GOVERNMENT 

EFFICIENCY AND 

EFFECTIVENESS

Strategies for Reducing 

Fragmentation, Overlap, 

and Duplication and 

Achieving Cost Savings 

Statement of Gene L. Dodaro 

Comptroller General of the United States

Testimony 

Before the Committee on the Budget, 

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Thursday, May 16, 2013

GAO-13-631T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-631T, a testimony 

before the Committee on the Budget, U.S.

Senate

May 16, 2013

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY AND 

EFFECTIVENESS 

Strategies for Reducing Fragmentation, Overlap, 

Duplication and Achieving Cost Savings

Why GAO Did This Study

As the fiscal pressures facing the 

nation continue, so too does the need 

for executive branch agencies and 

Congress to improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of government programs 

and activities. Opportunities to take 

such action exist in areas where 

federal programs or activities are 

fragmented, overlapping, or 

duplicative. 

To highlight these challenges and to 

inform government decision makers on 

actions that could be taken to address 

them, GAO is statutorily required to 

identify and report annually to 

Congress on federal programs, 

agencies, offices, and initiatives, both 

within departments and 

governmentwide, that have duplicative 

goals or activities. GAO has also 

identified additional opportunities to 

achieve greater efficiency and 

effectiveness by means of cost savings 

or enhanced revenue collection. 

This statement discusses the (1) new 

areas identified in GAO’s 2013 annual 

report; (2) status of actions taken by 

the administration and Congress to 

address the 131 areas identified in 

GAO’s 2011 and 2012 annual reports; 

(3) President’s April Fiscal Year 2014 

Budget submission and recently 

introduced legislation; and (4) 

strategies that can help address the 

issues we identified. GAO’s 3-year 

systematic examination included a 

review of the budget functions of the 

federal government representing 

nearly all of the overall federal funds 

obligated in fiscal year 2010.

What GAO Found

GAO’s 2013 annual report identifies 31 new areas where agencies may be able 

to achieve greater efficiency or effectiveness. Seventeen areas involve 

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication. For example, GAO reported that the 

Department of Defense could realize up to $82 million in cost savings and ensure 

equivalent levels of performance and protection by taking action to address its 

fragmented approach to developing and acquiring combat uniforms. Additionally, 

GAO reported that a total of 31 federal departments and agencies collect, 

maintain, and use geospatial information. Better planning and implementation 

could help reduce duplicative investments and save of millions of dollars.

The report also identifies 14 additional areas where opportunities exist to achieve 

cost savings or enhance revenue collections. For example, GAO suggested that 

Department of Health and Human Services cancel the Medicare Advantage 

Quality Bonus Payment Demonstration. GAO found most of the bonuses will be 

paid to plans with average performance and that the demonstration’s design 

precludes a credible evaluation of its effectiveness. Canceling the demonstration 

for 2014 would save about $2 billion. GAO also noted opportunities to save 

billions more in areas such as expanding strategic sourcing, providing greater 

oversight for Medicaid supplemental payments, and reducing subsidies for crop 

insurance. Additionally, GAO pointed out opportunities for enhancing revenues 

by reducing the net tax gap of $385 billion, reviewing prices of radioactive 

isotopes sold by the government, and providing more equity in tobacco taxes for 

similar types of products.

The executive branch and Congress have made some progress in addressing 

the areas that GAO identified in its 2011 and 2012 annual reports. Specifically, 

GAO identified approximately 300 actions among 131 overall areas that the 

executive branch and Congress could take to reduce or eliminate fragmentation, 

overlap, or duplication or achieve other potential financial benefits. As of March 

6, 2013, the date GAO completed its progress update audit work, about 12 

percent of the areas were addressed, 66 percent were partially addressed, and 

21 percent were not addressed. More recently, both the administration and 

Congress have taken additional steps, including proposals in the President’s 

April Fiscal Year 2014 Budget submission.

Addressing fragmentation, overlap, and duplication will require continued 

attention by the executive branch agencies and targeted oversight by Congress. 

In many cases, executive branch agencies have the authority to address the 

actions that GAO identified. In other cases, such as those involving the 

elimination or consolidation of programs, Congress will need to take legislative 

action. Moreover, sustained congressional oversight will be needed in concert 

with the administration’s efforts to address the identified actions by improving 

planning, measuring performance, and increasing collaboration. Effective 

implementation of the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 also could help the 

executive branch and Congress as they work to address these issues over time.

View GAO-13-631T. For more information, 

contact Orice Williams Brown or A.Nicole 

Clowers at (202) 512-8678.
Page 1 GAO-13-631T

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Sessions, and Members of the 

Committee:

We appreciate the opportunity to discuss our 2013 annual report, which 

presents 31 new opportunities to reduce fragmentation, overlap, and 

duplication as well as achieve other financial benefits. It also presents the 

results of our efforts to follow up on progress made by executive branch 

agencies and Congress in addressing the areas we identified in our 2011 

and 2012 annual reports. Through these three annual reports, we have 

completed a systematic examination to identify major instances of 

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication across the federal government. In 

light of today’s challenging fiscal environment, we have also identified 

additional opportunities to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness by 

means of cost savings or enhanced revenue collection.

My testimony today describes the (1) new areas identified in our 2013 

annual report; (2) status of actions taken by the administration and 

Congress to address the 131 areas identified in our 2011 and 2012 

annual reports; (3) President’s April Fiscal Year 2014 Budget submission 

proposals and recently introduced legislation; and (4) strategies that can 

help address the issues we identified. My comments are primarily based 

upon our three annual reports and related testimonies as well as our body 

of work on managing for results.1

In summary, our 2013 annual report identifies 31 new areas where 

agencies may be able to achieve greater efficiency or effectiveness. 

Although 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, our report identifies 17 areas of 

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication where multiple programs and 

activities may be creating inefficiencies. Figure 1 illustrates the definitions 

The work upon which these reports 

were based was conducted in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards.

 

1

GAO, 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and 

Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-13-279SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 9, 2013); 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012); and Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government 

Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 1, 2011).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-631T

we use for fragmentation, overlap, and duplication for this work. The 

report also identifies 14 additional areas where opportunities exist to 

achieve cost savings or enhance revenue collections. Within these 31 

areas, we identify 81 actions that the executive branch or Congress could 

take to address the issues we identified.

Figure 1: Definitions of Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication

The executive branch and Congress have made some progress in 

addressing the areas that we previously identified. In our 2011 and 2012 

annual reports, we identified approximately 300 actions among 131 

overall areas that the executive branch and Congress could take to 

reduce or eliminate fragmentation, overlap, or duplication or achieve other 

potential financial benefits. As of March 6, 2013, the date we completed 

our progress update audit work, about 12 percent of the 131 overall areas 

were addressed; 66 percent were partially addressed; and 21 percent 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-631T

were not addressed.2 Within these areas, about 21 percent of the 

approximately 300 individual actions were addressed, 48 percent were 

partially addressed, and 28 percent remain not addressed, highlighting 

the need for sustained attention and leadership.3 More recently, both the 

administration and Congress have taken additional steps that appear 

consistent with some of our previously suggested actions.4

Addressing issues of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication will require 

sustained attention by the executive branch agencies and Congress. In 

the majority of cases, executive branch agencies have the authority to 

address the actions that we identified, and could do so by, for example, 

improving planning, measuring performance, improving management 

oversight, and increasing collaboration. In other cases, Congress will 

need to be involved through their legislative and oversight activities as 

well as other strategies. Additionally, the performance planning and 

reporting framework originally put into place by the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), and significantly 

 

2

In assessing overall progress for an area, we determined that an area was “addressed” if 

all actions in that area were addressed; “partially addressed” if at least one action needed 

in that area showed some progress toward implementation but not all actions were 

addressed; and “not addressed” if none of the actions needed in that area was addressed 

or partially addressed. Percentages do not add to 100 percent because we assessed one 

area as “consolidated or other.” See GAO-13-279SP for more information on our scope 

and methodology. 

3

For congressional actions, we applied the following criteria: “addressed” means relevant 

legislation has been enacted; “partially addressed” means a relevant bill has passed a 

committee, the House of Representatives, or the Senate, or relevant legislation only 

addressed part of the action needed; and “not addressed” means a bill may have been 

introduced but did not pass out of a committee, or no relevant legislation has been 

introduced. For executive branch actions, “addressed” means implementation of the action 

needed has been completed; “partially addressed” means a response to the action 

needed is in development, but not yet completed; and “not addressed” means that minimal 

or no progress has been made toward implementing the action needed. We are not 

assessing 9 actions this year that were previously included in our 2011 and 2012 reports. 

Based on subsequent audit work that we conducted, these actions have been 

consolidated, redirected from a congressional to an executive branch action, or revised to 

reflect updated information or data that we obtained. Further, 16 actions reported in 2011 

and 2012 were revised this year due to additional audit work or other information we 

considered. 

4

We will assess the extent to which these steps address our suggested actions and 

update the status of the actions, as appropriate, on GAO’s Action Tracker. 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-631T

enhanced by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, could help the 

executive branch and Congress address these issues over time.5

In 17 of the 31 new areas where agencies may be able to achieve greater 

efficiency or effectiveness, we found evidence of fragmentation, overlap, 

or duplication among federal programs or activities. As described in table 

1, these programs or activities cover a wide range of federal functions 

and missions.

Table 1: Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication Areas Identified in Our 2013 Annual Report, by Mission

Mission Areas identified

Agriculture 1. Catfish Inspection: Repealing provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill that assigned U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Food Safety and Inspection Service responsibility for examining and inspecting catfish and for creating a catfish 

inspection program would avoid duplication of already existing federal programs and could save taxpayers 

millions of dollars annually without affecting the safety of catfish intended for human consumption.

Defense 2. Combat Uniforms: The Department of Defense’s fragmented approach to developing and acquiring uniforms 

could be more efficient, better protect service members, and result in up to $82 million in development and 

acquisition cost savings through increased collaboration among the military services.

3. Defense Foreign Language Support Contracts: The Department of Defense should address fragmentation in 

the department’s acquisition approach for foreign language support contracts, which are estimated to cost more 

than $1 billion annually, by exploring opportunities to gain additional efficiencies.

Energy 4. Renewable Energy Initiatives: Federal support for wind and solar energy, biofuels, and other renewable 

energy sources, which has been estimated at several billion dollars per year, is fragmented because 23 

agencies implemented hundreds of renewable energy initiatives in fiscal year 2010—the latest year for which 

GAO developed these original data. Further, the Departments of Energy and Agriculture could take additional 

actions—to the extent possible within their statutory authority—to help ensure effective use of financial support 

from several wind initiatives, which GAO found provided duplicative support that may not have been needed in 

all cases for projects to be built.

Health 5. Joint Veterans and Defense Health Care Services: The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense should 

enhance their collaboration to reduce costs, overlap, and potential duplication in the delivery of health care 

services between two of the nation’s largest health care systems that together provide health care to nearly 16 

million veterans, service members, military retirees, and other beneficiaries.

6. Medicaid Program Integrity: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services needs to take steps to eliminate 

duplication and increase efficiency in two Medicaid Integrity Program activities—provider audits and the 

collection of state program integrity data.

Homeland 

security/law 

enforcement

7. Department of Homeland Security Research and Development: Better policies and guidance for defining, 

overseeing, and coordinating research and development investments and activities would help the Department 

of Homeland Security address fragmentation, overlap, and potential unnecessary duplication.

 

5

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

2013 Annual Report 

Identifies 31 New 

Areas to Achieve 

Greater Efficiency or 

Effectiveness 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-631T

Mission Areas identified

8. Field-Based Information Sharing: To help reduce inefficiencies resulting from overlap in analytical and 

investigative support activities, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security and the Office of National 

Drug Control Policy could improve coordination among five types of field-based information sharing entities that 

may collect, process, analyze, or disseminate information in support of law-enforcement and counterterrorismrelated efforts—Joint Terrorism Task Forces, Field Intelligence Groups, Regional Information Sharing Systems 

centers, state and major urban area fusion centers, and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Investigative 

Support Centers.

9. Justice and Treasury Asset Forfeiture: Conducting a study to evaluate the feasibility of consolidating the 

Departments of Justice’s and Treasury’s multimillion dollar asset forfeiture activities could help the departments 

identify the extent to which consolidation of potentially duplicative activities would help increase the efficiency 

and effectiveness of the programs and achieve cost savings.

Information 

technology

10. Dissemination of Technical Research Reports: Congress may wish to consider whether the fee-based model 

under which the National Technical Information Service currently operates for disseminating technical 

information is still viable or appropriate, given that many of the reports overlap with similar information available 

from the issuing organizations or other sources for free.

11. Geospatial Investments: Better coordination among federal agencies that collect, maintain, and use geospatial 

information could help reduce duplication of geospatial investments and provide the opportunity for potential

savings of millions of dollars.

International 

affairs

12. Export Promotion: Enhanced collaboration between the Small Business Administration and two other agencies 

could help to limit overlapping export-related services for small businesses.

13. International Broadcasting: The Broadcasting Board of Governors—with a budget of $752 million in fiscal year 

2012—has recognized the need to reduce overlap and reallocate limited resources to broadcasts that will have 

the greatest impact, but the agency could do more to achieve this goal, such as systematically considering 

overlap of language services in its annual language services review.

Science and 

the 

environment

14. Rural Water Infrastructure: Additional coordination by the Environmental Protection Agency and the 

Department of Agriculture could help three water and wastewater infrastructure programs with combined funding 

of about $4.3 billion avoid potentially duplicative application requirements, as well as associated costs and time 

developing engineering reports and environmental analyses.

Social 

services

15. Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Programs: More fully assessing the extent of overlap and potential 

duplication across the fragmented 76 federal drug abuse prevention and treatment programs and identifying 

opportunities for increased coordination, including those programs where no coordination has occurred, would 

better position the Office of National Drug Control Policy to better leverage resources and increase efficiencies.

Training, 

employment, 

and education

16. Higher Education Assistance: Federal agencies providing assistance for higher education should better 

coordinate to improve program administration and help reduce fragmentation.

17. Veterans’ Employment and Training: The Departments of Labor, Veterans Affairs, and Defense need to better 

coordinate the employment services each provides to veterans, and Labor needs to better target the Disabled 

Veterans’ Outreach Program so that it does not overlap with other programs.

Source: GAO.

We consider programs or activities to be fragmented when more than one 

federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is 

involved in the same broad area of national need and opportunities may 

exist to improve how the government delivers services. We identified 

fragmentation in multiple programs we reviewed, including the following:

• Combat Uniforms: We found that the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

fragmented approach to developing and acquiring combat uniforms 

could be more efficient. Further, DOD has not taken steps to ensure 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-631T

equivalent levels of uniform performance and protection for service 

members conducting joint military operations in different uniforms, 

potentially exposing them to increased risk on the battlefield.6

• Renewable Energy Initiatives: Federal support for wind and solar 

energy, biofuels, and other renewable energy sources has increased 

significantly in recent years. Specifically, third-party estimates indicate 

that federal spending over the 7-year period from 2002 through 2008 

averaged about $4 billion per year and increased to almost $15 billion 

in fiscal year 2010, in part because of additional spending through the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We found that 

federal support for renewable energy is fragmented, as 23 agencies 

and their 130 subagencies implemented hundreds of initiatives in 

fiscal year 2010. We could not comprehensively assess the potential 

for overlap or duplication among these nearly 700 renewable energy 

initiatives, because existing agency information was not sufficiently 

complete to allow for such an assessment. However, fragmentation 

can be a harbinger of potential overlap or duplication. For example, 

we assessed federal wind energy initiatives and found that most of the 

82 wind-related initiatives that we examined had overlapping 

characteristics, and several of them have provided duplicative 

financial support to deploy wind energy projects. Such duplicative 

federal financial support may not have been needed in all cases for 

Since 

2002, the military services have shifted from using two camouflage 

patterns to seven service-specific camouflage uniforms with varying 

patterns and colors. Although DOD established a board to help 

ensure collaboration and DOD-wide integration of clothing and textile 

activities, we continue to identify inefficiencies in DOD’s uniform 

acquisition approach. For example, we found that none of the services 

had taken advantage of opportunities to reduce costs through 

partnering on inventory management or by collaborating to achieve 

greater standardization among their various camouflage uniforms. We 

have identified several actions DOD should take to realize potential 

efficiencies. In addition, DOD reported that it could save up to $82 

million in development and acquisition cost savings through increased 

collaboration among the military services. These actions include 

directing the Secretaries of the military departments to actively pursue 

partnerships for the joint development and use of uniforms.

 

6

DOD and the Joint Staff have described the modern-day battlefield as a place with no 

clearly defined front lines or safer rear area where combat support operations are 

performed.
 

Page 7 GAO-13-631T

the projects to be built. To help ensure effective use of financial 

support, we suggested that the Department of Energy and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, to the extent possible within their statutory 

authority, assess and document whether the financial support of their 

initiatives is needed when considering applications.

In some of the programs and activities where there was fragmentation, 

we also found instances of overlap. Overlap occurs when multiple 

agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or 

strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. We found 

overlap among federal programs or initiatives in a variety of areas, such 

as joint veterans and defense health care services, export promotion 

activities, drug abuse prevention and treatment programs, and veterans’ 

employment and training programs, as well as the following:

• Department of Homeland Security Research and Development: Within 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), we found at least six 

department components involved in research and development 

activities. We examined 47 research and development contracts 

awarded by these components and found 35 instances among 29 

contracts in which the contracts overlapped with activities conducted 

elsewhere in the department. Taken together, these 29 contracts were 

worth about $66 million. In one example of the overlap we found that 

two DHS components awarded five separate contracts that each 

addressed detection of the same chemical. While we did not identify 

instances of unnecessary duplication among these contracts, DHS 

has not developed a policy defining who is responsible for 

coordinating research and development and what processes should 

be used to coordinate it, and does not have mechanisms to track 

research and development activities at DHS that could help prevent 

overlap, fragmentation, or unnecessary duplication. We suggested 

that developing a policy defining the roles and responsibilities for 

coordinating research and development, and establishing coordination 

processes and a mechanism to track all research and development

projects could help DHS mitigate existing fragmentation and overlap, 

and reduce the risk of unnecessary duplication.

Overlap and fragmentation among government programs or activities can 

lead to duplication, which occurs when two or more agencies or programs 

are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the 

same beneficiaries. Our 2013 report includes several areas where we 

identified potentially duplicative federal efforts, including the following:
 

Page 8 GAO-13-631T

• Medicaid Program Integrity: We identified duplication in the Medicaid 

Integrity Program, which provides federal support and oversight of 

state programs.7

In addition to these 17 areas of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in 

federal efforts, we present 14 areas in which we identified opportunities to 

reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collections 

for the Treasury. These opportunities for executive branch or 

congressional action exist in a wide range of federal government missions 

(see table 2).

In particular, the use of two sets of federal 

contractors in the National Medicaid Audit Program—one contractor to 

review states’ paid claims in order to identify potential aberrant claims 

or billing anomalies and another contractor to audit such aberrant 

claims—increased inefficiencies in data analysis and led to duplication 

of effort. To address this duplication, we suggested that the Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) merge certain functions of 

the federal review contractors and federal audit contractors and 

discontinue the annual state program integrity assessment to 

eliminate or avoid duplicative activities. Partly in response to our 

suggestion, CMS is not renewing its federal review contractors when 

their contracts expire this year, which has the potential for saving $15 

million or more.

Table 2: Cost Savings and Revenue Enhancement Opportunities Identified in Our 2013 Annual Report, by Mission

Mission Areas identified

Agriculture 18. Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Fees: The United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service could have achieved as much as $325 million in savings (based on fiscal year 2011 

data, as reported in GAO’s March 2013 report) by more fully aligning fees with program costs; although the 

savings would be recurring, the amount would depend on the cost-collections gap in a given fiscal year and 

would result in a reduced reliance on U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s annual Salaries and Expenses 

appropriations used for agricultural inspection services.

19. Crop Insurance: To achieve up to $1.2 billion per year in cost savings in the federal crop insurance program, 

Congress could consider limiting the subsidy for premiums that an individual farmer can receive each year, 

reducing the subsidy for all or high-income farmers participating in the program, or some combination of limiting 

and reducing these subsidies.

 

7

Medicaid is the joint federal-state health care financing program for certain low-income 

individuals and is one of the largest social programs in federal and state budgets. We 

have had long-standing concerns about Medicaid’s program integrity because of problems 

with the sufficiency of federal and state oversight. For example, the Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services estimated that in fiscal year 2012, $19.2 billion (7.1 percent) of 

Medicaid’s federal expenditures involved improper payments.
 

Page 9 GAO-13-631T

Mission Areas identified

Defense 20. Joint Basing: The Department of Defense needs an implementation plan to guide joint bases to achieve 

millions of dollars in cost savings and efficiencies anticipated from combining support services at 26 

installations located close to one another.

Energy 21. Department of Energy’s Isotope Program: Assessing the value of isotopes to customers, and other factors 

such as prices of alternatives, may show that the Department of Energy could increase prices for isotopes that 

it sells to commercial customers to create cost savings by generating additional revenue.

General 

government

22. Additional Opportunities to Improve Internal Revenue Service Enforcement of Tax Laws: The Internal 

Revenue Service can realize cost savings and increase revenue collections by billions of dollars by, among 

other things, using more rigorous analyses to better allocate enforcement and other resources.

23. Agencies’ Use of Strategic Sourcing: Selected agencies could better leverage their buying power and 

achieve additional savings by directing more procurement spending to existing strategically sourced contracts

and further expanding strategic sourcing practices to their highest spending procurement categories—savings 

of one percent from selected agencies’ procurement spending alone would equate to over $4 billion.

24. Opportunities to Help Reduce Government Satellite Program Costs: Government agencies could achieve 

considerable cost savings on some missions by leveraging commercial spacecraft through innovative 

mechanisms such as hosted payload arrangements and sharing launch vehicle costs. Selected agencies have 

reported saving hundreds of millions of dollars to date from using these innovative mechanisms.

Health 25. Medicare Prepayment Controls: More widespread use of prepayment edits could reduce improper payments 

and achieve other cost savings for the Medicare program, as well as provide more consistent coverage 

nationwide.

26. Medicaid Supplemental Payments: To improve the transparency of and accountability for certain high-risk 

Medicaid payments that annually total tens of billions of dollars, Congress should consider requiring the 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to take steps that would facilitate the agency’s ability to oversee 

these payments, including identifying payments that are not used for Medicaid purposes or are otherwise 

inconsistent with Medicaid payment principles, which could lead to cost savings. GAO’s analysis for providers 

for which data are available suggests that savings could be in the hundreds of millions, or billions, of dollars. 

27. Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus Payment Demonstration: Rather than implementing the Medicare 

Advantage quality bonus payment program specifically established by law, the Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services is testing an alternative bonus payment structure under a broad demonstration authority 

through a 3-year demonstration that has design flaws, raises legal concerns, and is estimated to cost over $8 

billion; about $2 billion could be saved if it were canceled for its last year, 2014.

Homeland 

security/law 

enforcement

28. Checked Baggage Screening: By reviewing the appropriateness of the federal cost share the Transportation 

Security Administration applies to agreements financing airport facility modification projects related to the 

installation of checked baggage screening systems, the Transportation Security Administration could, if a 

reduced cost share was deemed appropriate, achieve cost efficiencies and be positioned to install a greater 

number of optimal baggage screening systems than it currently anticipates.

Information 

technology 

29. Cloud Computing: Better planning of cloud-based computing solutions provides an opportunity for potential 

savings of millions of dollars.

30. Information Technology Operations and Maintenance: Strengthening oversight of key federal agencies’ 

major information technology investments in operations and maintenance provides opportunity for savings on 

billions in information technology investments.

International 

affairs

31. Tobacco Taxes: Federal revenue losses were as much as $615 million to $1.1 billion between April 2009 and 

2011 because manufacturers and consumers substituted higher-taxed smoking tobacco products with similar 

lower-taxed products. To address future revenue losses, Congress should consider modifying tobacco tax rates 

to eliminate significant tax differentials between similar products.

Source: GAO.
 

Page 10 GAO-13-631T

Among the 14 areas of opportunity to reduce costs or enhance revenue 

identified in our 2013 annual report are the following examples of 

opportunities for executive branch agencies or Congress to take action to 

address the issues we reported:

• Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus Payment Demonstration: We 

report concerns about CMS’s Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus 

Payment Demonstration, which is expected to cost $8.35 billion over 

10 years, most of which will be paid to plans with average 

performance. Medicare Advantage provides health care coverage 

through private health plans offered by organizations under contract 

with CMS. The agency’s stated research goal for the demonstration is 

to test whether an alternative bonus structure leads to larger and 

faster annual quality improvement for Medicare Advantage plans. We 

found that the demonstration’s design precludes a credible evaluation 

of its effectiveness because it lacks an appropriate comparison group 

needed to isolate the demonstration’s effects, and because the 

demonstration’s bonus payments are based largely on plan 

performance that predates the demonstration. Based on these 

concerns, we suggest that Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) cancel the Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus Payment 

Demonstration. In addition, the demonstration’s design raises legal 

concerns about whether it falls within HHS’s demonstration authority. 

Although the demonstration is now in its second year, HHS still has an 

opportunity to achieve significant cost savings—about $2 billion, 

based on GAO’s analysis of CMS actuaries’ estimates—if it cancels 

the demonstration for 2014.

• Internal Revenue Service Enforcement of Tax Laws: Additional cost 

savings and increased revenue collections may be realized by 

improving the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) enforcement of tax 

laws. IRS has estimated that the net tax gap—the difference between 

taxes owed and taxes paid on time or recovered—was $385 billion for 

tax year 2006 (the most recent year for which data were available). 

We have identified several areas where IRS can improve its 

programs, reduce its costs, and facilitate voluntary compliance with 

existing tax laws. For example, we suggested that IRS should 

complete a broad strategy, including a timeline and performance 

measures, for how it intends to use information collected to improve 

tax compliance. We also suggested better enforcement of services 

designed to facilitate voluntary compliance, such as appropriate levels 

of telephone and correspondence service and wait time. Similarly, we 

previously suggested that Congress consider granting IRS broader 

math error authority, with appropriate safeguards against misuse of 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-631T

that authority, to correct errors during tax return processing. These 

and other actions we have identified could help the federal 

government increase revenue collections by billions of dollars. We 

have previously reported that the government would generate an 

additional $3.8 billion per year if service and enforcement 

improvements reduced the tax gap by 1 percent.

• Department of Energy’s Isotope Program: Opportunities may also 

exist for the Department of Energy (Energy) to generate additional 

revenue by increasing the price for isotopes that it sells to commercial 

customers.8

With the issuance of our 2013 report, we have completed a systematic 

examination to identify major instances of fragmentation, overlap, or 

duplication across the federal government. Through our three annual 

reports, we have identified 162 areas in which there are opportunities to 

reduce fragmentation, overlap, or duplication or to achieve cost savings 

or enhance revenue. Within these 162 areas, we identify approximately 

380 actions that the executive branch or Congress could take to address 

the issues we identified. These areas span a wide range of government 

missions, covering activities within all 15 cabinet-level executive 

departments and 17 other federal entities (see fig. 2). Collectively, if the 

actions we suggest are implemented, the government could potentially 

save tens of billions of dollars annually.

Energy’s Isotope Development and Production for 

Research and Applications program sells isotopes to commercial 

customers for a variety of uses, such as medical procedures and 

radiation detection equipment. To achieve its mission, the program 

relies on annual appropriations and revenues from isotope sales. 

Although revenues from sales of isotopes alone totaled over $25 

million in fiscal year 2012, we found that Energy may be forgoing 

revenue because it is not using thorough assessments to set prices 

for commercial isotopes. Thus, we suggested that Energy examine 

the prices it sets for commercial isotopes to determine if prices can be 

increased.

 

8

Isotopes are varieties of a given chemical element with the same number of protons but 

different numbers of neutrons. For example, the helium-3 isotope, which is used in 

research and to detect neutrons in radiation detection equipment, has one less neutron 

than the helium-4 isotope, which is the helium isotope commonly used in party balloons. 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-631T

Figure 2: Actions Needed Directed to Federal Departments and Agencies in 2011-

2013 Annual Reports

a

U.S. Postal Service (USPS) obligations are primarily funded by postal revenues, although USPS 

receives minimal appropriations for overseas voting and mail for the blind. Additionally, USPS has a 

maximum $15 billion in borrowing authority, which it reached in fiscal year 2012.

b

Note: Individual actions needed are counted multiple times when they are directed to more than one 

federal department or agency.

Treasury’s percentage of fiscal year 2011 obligations includes interest on the national debt.

Our 2013 annual report completes our 3-year systematic examination 

across the federal government to identify major instances of 

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication. Our systematic examination 

required a multiphased approach. First, we reviewed the budget functions 

of the federal government representing nearly all of the overall federal 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-631T

funds obligated in fiscal year 2010.9

 

9

Our examination did not include two budget functions: Allowances, because there were 

no actual obligations, and Undistributed Offsetting Receipts, because no obligations are 

charged to agencies.

Federal budget functions classify 

budget resources by national need (such as National Defense, Energy, or 

Agriculture), and instances in which multiple federal agencies obligate 

funds within a particular budget function may indicate potential duplication 

or cost savings opportunities (see fig. 3). Although this type of analysis 

cannot answer the question of whether overlap or duplication exists, it 

can help in the selection of areas for further investigation. Second, we 

reviewed key agency documents, such as strategic plans, performance 

and accountability reports, and budget justifications, as we have found 

that when multiple executive branch agencies have similar missions, 

goals, or programs, the potential for fragmentation, overlap, or duplication 

exists. Third, we reviewed key external published sources of information, 

such as reports published by the Congressional Budget Office, Inspectors 

General, and the Congressional Research Service, as well as the 

President’s budgets, to identify potential overlap and duplication among 

agency missions, goals, and programs.
 

Page 14 GAO-13-631T

Figure 3: Spending Patterns by Executive Branch Agency and Budget Function, Fiscal Year 2010
 

Page 15 GAO-13-631T

In addition to the new actions identified for our 2013 annual report, we 

have continued to monitor the progress that the executive branch 

agencies and Congress have made in addressing the issues we identified 

in our 2011 and 2012 annual reports. In these reports, we identified 

approximately 300 actions that the executive branch and Congress could 

take to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness.

We evaluated progress by determining an “overall assessment” rating for 

each area and an individual rating for each action within an area (see 

figures 4 and 5). We found that the executive branch agencies and 

Congress have made progress in addressing the 131 areas we identified 

in 2011 and 2012. As of March 6, 2013, the date we completed our audit 

work, about 12 percent of the 131 overall areas were addressed; 66 

percent were partially addressed; and 21 percent were not addressed.

Within these areas, about 21 percent of the approximately 300 individual 

actions were addressed, 48 percent were partially addressed, and 28 

percent were not addressed.

Figure 4: Assessment of 131 Areas from 2011 and 2012, as of March 6, 2013

Figure 5: Assessment of Approximately 300 Actions from 2011 and 2012, as of March 6, 2013

The Administration 

and Congress Have 

Made Some Progress 

in Addressing the 

Areas That We 

Previously Identified
 

Page 16 GAO-13-631T

According to our analysis, as of March 6, 2013, of the 249 actions 

identified in 2011 and 2012 that were directed to executive branch 

agencies, 22 percent were addressed and 57 percent were partially 

addressed. Examples of the progress that executive branch agencies 

have made include the following:

• Overseas Defense Posture: In our 2012 annual report, we suggested 

the Secretary of Defense direct appropriate organizations within DOD 

to complete a business case analysis, including an evaluation of 

alternative courses of action, for the strategic objectives that have to 

this point driven the decision to implement tour normalization in South 

Korea—that is, the initiative to extend the tour length of military 

service members and move their dependents to South Korea. Based 

on the resulting business case analysis, DOD officials stated that 

United States Forces Korea determined that the tour normalization 

initiative was not affordable. This decision not to move forward with 

the tour normalization initiative resulted in cost avoidance of $3.1 

billion from fiscal years 2012 through 2016.

• Air Force Food Service: In our 2012 annual report, we suggested that 

the Air Force review and renegotiate food service contracts to better 

align with the needs of installations. According to Air Force officials, 

after reviewing the food service contracts at eight installations, the Air 

Force renegotiated their contracts for a total savings of over $2.5 

million per year. In addition, according to Air Force officials, all food 

service contracts were validated again during fiscal year 2012 for 

additional savings of over $2.2 million per year. Air Force officials told 

us that the Air Force will review contracts annually for areas where 

costs can be reduced.

• Information Technology Investment Management: In our 2012 annual 

report, we suggested that the Director of the Office of Management 

and Budget require federal agencies to report the steps they take to 

ensure that their information technology investments are not 

duplicative in their annual budget and information technology 

investment submissions. The Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) fiscal year 2014 budget guidance requires agencies to identify 

duplicative or low value investments in information technology and 

make plans to consolidate or eliminate these investments. Reducing 

duplicative and low value investments could save millions of dollars.

Congress has also taken steps to address some of our suggested 

actions. As of March 6, 2013, 20 percent of the 50 actions directed to 

Congress in our 2011 and 2012 annual reports were addressed and 12 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-631T

percent were partially addressed. Examples of progress that Congress 

has made include the following:

• Domestic Ethanol Production: In our 2011 annual report, we 

suggested that Congress address duplicative federal efforts directed 

at increasing domestic ethanol production, which could reduce 

revenue losses by more than $5.7 billion annually. To reduce these 

revenue losses, we suggested that Congress consider whether 

revisions to the ethanol tax credit were needed and we suggested 

options to consider, including allowing the volumetric ethanol excise 

tax credit to expire at the end of 2011. Congress allowed the tax credit 

to expire at the end of 2011, which ended the ethanol tax credit for 

fuel blenders that purchase and blend ethanol with gasoline.

• Surface Transportation: In our 2011 annual report, we suggested that 

Congress address the need for a more goal-oriented approach to 

surface transportation that is less fragmented and more accountable 

for results. Specifically, we found that over the years, in response to 

changing transportation, environmental, and societal goals, federal 

surface transportation programs grew in number and complexity to 

encompass broader goals, more programs, and a variety of program 

approaches and grant structures. This increasing complexity resulted 

in a fragmented approach as five Department of Transportation 

agencies administer over 100 separate programs with separate 

funding streams for highways, transit, rail, and safety functions. The 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, signed into law in 

July 2012, reauthorized the nation’s surface transportation programs 

through the end of fiscal year 2014. The act addressed fragmentation 

by eliminating or consolidating programs, and made progress in 

clarifying federal goals and roles and linking federal programs to 

performance to better ensure accountability for results.

While the executive branch and Congress have made some progress in 

addressing the issues that we have previously identified, additional steps 

are needed to address the remaining areas to achieve associated 

benefits. A number of the issues are difficult to address, and 

implementing many of the actions identified will take time and sustained 

leadership. To help maintain attention on these issues, we recently 

launched GAO’s Action Tracker, a publicly accessible website containing 

the status of actions suggested in our first three reports.10

 

10See http://www.gao.gov/duplication/actiontracker.

The website 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-631T

allows executive branch agencies, Congress, and the public to track the 

progress the government is making in addressing the issues we have 

identified. We will add areas and suggested actions identified in and 

future reports to GAO’s Action Tracker and periodically update the status 

of all identified areas and activities.

The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget submission makes several 

proposals that appear consistent with our suggested actions. Many of 

these proposals require some legislative action and therefore, Congress 

may wish to examine the following areas in its oversight:

• Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): In our 

2012 annual report, we found that federal agencies obligated $3.1 

billion in fiscal year 2010 to 209 STEM education programs 

administered by 13 federal agencies, and that 173 of these (83 

percent) of these programs overlapped to some degree with at least 1 

other program in that they offered similar services to similar target 

groups in similar STEM fields to achieve similar objectives. To 

minimize this overlap, we suggested that strategic planning by 

executive branch agencies is needed to better manage overlapping 

programs across multiple agencies STEM. In an effort to minimize 

both fragmentation and overlap in STEM programs, the President’s 

Fiscal Year 2014 Budget submission proposes consolidating or 

eliminating 114 programs and redirecting nearly $180 million from 

consolidated programs to three agencies: Education, the National 

Science Foundation, and the Smithsonian Institution. These agencies 

would coordinate efforts with the activities and assets of other federal 

science agencies.

• Catfish Inspection: In our 2013 annual report, we found that when 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service 

begins the catfish inspection program as mandated in the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, the program will duplicate 

work already conducted by the Food and Drug Administration and by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service. For example, as many as three 

agencies—Food and Drug Administration, Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service—could inspect 

facilities that process both catfish and other types of seafood. To 

avoid this duplication, we suggest that Congress repeal this provision 

of the act, which could save millions of dollars each year. The 

President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget submission proposes the 

elimination of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s catfish inspection 

program. Similarly, S. 632 and H.R. 1313, introduced on March 21, 

President’s Fiscal Year 

2014 Budget 

Submission and 

Recent Legislative 

Proposals Appear 

Consistent with Some 

of Our Suggested 

Actions 
 

Page 19 GAO-13-631T

2013, would eliminate USDA’s catfish inspection (and catfish grading) 

program. As of May 8, 2013, the bills were pending in committees of 

jurisdiction.

• Farm Direct Payments: In our 2011 annual report, we found that 

reducing or eliminating fixed annual payments to farmers—which are 

known as direct payments and which farmers receive even in years of 

record farm income—could achieve cost savings of as much as $5 

billion annually. We suggested that Congress consider reducing or 

eliminating direct payments by (1) lowering payment or income 

eligibility limits; (2) reducing the portion of a farm’s acres eligible for 

the payments; or (3) terminating or phasing out direct payments. The 

President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget submission proposes eliminating 

direct payments to farmers.

• Economic Development: In our 2011 annual report, we found that 

there was fragmentation and overlap among 80 economic 

development programs at four agencies— the Department of 

Commerce, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 

Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture—in terms of the economic development activities that they 

are authorized to fund. We suggested, among other things, that the 

agencies further utilize promising practices for enhanced 

collaboration, such as seeking more opportunities for resourcesharing across economic development programs with shared 

outcomes and identifying ways to leverage each program’s strengths 

to improve their existing collaborative efforts. The agencies have 

taken steps to address this action, which we consider partially 

addressed, including entering into a number of formal agreements 

that are intended to help enhance and sustain collaboration. In 

addition, the administration has initiated steps that provide the 

agencies with a mechanism to work together to identify additional 

opportunities to enhance collaboration among programs. The 

President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget submission also states that the 

President will again seek reorganization authority and use such 

authority to consolidate the economic and business development 

activities in the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Health and 

Human Services, and the Treasury, as well as the Small Business 

Administration, into a new department with a focused mission to foster 

economic growth and spur job creation.

• Crop Insurance: In our 2013 annual report, we found that applying 

limits on premium subsidies to individual farmers participating in the 

federal crop insurance program, similar to the payment limits for other 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-631T

farm programs, could save billions of federal dollars over 5 years. We 

suggested Congress consider either limiting the amount of premium 

subsidies that an individual farmer can receive each year—as it limits 

the amount of payments to individual farmers in many farm 

programs—or reducing premium subsidy rates for all participants in 

the crop insurance program, or both limiting premium subsidies and 

reducing premium subsidy rates. The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 

Budget submission proposes to reduce farmers’ premium subsidies 

by 3 percentage points for those policies that are currently subsidized 

by more than 50 percent, which is expected to save about $4.2 billion 

over 10 years. In addition, the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget 

submission proposes to reduce farmers’ premium subsidies by 2 

percentage points on policies that provide a higher indemnity if the 

commodity prices are higher at harvest time than when the policy was 

purchased, which is expected to save about $3.2 billion over 10 years.

• Renewable Energy Initiatives: In our 2013 annual report, we 

suggested that the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture should, to 

the extent possible within their statutory authority, formally assess and 

document whether the incremental financial support of their initiatives 

is needed in order for applicants’ projects to be built, and take this 

information into account in determining whether, or how much, 

support to provide. The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget 

submission does not include funding for the High Energy Cost Grant 

Program, administered by the Department of Agriculture’s Rural 

Utilities Service—one of the programs we identified that has provided 

duplicative support. This proposed elimination, if implemented, could 

help to reduce the potential for duplicative support.

Congress has also taken additional actions that are consistent with those 

we have identified in our previous reports. For example, in our 2011 and 

2013 annual reports, we cited numerous information technology areas in 

which duplication could be minimized or cost savings achieved across the 

federal government and made a number of recommendations to address 

these issues. In fiscal year 2013, federal agencies reported to OMB that 

approximately $74 billion was budgeted for information technology. On 

March 18, 2013, the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform 

Act (H.R. 1232) was introduced to eliminate duplication and waste in 

information technology acquisition and management. Among other things,

the bill requires a governmentwide inventory of information technology 

assets to identify duplicative or overlapping investments. As of May 8, 

2013, the bill was reported favorably to the full House.
 

Page 21 GAO-13-631T

Identifying, preventing, and addressing fragmentation, overlap, and 

duplication within the federal government is challenging. These are 

difficult issues to address because they may require agencies and 

Congress to re-examine within and across various mission areas the 

fundamental structure, operation, funding, and performance of a number 

of long-standing federal programs or activities with entrenched 

constituencies. Compounding these challenges is the lack of a 

comprehensive list of federal programs, reliable and complete funding 

information, and regular performance results and information. Without 

knowing the full range of programs involved or the cost of implementing 

them, gauging the magnitude of the federal commitment to a particular 

area of activity or the extent to which associated federal programs are 

duplicative is difficult.

Addressing these issues will require sustained attention by the executive 

branch agencies and the Congress. In the majority of cases, executive 

branch agencies have the authority to address the issues we identified. 

However, in other cases, Congress will need to be involved through their 

legislative and oversight activities. Such oversight is critical to addressing 

these issues. The performance planning and reporting framework 

originally put into place by GPRA, and significantly enhanced by the 

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, provides important tools that help the 

Congress and the executive branch clarify desired outcomes, address 

program performance spanning multiple organizations, and facilitate 

future actions to reduce fragmentation, overlap, and duplication.

However, realizing the intent of the GPRA Modernization Act for 

assessing government performance and improvement and reducing 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication will require sustained oversight of 

implementation. To assist Congress with this oversight, the act includes 

provisions requiring us to review its implementation at several critical 

junctures. For example, we are to report by June 2013 on initial 

implementation of the act’s planning and reporting requirement and 

recommendations for improving implementation. We are also to evaluate 

how implementation is affecting performance management at federal 

agencies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of agency programs, 

among other things, by September 2015, and again in September 2017. 

To provide more timely and useful information, we have issued a number 

of reports over the past 2 years (1) supporting congressional involvement 

Leveraging Existing 

and Proposed 

Strategies Can Help to 

Address 

Fragmentation, 

Overlap, and 

Duplication 
 

Page 22 GAO-13-631T

in and oversight of agency performance improvement efforts,11 and (2) 

reviewing the executive branch’s implementation of key provisions of the 

act.12 In June 2013, we plan to issue a report highlighting the key findings 

from these reports along with the results of our most recent survey of 

federal managers on the implementation of key performance 

management practices across government—the fifth such survey we 

have undertaken since 1997.

Executive branch agencies have the authority needed to address the 

majority of the actions we identified in our three reports. Of the 

approximately 380 actions that we have suggested, 317 were directed to 

executive branch agencies. Given that the areas identified extend across 

the government and that we found a range of conditions among these 

areas, we suggest a similarly wide range of actions for the executive 

branch to consider. The executive branch agencies could address many 

of the issues we identified through improving planning, better measuring 

of performance, improving management oversight, and increasing 

collaboration. These actions are largely consistent with the tools and 

principles put in place by GPRA and the GPRA Modernization Act.

Given the crosscutting policy areas included in our annual reports, 

planning for the outcomes to be achieved is important in helping federal 

agencies address challenges, particularly those related to fragmentation, 

overlap, or duplication. A focus on outcomes is a first step to then 

determining how all of the activities that contribute to an outcome, 

whether internal or external to an agency, should be aligned to 

accomplish results.

 

11GAO, Managing for Results: A Guide for Using the GPRA Modernization Act to Help 

Inform Congressional Decision Making, GAO-12-621SP (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 

2012); and Managing for Results; Opportunities for Congress to Address Government 

Performance Issues, GAO-12-215R (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2011).

12GAO, Managing for Results: GAO’s Work Related to the Interim Crosscutting Priority 

Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act, GAO-12-620R (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 

2012); Managing For Results: Agencies Should More Fully Develop Priority Goals under 

the GPRA Modernization Act, GAO-13-174 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 19, 2013); Managing 

For Results: Agencies Have Elevated Performance Management Leadership Roles, but 

Additional Training Is Needed, GAO-13-356 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2013); and 

Managing for Results: Data-Driven Performance Reviews Show Promise But Agencies 

Should Explore How to Involve Other Relevant Agencies, GAO-13-228 (Washington, D.C.: 

Feb. 27, 2013). 

Executive Branch 

Agencies Have the 

Authority to Implement 

Many Actions to Improve 

Efficiency and 

Effectiveness of Programs

Improving Planning
 

Page 23 GAO-13-631T

In our annual reports, we identified multiple instances of where better 

planning could help reduce the potential for overlap or duplication. For 

example, as we have already noted, strategic planning is needed to better 

manage overlapping STEM programs across multiple agencies. By taking 

this and other actions to increase efficiency and effectiveness, the 

administration could reduce the chance of investing scarce government 

resources without achieving the greatest impact in developing a pipeline 

of future workers in STEM fields.

Additionally, we reported that a total of 31 federal departments and 

agencies collect, maintain, and use geospatial information—information 

linked to specific geographic locations that supports many government 

functions, such as maintaining roads and responding to natural disasters. 

OMB and the Department of Interior created a number of strategic 

planning documents and guidance to encourage more coordination of 

geospatial assets, reduce needless redundancies, and decrease costs. 

Nevertheless, we found that the Federal Geographic Data Committee—

the committee that was established to promote the coordination of 

geospatial data nationwide—and selected federal departments and 

agencies had not effectively implemented the tools that would help them 

to identify and coordinate geospatial data acquisitions across the 

government. As a result, the agencies have made duplicative investments 

and risk missing opportunities to jointly acquire data. Furthermore, 

although OMB has oversight responsibilities for geospatial data 

investments, it does not have complete and reliable information to identify 

potentially duplicative investments. Better planning and implementation 

among federal agencies could help reduce duplicative investments and 

provide the opportunity for potential savings of millions of dollars.

As this example highlights, creating a comprehensive list of programs 

along with related funding information is critical for identifying potential 

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication among federal programs or 

activities. Currently, no comprehensive list exists, nor is there a common 

definition for what constitutes a federal “program,” which makes it difficult 

to develop a comprehensive list of all federal programs. The lack of a list, 

in turn, makes it difficult to determine the scope of the federal 

government’s involvement in particular areas and, therefore, where action 

is needed to avoid fragmentation, overlap, or duplication. We also found 

that federal budget information is often not available or not sufficiently 

reliable to identify the level of funding provided to programs or activities. 

For example, agencies could not isolate budgetary information for some 

programs because the data were aggregated at higher levels. Without 

knowing the full range of programs involved or the cost of implementing 
 

Page 24 GAO-13-631T

them, gauging the magnitude of the federal commitment to a particular 

area of activity or the extent to which associated federal programs are 

duplicative is difficult.

The GPRA Modernization Act requires OMB to compile and make publicly 

available a comprehensive list of all federal programs, and to include the 

purposes of each program, how it contributes to the agency’s mission, 

and recent funding information. According to OMB, agencies currently 

use the term “program” in different ways, and OMB plans to allow them to 

continue to define programs in ways that reflect their particular facts and 

circumstances within prescribed guidelines.13 OMB expects 24 large 

federal agencies to publish an initial inventory of federal programs in May 

2013.14

Performance measurement, because of its ongoing nature, can serve as 

an early warning system to management and a vehicle for improving 

accountability to the public. To help ensure that their performance 

information will be both useful and used by decision makers, agencies 

must consider the differing information needs of various users—including 

those in Congress. As we have previously reported, agency performance 

information must meet Congress’s needs for completeness, accuracy, 

validity, timeliness, and ease of use to be helpful for congressional 

decision making.

In future years, OMB plans to expand this effort to other agencies 

that are to update their inventories annually to reflect the annual budget 

and appropriations process. OMB also expects to enhance the initial 

program inventory by collecting related information, such as financing and 

related agency strategic goals.

15

 

13OMB, Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, Aug. 3, 

2012.

14These 24 agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 

Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and 

Veterans Affairs, as well as the Agency for International Development, Environmental 

Protection Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, National Science Foundation, Office of Personnel Management, Small 

Business Administration, Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Civil Works program.

15GAO-12-621SP. 

Measuring Performance and 

Results
 

Page 25 GAO-13-631T

Similarly, in our three annual reports, we reported that better evaluation of 

performance and results is needed for multiple federal programs and 

activities to help inform decisions about how to address the 

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication identified or achieve other financial 

benefits. For example:

• Employment and Training: In our 2011 annual report, we found that 

44 of the 47 federal employment and training programs that we 

identified overlap with at least one other program—that is, they 

provide at least one similar service to a similar population. We also 

found that collocating services and consolidating administrative 

structures may increase efficiencies and reduce costs, but 

implementation can be challenging. In particular, an obstacle to 

achieving greater administrative efficiencies is that little information is 

available about the strategies and results of such initiatives. In April 

2011, we reported that as part of its proposed Workforce Investment 

Act of 1998 reforms, the Administration proposed consolidating 4 

employment and training programs administered by the Department of 

Education into 1 program.16

• Domestic Food and Nutrition Assistance: In our 2011 annual report, 

we found that domestic food and nutrition assistance is provided 

through a decentralized system of primarily 18 different federal 

programs that shows signs of overlap and inefficient use of resources. 

In addition, little is known about the 

incentives that states and localities have to undertake such initiatives 

and whether additional incentives are needed. As a result, we 

suggested that the Departments of Labor and Health and Human 

Services should examine the incentives for states and localities to 

pursue initiatives to increase administrative efficiencies in employment 

and training programs and, as warranted, identify options for 

increasing such incentives. Labor and HHS have initiatives underway, 

but it is too early to tell what remedies they will provide. In addition, 

the Administration has proposed to consolidate employment and 

training programs. And H.R. 803, the Supporting Knowledge and 

Investing in Lifelong Skills Act (SKILLS Act), which was passed by the 

House in March 2013, would streamline or eliminate multiple and 

training programs and consolidate the funding of a number of other 

programs into a Workforce Investment Fund.

 

16GAO, Employment and Training Programs: Opportunities Exist for Improving Efficiency, 

GAO-11-506T (Washington. D.C: Apr. 7, 2011).
 

Page 26 GAO-13-631T

We also found that some of these programs provide comparable 

benefits to similar or overlapping populations. However, not enough is 

known about the effectiveness of many of these programs. Research 

suggested that participation in 7 of the 18 programs is associated with 

positive health and nutrition outcomes consistent with programs’ 

goals; yet little is known about the effectiveness of the remaining 11 

programs because they have not been well studied. As a result, we 

suggested that the U.S. Department of Agriculture should identify and 

develop methods for addressing potential inefficiencies and reducing 

unnecessary overlap among its smaller food assistance programs 

while ensuring that those who are eligible receive the assistance they 

need.

• Teacher Quality: In our 2011 annual report, we identified 82 distinct 

programs designed to help improve teacher quality, either as a 

primary purpose or as an allowable activity, administered across 10 

federal agencies. While a mixture of programs can target services to 

underserved populations and yield strategic innovations, the current 

programs are not structured in a way that enables educators and 

policy makers to identify the most effective practices to replicate. 

According to Department of Education officials, it is typically not costeffective to allocate the funds necessary to conduct rigorous 

evaluations of small programs; therefore, small programs are unlikely 

to be evaluated. As a result, we suggested that the Secretary of 

Education should work with other agencies as appropriate to develop 

a coordinated approach for routinely and systematically sharing 

information that can assist federal programs, states, and local 

providers in achieving efficient service delivery.

• Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: In 

our 2012 annual report, we found that in fiscal year 2010, 173 of the 

209 (83 percent) Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

Education (STEM) education programs administered by 13 federal 

agencies overlapped to some degree with at least 1 other program in 

that they offered similar services to similar target groups in similar 

STEM fields to achieve similar objectives. In addition to the 

fragmented and overlapping nature of federal STEM education 

programs, little is known about the effectiveness of these programs. 

Since 2005, when we first reported on this issue, we found that the 

majority of programs have not conducted comprehensive evaluations 

of how well their programs are working. Without an understanding of 

what is working in some programs, it will be difficult to develop a clear 

strategy for how to spend limited federal funds. Consequently, we 

suggested that the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
 

Page 27 GAO-13-631T

Policy should direct the National Science and Technology Council to 

develop guidance to help agencies determine the types of evaluations 

that may be feasible and appropriate for different types of STEM 

education programs and develop a mechanism for sharing this 

information across agencies.

The regular collection and review of performance information, both within 

and among federal agencies, could help executive branch agencies and 

Congress determine whether some of the federal programs or initiatives 

included in this series are making progress toward addressing the 

identified issues and could determine the actions that need to be taken to 

improve results. However, as we previously noted, our annual reports 

along with a large body of other work highlight several instances in which 

executive branch agencies do not collect necessary performance data. 

For example, in our 2011 annual report we noted that OMB has not used 

its budget and performance review processes to systematically review tax 

expenditures and promote integrated reviews of related tax and spending 

programs. Coordinated performance reviews of tax expenditures with 

related federal spending programs could help policymakers reduce 

overlap and inconsistencies and direct scarce resources to the most 

effective or least costly methods to deliver federal support. Similarly, we 

have previously reported that as Congress oversees federal programs 

and activities, it needs pertinent and reliable information to adequately 

assess agencies’ progress, ensure accountability, and understand how 

individual programs and activities fit within a broader portfolio of federal 

efforts. The lack of reliable performance data also makes it difficult for 

decision makers to determine how to address identified fragmentation, 

overlap, or duplication.

In order for information from performance measurement initiatives to be 

useful to executive branch agencies and Congress in making decisions, 

garnering congressional support on what to measure and how to present 

this information is critical. Thus, the GPRA Modernization Act significantly 

enhances requirements for agencies to consult with Congress. 

Specifically, at least once every two years, OMB is required to consult 

with relevant committees with broad jurisdiction on crosscutting priority 

goals, while agencies must consult with their relevant appropriations, 

authorization, and oversight committees when developing or making 

adjustments to their strategic plans and agency priority goals. Last year 

we prepared a guide to help ensure that these consultations and the 
 

Page 28 GAO-13-631T

performance information produced by executive branch agencies are 

useful to Congress in carrying out its various decision-making 

responsibilities.17

Finally, to ensure that their performance information will be both useful 

and used by decision makers, agencies must consider the differing 

information needs of various users. The GPRA Modernization Act puts 

into place several requirements that could address users’ needs for 

completeness, accuracy, validity, timeliness, and ease of use.

Requirements to include information about how various tools, such as 

program activities, regulations, and tax expenditures, contribute to goal 

achievement could lead to the development of performance information in 

areas that are currently incomplete. In addition, agencies are required to 

disclose more information about the accuracy and validity of their 

performance information in their performance plans and reports. While 

agencies will continue to report annually on progress towards the rest of 

their goals, the GPRA Modernization Act provides timelier, quarterly 

reporting for governmentwide and agency priority goals. By also requiring 

information to be posted on a governmentwide website, the act will make 

performance information more accessible and easy to use by 

stakeholders and the public.

Without this information, it will be difficult to know 

whether an agency’s goals reflect congressional input, and therefore if the 

goals will provide useful information for congressional decision making. 

Further, successful consultations can create a basic understanding 

among stakeholders of the competing demands that confront most 

agencies, the limited resources available to them, and how those 

demands and resources require careful and continuous balancing. This is 

important given Congress’s constitutional role in setting national priorities 

and allocating the resources to achieve them.

When issues span multiple organizations or multiple entities within an 

organization, improved management oversight is needed to avoid 

potential overlap and duplication. For example, we found that fragmented 

leadership and lack of a single authority in overseeing the acquisition of 

space systems have created challenges for optimally acquiring, 

developing, and deploying new space systems. This fragmentation is 

problematic not only because of a lack of coordination that has led to 

delays in fielding systems, but also because no one person or 

 

17GAO-12-621SP. 

Enhancing Management 

Oversight 
 

Page 29 GAO-13-631T

organization is held accountable for balancing governmentwide needs 

against wants, resolving conflicts, and ensuring coordination among the 

many organizations involved with space acquisitions, and ensuring that 

resources are directed where they are most needed. To help improve the 

coordination of space programs and reduce duplication, we suggest 

assessing whether a construct analogous to the Defense Space 

Council—which serves as the principal advisory forum to inform, 

coordinate, and resolve all DOD space issues—could be applied 

government wide or if a separate organization should be established that 

would, among other things, have responsibility for strategic planning.

The GPRA Modernization Act seeks to improve agency management 

oversight by including a provision for quarterly performance reviews, 

modeled after effective data driven—or “Stat”—reviews being conducted 

at the local and state level. Specifically, agency leaders are required to 

conduct quarterly, data-driven reviews of their performance in achieving 

priority goals and identify strategies to improve performance where goals 

are not being met. As we recently reported, consistent with state and local 

experience, reviews can be a key tool for driving collaboration by 

including all key players from within or outside an agency that contribute 

to goal achievement.18 However, few agency Performance Improvement 

Officers reported they are using the reviews to coordinate or collaborate 

with other agencies that have similar goals, and agencies we reviewed 

cited concerns about involving outsiders. Nevertheless, our prior work has 

shown that agencies which participated in various planning and decisionmaking forums together reported that such interactions contributed to 

achieving their goals.19

 

18

For example, the Departments of Housing and 

Urban Development and Veterans Affairs—which both contribute to 

efforts to reduce veterans’ homelessness—have conducted several joint 

SFtat meetings, where they jointly analyze performance data to 

understand trends, identify best practices, and prioritize the actions 

needed to achieve veteran homelessness goals. Officials reported that 

these collaborative meetings have contributed to better outcomes. We 

recommended that the Director of OMB identify and share promising 

practices for including other relevant entities that contribute to achieving 

their agency performance goals. OMB agreed with our recommendation.

GAO-13-228. 

19GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).
 

Page 30 GAO-13-631T

When executive branch agencies carry out activities in a fragmented and 

uncoordinated way, the resulting patchwork of programs can waste 

scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the 

overall effectiveness of the federal effort. Our 2013 annual report includes 

several areas in which improved interagency coordination and 

collaboration could help agencies better leverage limited resources or 

identify opportunities to operate more efficiently. For example, the 

Department of Veterans Affairs and DOD operate two of the nation’s 

largest health care systems, together providing health care to nearly 16 

million veterans, service members, military retirees, and other 

beneficiaries at estimated costs for fiscal year 2013 of about $53 billion 

and $49 billion, respectively. As part of their health care efforts, the 

departments have established collaboration sites—locations where the 

two departments share health care resources through hundreds of 

agreements and projects—to deliver care jointly with the aim of improving 

access, quality, and cost-effectiveness of care. However, we found that 

the departments do not have a fully developed and formalized process for 

systematically identifying all opportunities for new or enhanced

collaboration, potentially missing opportunities to improve health care 

access and quality, and reduce costs.

The GPRA Modernization Act requires OMB to coordinate with executive 

branch agencies to establish crosscutting priority goals and to develop a 

federal government performance plan that defines the level of 

performance needed to achieve them. As we reported in May 2012, the 

President’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget submission included the first list of 

14 interim crosscutting priority goals. For each of the interim goals, as 

required by the act, OMB listed the agencies and programs that 

contribute to the goal in the federal government performance plan. 

However, based on our prior work, we identified additional agencies and 

programs that should be included. Accordingly, we recommended that 

OMB consider adding those additional contributors to the crosscutting 

priority goals. OMB concurred with this recommendation, and in 

December 2012, OMB updated information to the federal government 

performance plan, and added some of the additional agencies and 

programs we identified for select goals. The crosscutting approach 

required by the act will provide a much needed basis for more fully 

integrating a wide array of federal activities as well as a cohesive 

perspective on the long-term goals of the federal government that is 

focused on priority policy areas. It could also be a valuable tool for 

governmentwide reexamination of existing programs and for considering 

proposals for new programs.

Enhancing Interagency 

Coordination and Collaboration
 

Page 31 GAO-13-631T

The act also requires agencies to describe how they are working with 

each other to achieve their strategic and performance goals, as well as 

any relevant crosscutting priority goals. Moreover, for each of its 

performance and priority goals, each agency must identify the 

organizations, programs, and other activities—both within and external to 

the agency—that contribute to the goal. These new requirements provide 

additional opportunities for collaboration across executive branch 

agencies. We have previously identified key practices that can help 

federal agencies enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts along 

with key features to consider as they implement collaborative 

mechanisms.20

Congress also has an important role to play—both in its legislative and 

oversight capacities—in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of 

government programs. Other legislative strategies are also available, 

such as realigning committee structures or using task forces, caucuses, 

or commissions to work to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 

federal programs.

Our 2013 annual report includes several areas where legislative action is 

needed. For example, as noted earlier, we found that when the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service begins 

the catfish inspection program as mandated in the Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act of 2008, the program will duplicate work already 

conducted by the Food and Drug Administration and by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. To avoid this duplication, we suggested that 

Congress repeal the provisions of the act that assigned U.S. Department 

of Agriculture responsibilities for examining and inspecting catfish and 

establishing a catfish inspection program. Taking this action, as the 

President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget and S. 632 and H.R. 1313 

submission propose, could save taxpayers millions annually, according to 

 

20GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005) 

and GAO-12-1022. 

Congress Could Help 

Address Actions We Have 

Identified Through 

Legislative Action, 

Oversight, and Other 

Strategies

Legislative Action 
 

Page 32 GAO-13-631T

Food Safety and Inspection Service estimates of the program’s cost.21

We have also suggested that Congress consider taking legislative action 

to consolidate certain programs. For example, in 2011 we reported that 

the federal government’s efforts to improve teacher quality have led to the 

creation of 82 distinct programs—administered by 10 federal agencies—

at the cost of over $4 billion in fiscal year 2009. In addition to 

fragmentation, we also found overlap in a number of these programs. 

Among other things, we suggested that Congress either eliminate 

programs that are too small to evaluate cost-effectively or combine 

programs serving similar target groups. Similarly, in 2012, we commented 

on the overlap that exists between the products offered and markets 

served by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and 

Agriculture’s Rural Housing Service. In light of this overlap, we 

recommended that Congress consider requiring that both departments to 

examine the benefits and costs of merging programs.

Similarly, our 2011 annual report found that, depending on the policy 

choices made, reducing or eliminating direct farm payments could result 

in savings ranging from $800 million over 10 years to $5 billion annually.

We suggested that Congress consider a range of options and S. 10, 

introduced on January 22, 2013, would eliminate all direct farm payments 

starting in Crop Year 2014.

Given the potential benefits and costs of consolidation, it is imperative 

that Congress and the executive branch have the information needed to 

help effectively evaluate consolidation proposals. At the request of the 

Task Force on Government Performance, last year GAO issued a report 

identifying key questions for agencies to consider when evaluating 

 

21To create this potential savings, Congress would need to repeal the provision in the 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or direct in the Food Safety and Inspection 

Service’s appropriation that no funds may be spent on the program. If Congress enacts a 

legislative restriction, there may be some opportunity to rescind appropriated 

amounts. Because the inspection program is funded from a lump sum appropriation to 

USDA, funds that would have been used for the program could be available for new 

obligations within the appropriations account. The U.S. Department of Agriculture could 

identify the amount of funds currently available for obligation that would have been used 

for the catfish inspection program and Congress could rescind those amounts.
 

Page 33 GAO-13-631T

consolidation proposals.22

• What are the goals of the consolidation? What opportunities will be 

addressed through the consolidation and what problems will be 

solved? What problems, if any, will be created?

Similarly, these questions could also help 

inform the Congress when it is considering such a proposal:

• What will be the likely costs and benefits of the consolidation? Are 

sufficiently reliable data available to support a business-case analysis 

or cost-benefit analysis?

• How can the up-front costs associated with the consolidation be 

funded?

• Who are the consolidation stakeholders, and how will they be 

affected? How have the stakeholders been involved in the decision, 

and how have their views been considered? On balance, do 

stakeholders understand the rationale for consolidation?

• To what extent do plans show that change management practices will 

be used to implement the consolidation?

Congress could also require executive branch agencies to conduct 

program evaluations that would assess how well federal programs are 

working and identify steps that are needed to improve them. These 

evaluations typically examine processes, outcomes, impacts, or the costeffectiveness of federal programs. However, few executive branch 

agencies regularly conduct in-depth program evaluations to assess their 

programs’ impact or learn how to improve results. Such program 

evaluations can complement ongoing performance measurement but 

typically involve a more in-depth examination to learn the benefits of a 

program or how to improve it. GPRA requires agencies to describe the 

summary findings of any completed program evaluations in their 

performance reports. In addition, agencies are to describe how program 

evaluations informed establishing or revising goals in their strategic plans, 

along with a schedule for future program evaluations to be conducted.

 

22GAO, Questions to Consider When Evaluating Proposals to Consolidate Physical 

Infrastructure and Management Functions, GAO-12-542 (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 

2012).
 

Page 34 GAO-13-631T

Congress can also encourage executive branch agencies to help improve 

the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs through its oversight 

activities. For example, our past work has highlighted several instances in 

which Congress has used performance information in its decision making 

to (1) identify issues that the federal government should address, (2) 

measure progress towards addressing those issues, and (3) identify 

better strategies to address the issues, when necessary. Congressional 

use of similar information in its decision making for the identified areas of 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication will send an unmistakable 

message to agencies that Congress considers these issues a priority.23

Congress recently highlighted the importance of addressing issues of 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication through its oversight. For 

example, the Senate Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2014 directs

committees to review programs and tax expenditures within their 

jurisdiction for waste, fraud, and duplication and to consider the findings 

from our past annual reports. Similarly, the House Budget Resolution for 

fiscal year 2014 describes some of our findings from our past annual 

reports, notes the number of programs that will need to be reauthorized in 

fiscal year 2014, and states that that our findings should result in 

programmatic changes in both authorizing statutes and program funding 

levels.

Such oversight can also highlight progress that agencies are making in 

addressing needed reforms.

The importance of active congressional oversight can be seen in 

improvements made to federal programs that were once included on our 

High Risk List.24 As the example in figure 6 describes, active 

congressional oversight has helped maintain executive branch agencies’ 

attention in addressing the identified concerns and thus contributed to 

their removal from our High Risk List.

 

23GAO-12-621SP. 

24GAO’s High Risk list calls attention to the agencies and program areas that are high risk 

due to their vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or are most in 

need of broad reform. For more information about GAO’s High Risk list, see 

http://www.gao.gov/highrisk. 

Legislative Oversight 
 

Page 35 GAO-13-631T

Figure 6: Example of the Importance of Congressional Oversight

Congressional legislation and oversight has helped focus attention and sustain momentum to improve the processing of security 

clearances not only for DOD but governmentwide.a

Congressional oversight through hearings held by the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce, and the District of Columbia of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs helped highlight 

the need for security clearance reform. From 2005 to 2010, congressional committees held more than 14 hearings on security 

clearance reform. The hearings also helped set the direction for the agencies, including GAO, to work collaboratively on developing 

metrics in order to address our concerns about the completeness and quality of investigations and adjudications. On March 17, 2010, 

the leaders of the reform effort—the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence, and DOD—along with GAO, met to discuss the status of security clearance reform efforts and consult on 

metrics that could be used to measure progress of security clearance reform efforts. After that meeting, all of these agencies 

provided a memorandum on May 31, 2010 to then-Chairman Akaka containing a matrix with 15 metrics for assessing the timeliness 

and quality of investigations, adjudications, reciprocity (an agency’s acceptance of a background investigation or clearance 

determination completed by any authorized investigative or adjudicative agency), and automation.

As of October 2010, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported 

that 3.9 million federal employees (military and civilians) and contractors held security clearances. DOD comprises the vast majority 

of government security clearances. In 2004, we testified that from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2003, the average time for 

DOD to determine clearance eligibility for industry personnel increased by 56 days to over 1 year. Delays in issuing clearances can 

result in millions of dollars of additional cost to the federal government and could pose a national security risk. As a result, GAO 

placed the DOD’s Personnel Security Clearance Program on its High Risk List in 2005.

b

Based on progress made GAO removed DOD’s Personnel Security Clearance program from the High Risk List in 2011.

In 2011, we reported that DOD 

processed 90 percent of initial clearances in an average of 49 days for federal civilians, military, and industry personnel and met the 

60-day statutory timeliness objective for processing all initial clearances in fiscal year 2010. Also we found that DOD completed 90 

percent of initial clearances for industry personnel in an average of 63 days for all the data we reviewed in fiscal year 2010.

Source: GAO.

a

GAO, Personnel Security Clearances: Continued Leadership and Attention Can Enhance Momentum 

Gained from Reform Effort, GAO-12-815T (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2012).

b

We participated in legislative and executive branch discussions on development of these metrics. 

However, given the need for us to remain independent in carrying out its auditing responsibilities of 

the executive branch, decisions related to performance measures and their effective implementation 

are fundamentally an executive branch management responsibility.

The consultations required by the GPRA Modernization Act can also 

serve as a tool for congressional oversight. In our guide to congressional 

consultations, we provide a list of illustrative questions Congress can ask 

during consultations about agency strategic plans, performance goals, 

and measures, including how their efforts are being coordinated with 

other agencies to ensure that related efforts are complementary in that 

they are appropriate in scope and not unnecessarily duplicative.25

 

25

In 

developing our guide, congressional staff and agency officials we 

interviewed generally agreed that consultations ideally should be 

bipartisan and bicameral to help ensure involvement from all relevant 

GAO-12-621SP. 
 

Page 36 GAO-13-631T

parties. In addition, to the extent feasible, consultations should be held 

jointly with relevant authorizing, appropriations, budget, and oversight 

committees. Committee staff recognized that, due to sometimes 

overlapping jurisdictions, obtaining the involvement of all interested 

congressional committees in a coordinated approach can be challenging. 

However, the often overlapping or fragmented nature of federal 

programs—a problem that has been extensively documented in our 

work—underscores the importance of a coordinated consultation process. 

For example, in an attempt to address this issue during initial 

implementation of GPRA during the 1990s, the House leadership formed 

teams of congressional staff from different committees to have a direct 

role in the consultation process.

To ensure efficient and effective oversight, Congress can take bi-partisan 

and bi-cameral action to improve its oversight through vehicles such as 

task forces and caucuses. Such specialized bodies could provide 

effective oversight for portfolios of federal programs that contribute to 

common or complementary outcomes, but cross existing jurisdictional 

lines. For example, the Caucus on International Narcotics Control was 

created in 1985 to provide oversight on a wide range of issues, including 

international counternarcotics assistance and domestic drug prevention 

and treatment programs. The Caucus has held numerous hearings over 

the years and has issued a number of reports on U.S. narcotics control 

policy. Similarly, the Senate Committee on the Budget created the Task 

Force on Government Performance in 2009 to support the Committee 

with its monitoring and oversight capacity. The Task Force is charged 

with examining the information base for decision making in Congress and 

identifying opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 

federal programs and services. 

Congress could also establish and charge a commission with improving 

the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs. Congress has used 

commissions to help inform their decision making on certain issues in the 

past. For example, in 1947 Congress authorized the Commission on 

Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, known as the 

Hoover Commission, to recommend government reorganization changes 

to Congress. This commission was considered by many to have been the 

most successful among government restructuring efforts. The 

membership was bipartisan, including members of the administration and 

Other Strategies 
 

Page 37 GAO-13-631T

both houses of Congress.26 More than 70 percent of the first Hoover 

Commission’s recommendations were implemented, including 26 out of 

35 reorganization plans.27 According to a 1982 history of the Hoover 

Commissions, “the ease with which most of the reorganization plans 

became effective reflected two factors: the existence of a consensus that 

the President ought to be given deference and assistance by Congress in 

meeting his managerial responsibilities and the fact that most of the 

reorganization plans were pretty straightforward proposals of an 

organizational character.”28

Finally, the administration has again requested reorganization authority in 

the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget submission. Such authority can 

enable the President to propose reorganizations that are intended to 

increase the efficiency and effectiveness with which the government can 

meet existing and emerging challenges through an expedited approval 

process. We have previously testified about the importance of balancing 

the roles of Congress and the Executive Branch in considering 

reorganization authority proposals.29

 

26Ronald C. Moe, The Hoover Commissions Revisited (Boulder, Colorado: Westview 

Press, 1982), 2.

Furthermore, we noted that all key 

players should be engaged in discussions about reorganizing 

government: the President, Congress, and other parties with vested 

interests, including state and local governments, the private sector, and 

citizens. It is important to ensure a consensus on identified problems and 

needs and to be sure that the solutions our government legislates and 

implements can effectively remedy the problems we face in a timely 

manner. Only Congress can determine its appropriate powers and role in 

transformation efforts. In certain circumstances, Congress may deem 

limitations appropriate; however, care should be taken regarding the 

nature, timing, and scope of any related changes. For example, 

27The first Hoover Commission, from 1947 to 1949, made reorganization proposals that 

promoted what they referred to as “greater rationality” in the organization and operation of 

government agencies and enhanced the president’s role as the manager of the 

government. By contrast, the second Hoover Commission, referred to as Hoover II, which 

lasted from 1953 to 1954, examined policy areas with the goal of cutting government 

programs.

28Ronald C. Moe, Congressional Research Service, The President’s Reorganization 

Authority: Review and Analysis (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2001).

29GAO, Government Efficiency and Effectiveness Opportunities for Improvement and 

Considerations for Restructuring, GAO-12-454T (Washington, D.C.: Mar 21, 2012).
 

Page 38 GAO-13-631T

safeguards are needed to ensure congressional input and concurrence 

on the goals and proposals.

In closing, as the fiscal pressures facing the nation continue, so too does 

the need for executive branch agencies and Congress to improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of government programs and activities. 

Opportunities exist to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 

government operations in the 162 areas we have included in our 2011 –

2013 annual reports. Moving forward, we plan to conduct further analysis 

to look for additional or emerging instances of fragmentation, overlap, and 

duplication and opportunities for cost savings or revenue enhancement. 

Likewise, we will continue to monitor developments in the areas we have 

already identified in this series. In addition, we plan to develop a 

framework to guide policymakers’ decisions regarding the issues of 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication that we identified in our reports. 

We stand ready to assist this and other committees in further analyzing 

the issues we have identified and evaluating potential solutions.

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Sessions, and Members of the 

Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

answer questions.

For further information on this testimony or our 2013 annual report, 

please contact Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, Financial 

Markets and Community Investment, who may be reached at (202) 512-

8678 or williamso@gao.gov, and A. Nicole Clowers, Director, Financial 

Markets and Community Investment, who may be reached at (202) 512-

8678 or clowersa@gao.gov. Contact points for the individual areas listed 

in our 2013 annual report can be found at the end of each area at 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-279SP. Contact points for our 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs offices may be found on the 

last page of this statement.

GAO Contacts

(250736)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.