areas of duplication or overlap identified by GAO and others in their fiscal year 2013 budget submissions and management plans.

What GAO Found

This report is divided into two sections. Section I presents 32 areas in which we found evidence of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation among federal government programs. Section II of this report summarizes 19 additional opportunities for agencies or Congress to consider taking action that could either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collections for the Treasury.

To find areas where duplication might exist, GAO’s work begins, in many cases, by identifying fragmentation—that is, those circumstances in which more than one federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad area of national interest. In some instances of fragmentation, we find overlap—that is, programs that have similar goals, devise similar strategies and activities to achieve those goals, or target similar users. Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries. In many cases, the existence of unnecessary duplication, overlap, or fragmentation can be difficult to estimate with precision due to a lack of data on programs and activities.

Where information has not been available that would provide conclusive evidence of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation, we often refer to “potential duplication,” and where appropriate we suggest actions that agencies or Congress could take to either reduce that potential or to improve the accuracy and accessibility of information about program operations, performance, and results. In some instances of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation, it may be appropriate for multiple agencies or entities to be involved in the same programmatic or policy area due to the nature or magnitude of the federal effort. However, the areas discussed in the first section of this report identify instances where multiple government programs or activities have led to inefficiencies, and we determined that greater efficiencies or effectiveness might be achievable. Further, we have expanded the scope of our work this year to look for areas where a mix of federal approaches is used, such as tax expenditures, direct spending, and federal grant or loan programs.

Among the 32 areas where we found evidence of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation, this report describes a range of conditions. As the “Actions Needed” presented in this report show, addressing our varied findings will require careful deliberation and tailored, well-crafted solutions.

We have found that agencies can often realize a range of benefits, such as improved customer service, decreased administrative burdens, and cost savings from addressing the issues we raise in this report. Cost savings related to reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap, and fragmentation can be difficult to estimate in some cases because the portion of agency budgets devoted to certain programs or activities is often not clear. In addition, the implementation costs that might be associated with consolidating programs, establishing collaboration mechanisms, or reducing activities, facilities, or personnel, among other variables, are difficult to estimate, or needed information on program performance or costs is not readily available.

Section II of this report summarizes 19 additional opportunities for agencies or Congress to consider taking action that could either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collections for the Treasury. Collectively, this report shows that, if actions are taken to address the issues raised herein, as well as those from our 2011 report, the government could potentially save tens of billions of dollars annually, depending on the extent of actions taken.

GPRA Modernization Act Provides Opportunities to Address Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation

Many federal efforts, including those related to protecting food and agriculture, providing homeland security, and ensuring a well trained and educated workforce, transcend more than one agency, yet agencies face a range of challenges and barriers when they attempt to work collaboratively. Both Congress and the Executive Branch have recognized this, and in January 2011, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (the Act) was enacted, updating the almost two-decades-old Government Performance and Results Act.⁵ The Act establishes a new framework aimed at taking a more crosscutting and integrated approach to focusing on results and improving government performance. Effective implementation of the Act could play an important role in clarifying desired outcomes, addressing program performance spanning multiple organizations, and facilitating future actions to reduce unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation.

The Act requires OMB to coordinate with agencies to establish outcome-oriented goals covering a limited number of crosscutting policy areas as well as goals to improve management across the federal government, and to develop a governmentwide performance plan for making progress toward achieving those goals. The performance plan is to, among other things, identify the agencies and federal activities—including spending programs, tax expenditures, and regulations—that contribute to each goal, and establish performance indicators to measure overall progress toward these goals as well as the individual contribution of the underlying agencies and federal activities. The President’s budget for fiscal year 2013 includes 14 such crosscutting goals. Aspects of several of these goals—including Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Education, Entrepreneurship and Small Businesses, Job Training, Cybersecurity, Information Technology Management, Procurement and Acquisition Management, and Real Property Management—are discussed in this report or in our March 2011 report. The Act also requires similar information at the agency level. Each agency is to identify the various federal organizations and activities—both within and external to the agency—that contribute to its goals, and describe how the agency is working with other agencies to achieve its goals as well as any relevant crosscutting goals. OMB officials stated that their approach to responding to this requirement will address fragmentation among federal programs.

These requirements provide a much needed basis for more fully integrating a wide array of potentially duplicative, overlapping, or fragmented federal activities as well as a cohesive perspective on the long-term goals of the federal government focused on priority policy areas. It could also be a valuable tool for decision makers when reexamining existing programs and considering proposals for new programs.

GAO’s Systematic Examination of Federal Programs and Activities

This annual report is based upon work conducted for completed GAO products and certain ongoing audits, which were conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards or with our Quality Assurance Framework as appropriate. For issues based on GAO work that has not yet been published or those that update prior GAO work, we provide additional information on the methodologies used in that ongoing work or update in the section of each issue area titled “How GAO Conducted Its Work.” For additional information on our approach to preparing the overall report, see appendix II of the PDF version of this report.⁶ Appendix III of the PDF version of this report includes lists of federal programs or other activities related to issues in this report, and their fiscal year 2010 obligations data, where such information was available.⁷ Where information is being reported on for the first time in this report, GAO sought comments from the agencies involved and incorporated those comments as appropriate. In most cases, agencies provided technical comments. Written comments are reproduced in appendix IV of the PDF version of this report.

While the areas identified in our annual reports are not intended to represent the full universe of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation within the federal government, we will have conducted a systematic examination across the federal government to identify major instances of potential duplication, overlap, and fragmentation governmentwide by the time we issue our third annual report in fiscal year 2013.⁸ This examination involves a multiphased approach. First, to identify potential areas of overlap, we examined the major budget functions and subfunctions of the federal government as identified by OMB. This was particularly helpful in identifying issue areas involving multiple government agencies. Second, GAO subject matter experts examined key missions and functions of federal agencies—or organizations within large agencies—using key agency documents, such as strategic plans, agency organizational charts, and mission and function documents. This further enabled us to identify areas where multiple agencies have similar goals, or where multiple organizations within federal agencies are involved in similar activities. Next, we canvassed a wide range of published sources—such as congressional hearings and reports by the Congressional Budget Office, OMB, various government audit agencies, and private think tanks—that addressed potential issues of duplication, overlap, and fragmentation. Lastly, we have work under way or planned in the coming year to evaluate major instances of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation that we have not yet covered in our first two annual reports.

This report was prepared under the coordination of Janet St. Laurent, Managing Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, who may be reached at (202) 512-4300, or stlaurentj@gao.gov; and Zina Merritt, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, who may be reached at (202) 512-4300 or merrittz@gao.gov. Specific questions about individual issues may be directed to the area contact listed at the end of each summary.

Gene L. Dodaro

Comptroller General of the United States

Report at a Glance

This report is divided into two sections. Section I presents 32 areas in which we found evidence of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation among federal government programs. Section II of this report summarizes 19 additional opportunities for agencies or Congress to consider taking action that could either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collections for the Treasury.

Section I: Duplication, Overlap & Fragmentation

This section presents 32 areas in which we found evidence of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation among federal government programs.

Section II: Cost Savings & Revenue Enhancement

This section summarizes 19 additional opportunities for agencies or Congress to consider taking action that could either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collections for the Treasury.

Objectives, Scope, & Methodology

Section 21 of Public Law 111-139, enacted in February 2010, requires GAO to conduct routine investigations to identify federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities within departments and governmentwide. This provision also requires GAO to report annually to Congress on its findings, including the cost of such duplication, and recommendations for consolidation and elimination to reduce duplication and specific rescissions (legislation canceling previously enacted budget authority) that Congress may wish to consider.⁹ As agreed with the key congressional committees, our objectives in this report are to (1) identify what potentially significant areas of duplication, overlap, and fragmentation as well as opportunities for cost savings and enhanced revenues exist across the federal government; and (2) identify what options, if any, exist to minimize duplication, overlap, and fragmentation in these areas and take advantage of opportunities for cost savings and enhanced revenues.

For the purposes of our analysis, we considered “duplication” to occur when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries. We used the term “overlap” when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. We used the term “fragmentation” to refer to those circumstances in which more than one federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad area of national need and there may be opportunities to improve how the government delivers these services.¹⁰ This report presents 32 areas of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation where greater efficiencies or effectiveness in providing government services may be achievable. In light of the long-term fiscal imbalances that the federal government faces, and consistent with our approach for the first annual report, we also highlighted other opportunities for potential cost saving or revenue enhancements.

GAO’s Approach

To identify potentially significant areas of duplication, overlap, and fragmentation as well as opportunities for cost savings and enhanced revenues, for this and future reports we used a multiphased approach.

• Examination of budget functions and subfunctions of the federal government: We examined the OMB’s MAX Information System¹¹ fiscal year 2010 data to identify and analyze which federal agencies obligated funds for budget functions and subfunctions. Budget functions provide a system of classifying budget resources so that budget authority, outlays, receipts, and tax expenditures can be related to the national needs being addressed. Each budget account is generally placed in the single budget function (for example, national defense or health) that best reflects its major purpose, an important national need. A budget function may be divided into two or more subfunctions, depending on the complexity of the national need addressed. Because federal budget functions classify budget resources by important national need, identifying instances when multiple federal agencies obligate funds within a budget function or subfunction may indicate potential duplication or cost savings opportunities.
• Examination of key agency documents: When multiple federal agencies have similar missions, goals or programs, the potential for unnecessary duplication, overlap or fragmentation exists. As a result, we examined key agency documents such as strategic plans, performance and accountability reports, and budget justifications to determine and analyze their missions, goals, or programs.
• Review of key external published sources: We reviewed key external published sources of information. For example, we reviewed reports published by the Congressional Budget Office, Inspectors General, the Congressional Research Service, as well as the President’s Budget to identify potential overlap and duplication among agency missions, goals, and programs.

Because it is impractical to examine all instances of potential duplication or opportunities for cost savings across the federal government, we considered a variety of factors to determine whether such potential instances or opportunities were significant enough to require additional examination. Such factors included, but were not limited to, the extent of potential cost savings, opportunities for enhanced program efficiency or effectiveness, the degree to which multiple programs may be duplicative, overlapping or fragmented, whether issues had been identified by GAO or external sources, and the level of coordination among agency programs. On the basis of this multiphased approach we identified areas of potential duplication, overlap and fragmentation and opportunities for costs savings or revenue enhancement. GAO programmed work to examine these areas for reporting in this or future annual reports.

Each issue area contained in Sections I and II of this report lists any respective GAO reports and publications upon which it is based. Those prior reports contain more detailed information on our supporting work and methodologies. For issues based on GAO work that has not yet been published or those that update prior GAO work, we provide additional information on the methodologies used in that ongoing work or update in the section entitled “How GAO Conducted Its Work” of each issue area.

Identifying Options

To identify what options, if any, exist to minimize duplication, overlap, and fragmentation and take advantage of opportunities for cost savings and enhanced revenues, we reviewed and updated prior GAO work and recommendations to identify what additional actions agencies may need to take and Congress may wish to consider. For example, we used a variety of previously issued work identifying leading practices that could help agencies address challenges associated with interagency coordination,¹² achieving efficiencies,¹³ and managing user fees.¹⁴

To identify the potential financial and other benefits that might result from actions addressing duplication, overlap, or fragmentation, we collected and analyzed data on costs and potential savings to the extent it was available. Estimating the benefits that could result from eliminating unnecessary duplication, overlap, or fragmentation was not possible in some cases because information about the extent of unnecessary duplication among certain programs was not available. Further, the financial benefits that can be achieved from eliminating duplication, overlap, or fragmentation were not always quantifiable in advance of congressional and executive branch decision making, and needed information was not readily available on, among other things, program performance, the level of funding devoted to overlapping programs, or the implementation costs and time frames that might be associated with program consolidations or terminations.

We also included tables in appendix III that provide a detailed listing of federally-funded program names and associated budgetary information. While there is no standard definition for what constitutes a program, they may include grants, tax expenditures, centers, loans, funds, and other types of assistance. A wide variety of budgetary information may be used to convey the federal commitment to these programs. When available, we collected obligation information for fiscal year 2010 for consistent reporting across issue areas. In some instances, obligation data were not available, but we were able to report other budgetary information, such as appropriations. In other issue areas, we did not report any budgetary information, because such information was either not available or sufficiently reliable. For example, some agencies could not isolate budgetary information for some programs, because the data were aggregated at higher levels.

We assessed the reliability of any computer-processed data that materially affected our findings, including cost savings and revenue enhancement estimates. The steps that GAO takes to assess the reliability of data vary but are chosen to accomplish the auditing requirement that the data be sufficiently reliable given the purposes it is used for in our products. GAO analysts review published documentation about the data system and Inspector General or other reviews of the data. GAO may interview agency or outside officials to better understand system controls and to assure ourselves that we understand how the data are produced and any limitations associated with the data. GAO may also electronically test the data to see if values in the data conform to agency testimony and documentation regarding valid values, or compare data to source documents. In addition to these steps, GAO often compares data with other sources as a way to corroborate our findings. Per GAO policy, when data do not materially affect findings and are presented for background purposes only, we may not have assessed the reliability depending upon the context in which the data are presented.

This report is based substantially on previously issued GAO products and ongoing audits, which were conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, or with our Quality Assurance Framework, as appropriate. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. For issues where information is being reported on for the first time in this report, GAO sought comments from the agencies involved and incorporated their comments, as appropriate

Agency Comments

For issues where information is being reported on for the first time in this report, we sought comments from the agencies involved, and incorporated those comments as appropriate. This appendix includes only those letters that agencies provided on official letterhead.

In the letter below are comments on Area 7: Support for Entrepreneurs.




In the letter below are comments on Area 7: Support for Entrepreneurs.




In the letter below are comments on Area 14: Health Research Funding.




In the letter below are comments on Area 14: Health Research Funding.




In the letter below are comments on Area 23: Space Launch Contract Costs.




In the letter below are comments on Area 29: Early Learning and Child Care.




In the letter below are comments on Area 30: Employment for People with Disabilities.




In the letter below are comments on Area 31: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education.




In the letter below are comments on Area 32: Financial Literacy.




In the letter below are comments on Area 32: Financial Literacy.




In the letter below are comments on Area 39: Auto Recovery Office.




In the letter below are comments on Area 42: U.S. Currency.

Abbreviations

Footnotes

1) Pub. L. No. 111-139, § 21, 124 Stat. 29 (2010), 31 U.S.C. § 712 Note.

2) GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011).

3) GAO, Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Reduce Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-453SP(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).

4) An issue area was considered “addressed” if all actions needed in that area have been addressed; “partially addressed” if at least one action needed in that area showed some progress toward implementation, but not all actions are addressed; and “not addressed” if none of the actions needed in that area were addressed.

5) Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011); Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993).

6) GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).

7) For some issue areas, agencies were not able to readily provide programmatic information. Similarly, in some cases, we did not report budgetary information because such information was either not available or not sufficiently reliable.

8) The statutory requirement calling for this report also asked GAO to identify specific areas where Congress may wish to cancel budget authority it has previously provided—a process known as rescission. To date, GAO’s work has not identified a basis for proposing specific funding rescissions.

9) To date, this work has not identified a basis for proposing specific funding rescissions.

10) We recognize that there could be instances where some degree of program duplication, overlap, or fragmentation may be warranted due to the nature or magnitude of the federal effort.

11) The MAX Information System is used to support the federal budget process. The system has the capability to collect, validate, analyze, model, and publish information relating to governmentwide management and budgeting activities and can also be used as an information sharing and communication portal between government organizations.

12) GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

13) GAO, Streamlining Government: Key Practices from Select Efficiency Initiatives Should Be Shared Governmentwide, GAO-11-908(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2011).

14) GAO, Federal User Fees: A Design Guide, GAO-08-386SP(Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2008).