*HomeU.S. Government Accountability Office*
Menu

      close


          
          
                          	
				
				
	
	
					Reports & Testimonies
									
																				
				
				
	
	
								Reports & Testimonies
													
																												
																						
							
																Recommendations Database
							
																												
																						
							
																Month in Review
							
																												
																						
							
																Order Copies
							
																												
																						
							
																Restricted Reports
							
																												
																						
							
																View Topics
							
																												
																						
							
																View Agencies
							
																												
																						
							
																Bid Protests & Appropriations Law
									
																				
				
				
	
	
								Bid Protests & Appropriations Law
													
																												
																						
							
																Bid Protests
							
																												
																						
							
																Appropriations Law
							
																												
																						
							
																Federal Vacancies Reform Act
							
																												
																						
							
																Other Legal
							
																												
																						
							
																About
									
																				
				
				
	
	
								About
													
																												
																						
							
																What GAO Does
							
																												
																						
							
																U.S. Comptroller General
							
																												
																						
							
																Careers
							
																												
																						
							
																Contact UsFor Congress
                                
                          
        
                Press Center
                                
                          
        
                Careers
                                
                          
        
                BlogSearch Breadcrumb
        Home
                            Reports & Testimonies
                            2012 Annual Report: Opportunities To Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue
    2012 Annual Report:
                          Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue **GAO-12-342SP**
        Published: Feb 28, 2012. Publicly Released: Feb 28, 2012.Jump To:
    Jump ToElder Abuse
          Services for Older Adults
          State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends
          State and Local Fiscal Projections
          Federal Borrowing
          Managing the Debt
          Summary of Funding Provisions
          Auditing the Government's Books
          Unpacking the Financial Report
          Highlights
          Recommendations
          Background
          About This Work
          About This Work
          Trends
          About the Center
          Why It's High Risk
          What Remains To Be Done
          Key Reports
          Newest COVID-Related Reports
          AI Use Cases
          Flood Insurance
          Past Pandemic-Related Reports
          CARES Act Oversight Reports
          All COVID-19 Reports
          Report Suspected Fraud
          Subjects
          How to Get Notified
          Past Reports
          Public Health Threats
          Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds
          Lessons Learned
          Agency Reports
          Recent Reports
          Recommendations
          Supplemental Material
          Full Report
          Additional Data
          View Decision
          Downloads
          Previously Identified Actions
          Related Pages
          Associated Agencies
          Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead
          Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas
          Retirement Security Key Areas
          Current List
          About The High Risk List
          Area Ratings
          Previous High Risk Products
          Search Federal Vacancies
          Past Federal Vacancies
          Violation Letters
          About the Yellow Book
          Advisory Council
          Related Resources
          Comment Letters
          Related Publications
          Contacts and Resources
          Major Issues Facing the Nation
          Meeting Strategic Challenges
          Additional Resources
          Resources
          GAO Contacts
          Mission Teams
          Operations and Staff Offices
          Organization Chart
          Why a Career at GAO?
          Am I Qualified?
          Company Culture
          Reasonable Accommodations
          Video Gallery
          Paid Internships
          Student Volunteers
          Professional Development Program
          Advancement
          Executive Candidate Program
          Summer Associates
          Externships
          Benefits
          Contacts
                    Skip to Highlights
Highlights
  This is GAO's second annual report to Congress in response to the statutory requirement that GAO identify federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives, either within departments or governmentwide, which have duplicative goals or activities. For 81 additional opportunities to reduce potential duplication, save tax dollars, and enhance revenue, which we identified in March 2011, see GAO-11-318SP.What GAO FoundThis annual report for 2012 presents 51 areas where programs may be able to achieve greater efficiencies or become more effective in providing government services.This report describes 32 areas in which we found evidence of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation among federal government programs. We have found that agencies can often realize a range of benefits, such as improved customer service, decreased administrative burdens, and cost savings from addressing the issues we raise in this report. Cost savings related to reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap, and fragmentation can be difficult to estimate in some cases because the portion of agency budgets devoted to certain programs or activities is often not clear. In addition, the implementation costs that might be associated with consolidating programs, establishing collaboration mechanisms, or reducing activities, facilities, or personnel, among other variables, are difficult to estimate, or needed information on program performance or costs is not readily available. As the Actions Needed presented in this report show, addressing our varied findings will require careful deliberation and tailored, well-crafted solutions.This report also summarizes 19 additional opportunities for agencies or Congress to consider taking action that could either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collections for the Treasury. Collectively, this report shows that, if actions are taken to address the issues raised herein, as well as those from our 2011 report, the government could potentially save tens of billions of dollars annually, depending on the extent of actions taken.Defining Duplication, Overlap, and FragmentationFragmentation and overlap among government programs or activities can be harbingers of unnecessary duplication.Fragmentation refers to those circumstances in which more than one federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad area of national interest. In some instances of fragmentation, we find overlapthat is, programs that have similar goals, devise similar strategies and activities to achieve those goals, or target similar users.Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries. In many cases, the existence of unnecessary duplication, overlap, or fragmentation can be difficult to estimate with precision due to a lack of data on programs and activities.Where information has not been available that would provide conclusive evidence of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation, we often refer to potential duplication, and where appropriate we suggest actions that agencies or Congress could take to either reduce that potential or to improve the accuracy and accessibility of information about program operations, performance, and results.In some instances of duplication, overlap, or fragmentation, it may be appropriate for multiple agencies or entities to be involved in the same programmatic or policy area due to the nature or magnitude of the federal effort. However, the areas discussed in the first section of this report identify instances where multiple government programs or activities have led to inefficiencies, and we determined that greater efficiencies or effectiveness might be achievable.Further, we have expanded the scope of our work this year to look for areas where a mix of federal approaches is used, such as tax expenditures, direct spending, and federal grant or loan programs.

Recommendations
      Matter for Congressional Consideration
        Matter
                                                  Status
                                                  CommentsTo improve spectrum efficiency among federal agencies, Congress may wish to consider evaluating what incentive mechanisms could be used to move agencies toward more efficient use of spectrum, which could free up some spectrum allocated for federal use to be made available for other purposes. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) experience managing governmentwide efficiency programs could prove helpful in this evaluation.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
                                                                                        The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which was signed into law in February 2012, included several provisions to move agencies toward more efficient use of spectrum, as GAO suggested in February 2012. For example, the act amends existing statutes to authorize the use of auction receipts deposited in the Spectrum Relocation Fund to cover agencies' spectrum relocation and sharing costs, including planning costs. The act also authorizes the Director of OMB to make payments from the Fund in advance of a scheduled auction to encourage quicker completion of spectrum relocation or sharing. The act also directs OMB to update and revise its Circular A-11 process to reflect recommendations made by the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee's Incentives Subcommittee. These provisions provide incentives for agencies to use spectrum more efficiently, which could enable some spectrum allocated for federal use to be made available for other purposes.Congress may want to consider requiring the Department of Homeland Security to report on the results of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) efforts to identify and prevent unnecessary duplication within and across its preparedness grant programs, and consider these results when making future funding decisions for these programs.
                                                                                        Open
                                                                                        No legislative action has been identified as of March 2024. FEMA's efforts to identify and prevent unnecessary duplication within and across four large preparedness grant programs are ongoing, and include planned upgrades to its grants management systems. According to FEMA officials, these system upgrades will allow FEMA to better collect and compare project-level data for all of its preparedness grant programs. Until FEMA completes these efforts, the congressional action above remains warranted.Congress may wish to consider limiting preparedness grant funding to maintaining existing capabilities (as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)) until FEMA completes a national preparedness assessment of capability gaps at each level based on tiered, capability-specific performance objectives to enable prioritization of grant funding.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
                                                                                        Although FEMA has not completed a national preparedness assessment, Congress has reduced funding for preparedness grants for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013, consistent with what GAO suggested in its March 2011 report. For fiscal year 2011, Congress passed the continuing appropriations act in April 2011, which reduced funding for FEMA preparedness grants by $875 million from the amount requested in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget (Pub. L. No. 112-10, ? 1632, 125 Stat. 38, 143 (2011)). For fiscal year 2012, Congress passed the consolidated appropriations act in December 2011, which reduced funding for FEMA preparedness grants by $1.28 billion from the amount requested in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget (Pub. L. No. 112-74, 125 Stat. 786, 960-62 (2011)). For fiscal year 2013, Congress passed the consolidated appropriations act in March 2013, which reduced funding for FEMA preparedness grants by about $400 million from the amount requested in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget (Pub. L. No. 113-6, 127 Stat. 198, 358-60 (2013)). For fiscal year 2014, Congress passed the consolidated appropriations act in January 2014, which included an amount for FEMA preparedness grants that was generally consistent with what had been appropriated in fiscal year 2013 (Pub. L. No. 113-76, 118 Stat. 5, 261-62 (2014)).Until the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) completes its assessment, Congress may wish to consider limiting the use of federal preparedness grant programs to fund only projects to fill identified, validated, and documented capability gaps that may (or may not) include maintaining existing capabilities developed.
                                                                                        Open – Partially Addressed
                                                                                        FEMA concurred with the recommendation and has taken steps to implement it. First in 2022, FEMA developed the National Stakeholder Preparedness Review (National SPR) is a first-of-its-kind federal self-assessment of capabilities. The National SPR goals are to gauge the Nation's readiness for catastrophic disasters, to identify national-level emergency management capability gaps and planning assumptions for all hazards and specific scenarios, and to inform preparedness efforts. Next, FEMA drafted the Concurrence of the Target Gap Overviews (previously called the capability assessment sheets) for the National Stakeholder Preparedness Review with members of the Homeland Preparedness and Response Interagency Policy Committee which was finalized in November 2022. Third, in December 2023, FEMA developed a draft Investment Strategy for National Preparedness (ISNP), which identifies resources needed to address national capability gaps. According to FEMA as of January 2024, the ISNP has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Accordingly, until the ISNP is approved by OMB and shared with Congress, our recommendation remains open. Further, as of March 2024, no further legislative action limiting the use of preparedness grants has been identified.To optimize the federal role in rural housing, the Congress may wish to consider requiring the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to examine the benefits and costs of merging those programs that serve similar markets and provide similar products. As a first step, Congress could consider requiring USDA and HUD to explore merging their single-family insured lending programs and multifamily portfolio management programs, taking advantage of the best practices of each and ensuring that targeted populations are not adversely affected.
                                                                                        Open
                                                                                        As of March 2024, no legislation had been enacted or was enacted. A draft bill introduced in 2018 would have established HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) as an agency separate from HUD and transferred it to USDA's Rural Housing Service (RHS) programs. H.R. 6746, 115th Cong. (2018). After the bill was referred to committee, no further action was taken.Congress may wish to consider requiring federal agencies to evaluate the effectiveness of their financial literacy efforts and, if appropriate, identify options for consolidating such efforts. Federal agencies could potentially make the most of scarce resources by consolidating financial literacy efforts into the activities and agencies that are most effective. In addition to improving effectiveness, such consolidation could have monetary savings.
                                                                                        Closed – Not Implemented
                                                                                        As a result of GAO's July 2012 report, Financial Literacy: Overlap of Programs Suggests There May Be Opportunities for Consolidation (GAO-12-588), GAO is no longer assessing this action. In February 2012, GAO expected to suggest that Congress consider requiring federal agencies to evaluate the effectiveness of financial literacy efforts and identify options for consolidating such efforts. However, upon further review of the evaluations efforts underway, GAO subsequently concluded in its July 2012 report that the Financial Literacy and Education Commission was better positioned to be the entity to identify possible options for consolidation, which would be consistent with the commission's statutory responsibility to propose means of eliminating overlap and duplication among federal financial literacy activities. GAO also noted that the commission's national strategy would be one appropriate vehicle for providing guidance on the appropriate allocation of federal resources. Therefore, GAO recommended that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, who respectively serve as Chair and Vice Chair of the commission, in concert with other agency representatives on the commission, (1) identify for federal agencies and Congress options for consolidating federal financial literacy efforts into the activities and agencies that are best suited or most effective, and (2) revise the commission's national strategy to incorporate clear recommendations on the allocation of federal financial literacy resources across programs and agencies. Commenting on a draft of the July 2012 report, the Department of the Treasury agreed that the commission should recommend ways to improve outcomes of the federal government's financial literacy efforts and allocate resources effectively, such as by identifying options for consolidation. The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection subsequently noted its agreement as well, commenting that the commission has been developing a strategic plan that identifies opportunities for coordination and synergy among its member agencies. Those recommendations have subsequently been closed as implemented.Congress may wish to consider monitoring the implementation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) efforts. As the bureau's financial literacy activities evolve and are implemented, it will be important to evaluate how those efforts are working and make appropriate adjustments that might promote greater efficiency and effectiveness.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
                                                                                        Consistent with GAO's suggestion in February 2012, Congress has been monitoring the implementation of CFPB's financial literacy efforts. In April 2012, the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, conducted a hearing on consumer financial literacy, at which the head of CFPB's Office of Financial Education testified. Further, in response to congressional requests or legislative mandate, GAO issued five products in 2011 and 2012 that addressed, in part, CFPB's implementation of its financial literacy efforts. In addition, CFPB has reported on its financial literacy efforts in the semi-annual reports to Congress and the oversight hearings required of it under Section 1016 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.Congress may wish to consider limiting future program funding until U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has more fully defined the benefits and costs of its Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
                                                                                        To limit future program funding for the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan (Plan) as GAO suggested in February 2012, legislation was enacted for fiscal years 2013 and 2014. Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2013 rescinded $73.2 million from funds appropriated for the Plan in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. The explanatory statement accompanying the fiscal year 2013 DHS Appropriations Act indicated that these funds were to be applied to CBP Air and Marine operations to provide immediate border security operational benefit, while enabling CBP to maintain its Integrated Fixed Tower investments and deployments in accordance with planned delays in its original time lines. For fiscal year 2014, the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed a rescission from CBP's border security fencing, infrastructure, and technology (BSFIT) account, under which the Plan is funded. Specifically, in the Senate report accompanying the DHS appropriations bill for fiscal year 2014, the Committee noted that the bill would rescind $61.8 million in unobligated balances from prior-year appropriations for the BSFIT account because of testing and deployment concerns regarding the Integrated Fixed Towers. In particular, the Committee noted concerns about deploying the system before it has been proven to work in real-life situations and indicated that the bill would prohibit deploying the system until it has been proven to work. The enacted rescission under the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2014 was approximately $67.5 million from unobligated prior-year balances for BSFIT.To help further offset billions of dollars in the federal budget for aviation security programs and activities in outlying fiscal years, Congress, working with the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), should consider increasing the passenger security fee according to one of the options GAO identified in February 2012. These include the Presidents Deficit Reduction Plan option ($7.50 per one-way trip by 2017); the Congressional Budget Office, Presidents Debt Commission, and House Budget Committee options ($5.00 per one-way trip); TSAs Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request option ($5.50 per enplanement by 2014); as well as adjusting the fee for inflation (according to GAO analysis, this option would increase the fee to about $3.00 per enplanement). These options could increase fee collections over existing levels from about $2 billion to $10 billion over 5 years.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
                                                                                        The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, enacted on December 26, 2013, included a provision to increase the passenger security fee, consistent with the administration's request, thereby addressing GAO's February 2012 suggestion to consider increasing the passenger security fee (Pub. L. No. 113-67, 607, 127 Stat. 1165, 1187-88 (2013) (amending 49 U.S.C. 44940)). In February 2012, GAO identified various options for increasing the passenger security fee that, if implemented, would further offset TSA's annual appropriation for aviation security. The administration, in its fiscal year 2014 budget request, proposed to change the passenger security fee to a "per one-way trip" fee and establish it as a minimum fee of $5.00 per one-way trip with incremental $0.50 increases each fiscal year through fiscal year 2019, resulting in a fee of $7.50 per one-way trip. This proposed increase is among those options previously identified in February 2012 by GAO and proposed by the administration. The Bipartisan Budget Act modifies the passenger security fee from its current per enplanement structure ($2.50 per enplanement with a maximum one-way-trip fee of $5.00) to a structure that increases the passenger security fee to a flat $5.60 per one-way-trip, effective July 1, 2014 (Pub. L. No. 113-67, 601(b), 127 Stat. at 1187(2013) amending 49 U.S.C. 44940(c)). Pursuant to the act, collections under this modified fee structure will contribute to deficit reduction as well as to offsetting TSA's aviation security costs and for other purposes specified in statute (49 U.S.C. 44923(h), 44940(i)). Specifically, the act identifies $12.6 billion in fee collections that, over a 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2014 and continuing through fiscal year 2023, will contribute to deficit reduction (49 U.S.C. 44940(i) (identifying, among other things, the specific amount to be credited as offsetting receipts and deposited in the general fund of the Treasury each fiscal year, 2014 through 2023)). Fees collected beyond those identified for deficit reduction are available, consistent with existing law, to offset TSA's aviation security costs. According to the House of Representatives and Senate Committees on the Budget, and notwithstanding amounts dedicated for deficit reduction, collections under the modified fee structure will offset about 43 percent of aviation security costs, compared to the approximate 30 percent currently offset under the existing fee structure. In addition to the passenger security fee, TSA also currently imposes a fee on air carriers the Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee to further offset the costs of aviation security (49 U.S.C. 44940(a)(2)). Pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act, TSA's authority to collect this fee will expire effective October 1, 2014 (Pub. L. No. 113-67, 601(a), 127 Stat. at 1187).To determine the extent to which air passenger immigration inspection fees are aligned with the costs of inspection activities, which could enable fee adjustments to reduce reliance on general fund appropriations, Congress may wish to require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to require U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to regularly report on the total cost of air passenger immigration inspections and the amount of associated fee collections.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
                                                                                        No legislative action identified. As of November 2013, the 113th Congress had not enacted legislation to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to direct ICE and CBP to establish a regular schedule to review and coordinate on the costs of their respective air passenger immigration inspection activities, as GAO suggested in February 2012. However, ICE and CBP have taken action to report on the total cost of air passenger immigration inspections. ICE and CBP have reviewed and reported their respective portions of the immigration inspection fee. CBP regularly reviews its fees, and ICE has reviewed its portion of the immigration fee for fiscal years 2010 through 2012. Collectively, their reports provide Congress with the information necessary to inform oversight of the air passenger immigration inspection fee.Congress may wish to require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to adjust the air passenger immigration inspection fee as needed so that collections are aligned with total inspection costs, if it is determined that total immigration fee collections do not cover total immigration inspection costs.
                                                                                        Open – Partially Addressed
                                                                                        As of March 2024, Congress had not enacted legislation to adjust the air passenger immigration fee, as GAO suggested in February 2012. However, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) identified the extent to which collections are aligned with total immigration inspection costs. ICE reported in its 2012 fee review that, based on its legal review of the Immigration and Nationality Act, it is authorized to use its air passenger and sea vessel passenger inspection collections to reimburse its immigration inspection activities. ICE's and CBP's combined fiscal year 2012 immigration inspection costs exceeded collections by almost $175 million, and neither agency received enough collections to cover its respective costs. The 2021 Budget of the U.S. Government proposed increasing the immigration inspection user fee, including the air passenger inspection fee, by $2. The proposal also would have eliminated a partial fee exemption for some sea passengers. The Administration estimated that these two adjustments would increase annual immigration user fee collections by hundreds of millions of dollars. The proposal would have authorized CBP to adjust the fee in the future without further statutory changes. Because ICE and CBP use annual appropriations, as authorized, to bridge any gaps between immigration costs and immigration fee collections, if Congress intends for the immigration inspection fees to recover the full costs of inspections, it should consider increasing these fees so that collections are aligned with total inspection costs. Until such steps are taken, ICE and CBP will likely continue to use annual appropriations to fund activities that they have statutory authority to fund with user fees.To determine the extent to which air passenger immigration inspection fees are aligned with the costs of inspection activities, which could enable fee adjustments to reduce reliance on general fund appropriations, Congress may wish to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to direct U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to amend its cost study methodology to determine the extent to which air passenger fee collections cover reimbursable activities.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
                                                                                        No legislative action identified. As of November 2013, the 113th Congress had not enacted legislation to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to direct ICE to amend its cost study methodology to determine the extent to which air passenger fee collections cover reimbursable activities, as GAO suggested in February 2012. However, ICE has taken action to amend its cost study methodology to determine the extent to which air passenger fee collections cover reimburseable activities. In April 2013, ICE completed its review of its fiscal year 2012 immigration inspection fees and for the first time amended its cost study methodology to report separately its air and sea vessel passenger immigration inspection activity costs. As a result, Congress now has the information to conduct oversight of the air passenger immigration inspection fee.To determine the extent to which air passenger immigration inspection fees are aligned with the costs of inspection activities, which could enable fee adjustments to reduce reliance on general fund appropriations, Congress may wish to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to direct U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to establish a regular schedule to review and coordinate on the costs of their respective air passenger immigration inspection activities, and revise the proportion of the fee received by each agency accordingly.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
                                                                                        As of March 2019, Congress had not enacted legislation to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to direct ICE and CBP to establish a regular schedule to review and coordinate on the costs of their respective air passenger immigration inspection activities, and revise the proportion of the fee received by each agency accordingly, as GAO suggested in February 2012. However, ICE and CBP both implemented biennial reviews of the immigration inspection fee. In December 2018, ICE officials told GAO that they coordinate with CBP on elements of their individual reviews of the fee, including cost recovery. Further, ICE and CBP provided information that shows that the proportion of the fee received by each agency is aligned with their respective costs. By regularly reviewing and coordinating on the costs of their respective air passenger immigration inspection activities, ICE and CBP help ensure that the proportion of the fees received by each agency are aligned with their respective costs and bring attention to gaps between immigration inspection costs and fee collections.

          See All 13 RecommendationsRecommendations for Executive Action
        Agency Affected
                                                  Recommendation
                                                  StatusDepartment of Defense
                                                                                        To achieve greater efficiencies and maximize the use of resources by identifying and reducing any unnecessary overlap and duplication in language and culture training products, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the military services should designate organizational responsibility and a supporting process to inventory and evaluate existing language and culture products and plans for additional investments, eliminate any unnecessary overlap and duplication, and adjust resources accordingly.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
The Department of Defense (DOD) reported two specific initiatives it has taken to identify and reduce unnecessary overlap and duplication in language and culture training products, as suggested by GAO in February 2012. First, in May 2012, the Defense Language and National Security Education Office (DLNSEO) convened an action panel comprised of representatives from the military services and defense agencies to address areas of overlap and duplication in cultural training and education curricula and products. As part of this effort, the panel met three times to inventory existing regional and culture products, as well as those under development, and to provide a description of each product, and how these products could be shared with other defense organizations. DOD reported in November 2012 that it will continue to monitor and track efforts to share existing culture training and education products to avoid redundancy and reduce costs, such as the establishment of memoranda of agreement between organizations. Second, in August 2012, DLNSEO asked representatives of the service language, region, and culture offices about their use of commercial computer-based language training products, including those specifically identified by GAO. At that time, service officials commented that the commercial language products that had been purchased were not heavily used by service personnel and indicated a preference to rely on currently available government-produced language training products rather than contract for commercial language products. In November 2012, DLNSEO reported that the military services had elected not to renew contracts for commercial products, which were duplicative of government-produced language training products available on government web sites.Department of Defense
                                                                                        To achieve greater efficiencies and maximize the use of resources by identifying and reducing any unnecessary overlap and duplication in language and culture training products, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the military services should take steps to coordinate efforts to contract for future language and culture training products where possible and collaborate on the development of new products that support co-use by more than one military service.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
The Department of Defense (DOD) identified specific steps that the military services and defense agencies have taken to coordinate efforts to contract for language and culture training products and collaborate on the development of future products that support co-use by multiple services, as suggested by GAO in February 2012. In November 2012, DOD reported that defense organizations have collaborated on expanding efforts to develop and acquire culture products that will be used by more than one military service, which has reduced the need for overlapping service-specific products. For example, the Defense Language and National Security Education Office (DLNSEO) led efforts to develop products that provide military and civilian personnel with training on how to successfully operate in another culture. DLNSEO has given all DOD personnel electronic access to these training products through a Web-based application. DOD reported that it has achieved other efficiencies by incorporating existing language and culture content from materials already developed by DOD organizations into DOD-wide training products and military service professional military education. Additionally, DLNSEO convened an action panel in May 2012 that was comprised of representatives from the military services and defense agencies to establish procedures for sharing their inventories of culture products and research, among other activities, as a means to reduce duplication and improve efficiency.National Telecommunications and Information Administration
                                                                                        To improve transparency in national spectrum policy decisions, assure coordination between managers of government and privately licensed spectrum, and help ensure that spectrum is used for its highest and best purpose, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should report periodically to Congress on their joint spectrum planning activities and their consultation with other relevant government agencies. The report should include information on estimated future spectrum requirements for public and private uses, the spectrum allocation actions necessary to accommodate those uses, and any actions taken to promote the efficient use of spectrum.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
NTIA and FCC have taken steps to periodically report on their spectrum planning activities, as GAO suggested in 2012. Specifically, an October 2018 Presidential memorandum to the heads of all executive departments and agencies required, among other things, that the Secretary of Commerce, working through NTIA, and in coordination with FCC and other agencies submit to the President both an annual report and a long-term strategy. The annual report, to be made public to the extent practicable and consistent with applicable law, is to include the status of existing efforts and planned near- to mid-term spectrum repurposing initiatives. The long-term National Spectrum Strategy is to include legislative, regulatory, or other policy recommendations to increase spectrum access for all users, including on a shared basis, through transparency of spectrum use and improved cooperation and collaboration between federal and non-federal spectrum stakeholders. In August 2019, the Department of Commerce issued its first annual report on the status of spectrum repurposing efforts. The report was publicly available and outlines the steps FCC, NTIA, and other agencies are taking to assess and repurpose specific bands of spectrum, as well as proposed future steps. Additionally, according to NTIA officials, NTIA developed the national spectrum strategy and delivered it to the White House in accordance with the Presidential memorandum. Reporting on federal agencies spectrum allocation plans and efforts increases the transparency of NTIA and FCCs spectrum management efforts.Federal Communications Commission
                                                                                        To improve transparency in national spectrum policy decisions, assure coordination between managers of government and privately licensed spectrum, and help ensure that spectrum is used for its highest and best purpose, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should report periodically to Congress on their joint spectrum planning activities and their consultation with other relevant government agencies. The report should include information on estimated future spectrum requirements for public and private uses, the spectrum allocation actions necessary to accommodate those uses, and any actions taken to promote the efficient use of spectrum.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
NTIA and FCC have taken steps to periodically report on their spectrum planning activities, as GAO suggested in 2012. Specifically, an October 2018 Presidential memorandum to the heads of all executive departments and agencies required, among other things, that the Secretary of Commerce, working through NTIA, and in coordination with FCC and other agencies submit to the President both an annual report and a long-term strategy. The annual report, to be made public to the extent practicable and consistent with applicable law, is to include the status of existing efforts and planned near- to mid-term spectrum repurposing initiatives. The long-term National Spectrum Strategy is to include legislative, regulatory, or other policy recommendations to increase spectrum access for all users, including on a shared basis, through transparency of spectrum use and improved cooperation and collaboration between federal and non-federal spectrum stakeholders. In August 2019, the Department of Commerce issued its first annual report on the status of spectrum repurposing efforts. The report was publicly available and outlines the steps FCC, NTIA, and other agencies are taking to assess and repurpose specific bands of spectrum, as well as proposed future steps. Additionally, according to NTIA officials, NTIA developed the national spectrum strategy and delivered it to the White House in accordance with the Presidential memorandum. Reporting on federal agencies spectrum allocation plans and efforts increases the transparency of NTIA and FCCs spectrum management efforts.Department of Defense
                                                                                        To improve sharing of information needed to evaluate research for potential duplication when making funding decisions, the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as well as the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs should determine ways to improve access to comprehensive electronic information on funded health research shared among agency officials and improve the ability of agency officials to identify possible duplication.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
NIH, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have improved access to information on the health research shared among agency officials, as GAO suggested in February 2012. For example, NIH and VA are continuing efforts to integrate information on their health research into the NIH database that houses information on all applications related to NIH health research activities. According to VA, in September 2014, approximately 80 percent of VA applications had been incorporated in the NIH database-an increase from about 25 percent at the time of GAO's February 2012 report. Currently, the database includes electronically submitted NIH and VA applications that can easily be accessed by officials in either agency. In addition, according to NIH and VA officials, the agencies have improved the integration of VA information with NIH information in the database. For example, according to NIH officials, VA grants and applications are compatible with the same automated, natural language text-mining tool used for NIH grants and applications, with a common set of keywords to describe the research projects. NIH officials note that these improvements make it easier to identify the commonalities between VA and NIH research portfolios. In addition, DOD, NIH, and VA have integrated some information on DOD health research with NIH and VA research. As part of this effort, NIH and DOD started a pilot project in February 2014, according to DOD officials, under which data on about 55 DOD research proposals were transferred to the NIH database. According to NIH officials, the pilot was completed in March 2015. According to DOD officials, preliminary results suggest that they will be able to ensure data comparability and reliability and deal with other technical challenges. According to the officials, one of the next steps planned is to establish a long-term memorandum of understanding between NIH and DOD to further expand this effort to include more DOD health research data and to allow for greater compatibility with the NIH database. In addition, according to DOD officials, separate from this pilot, information on additional research projects funded by DOD has also been added to Federal RePORTER, a new multiagency database of federally supported research that includes research from NIH, VA, DOD, and other agencies. Having data on DOD-funded health research applications in the same database that also houses the NIH and VA applications should allow the three agencies to improve their ability to search for potential duplication in their health research efforts and make more effective funding decisions.Department of Veterans Affairs
                                                                                        To improve sharing of information needed to evaluate research for potential duplication when making funding decisions, the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as well as the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs should determine ways to improve access to comprehensive electronic information on funded health research shared among agency officials and improve the ability of agency officials to identify possible duplication.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
NIH, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have improved access to information on the health research shared among agency officials, as GAO suggested in February 2012. For example, NIH and VA are continuing efforts to integrate information on their health research into the NIH database that houses information on all applications related to NIH health research activities. According to VA, in September 2014, approximately 80 percent of VA applications had been incorporated in the NIH database-an increase from about 25 percent at the time of GAO's February 2012 report. Currently, the database includes electronically submitted NIH and VA applications that can easily be accessed by officials in either agency. In addition, according to NIH and VA officials, the agencies have improved the integration of VA information with NIH information in the database. For example, according to NIH officials, VA grants and applications are compatible with the same automated, natural language text-mining tool used for NIH grants and applications, with a common set of keywords to describe the research projects. NIH officials note that these improvements make it easier to identify the commonalities between VA and NIH research portfolios. In addition, DOD, NIH, and VA have integrated some information on DOD health research with NIH and VA research. As part of this effort, NIH and DOD started a pilot project in February 2014, according to DOD officials, under which data on about 55 DOD research proposals were transferred to the NIH database. According to NIH officials, the pilot was completed in March 2015. According to DOD officials, preliminary results suggest that they will be able to ensure data comparability and reliability and deal with other technical challenges. According to the officials, one of the next steps planned is to establish a long-term memorandum of understanding between NIH and DOD to further expand this effort to include more DOD health research data and to allow for greater compatibility with the NIH database. In addition, according to DOD officials, separate from this pilot, information on additional research projects funded by DOD has also been added to Federal RePORTER, a new multiagency database of federally supported research that includes research from NIH, VA, DOD, and other agencies. Having data on DOD-funded health research applications in the same database that also houses the NIH and VA applications should allow the three agencies to improve their ability to search for potential duplication in their health research efforts and make more effective funding decisions.National Institutes of Health
                                                                                        To improve sharing of information needed to evaluate research for potential duplication when making funding decisions, the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as well as the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs should determine ways to improve access to comprehensive electronic information on funded health research shared among agency officials and improve the ability of agency officials to identify possible duplication.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
NIH, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have improved access to information on the health research shared among agency officials, as GAO suggested in February 2012. For example, NIH and VA are continuing efforts to integrate information on their health research into the NIH database that houses information on all applications related to NIH health research activities. According to VA, in September 2014, approximately 80 percent of VA applications had been incorporated in the NIH database-an increase from about 25 percent at the time of GAO's February 2012 report. Currently, the database includes electronically submitted NIH and VA applications that can easily be accessed by officials in either agency. In addition, according to NIH and VA officials, the agencies have improved the integration of VA information with NIH information in the database. For example, according to NIH officials, VA grants and applications are compatible with the same automated, natural language text-mining tool used for NIH grants and applications, with a common set of keywords to describe the research projects. NIH officials note that these improvements make it easier to identify the commonalities between VA and NIH research portfolios. In addition, DOD, NIH, and VA have integrated some information on DOD health research with NIH and VA research. As part of this effort, NIH and DOD started a pilot project in February 2014, according to DOD officials, under which data on about 55 DOD research proposals were transferred to the NIH database. According to NIH officials, the pilot was completed in March 2015. According to DOD officials, preliminary results suggest that they will be able to ensure data comparability and reliability and deal with other technical challenges. According to the officials, one of the next steps planned is to establish a long-term memorandum of understanding between NIH and DOD to further expand this effort to include more DOD health research data and to allow for greater compatibility with the NIH database. In addition, according to DOD officials, separate from this pilot, information on additional research projects funded by DOD has also been added to Federal RePORTER, a new multiagency database of federally supported research that includes research from NIH, VA, DOD, and other agencies. Having data on DOD-funded health research applications in the same database that also houses the NIH and VA applications should allow the three agencies to improve their ability to search for potential duplication in their health research efforts and make more effective funding decisions.Federal Emergency Management Agency
                                                                                        The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should complete a national preparedness assessment of capability gaps at each level based on tiered, capability-specific performance objectives to enable prioritization of grant funding, and FEMA could identify the potential costs for establishing and maintaining those capabilities at each level and determine what capabilities federal agencies should provide.
                                                                                        Open – Partially Addressed
FEMA concurred with the recommendation and has taken steps to implement it. First in 2022, FEMA developed the National Stakeholder Preparedness Review (National SPR) is a first-of-its-kind federal self-assessment of capabilities. The National SPR goals are to gauge the Nation's readiness for catastrophic disasters, to identify national-level emergency management capability gaps and planning assumptions for all hazards and specific scenarios, and to inform preparedness efforts. Next, FEMA drafted the Concurrence of the Target Gap Overviews (previously called the capability assessment sheets) for the National Stakeholder Preparedness Review with members of the Homeland Preparedness and Response Interagency Policy Committee which was finalized in November 2022. Third, in December 2023, FEMA developed a draft Investment Strategy for National Preparedness (ISNP), which identifies resources needed to address national capability gaps. According to FEMA as of January 2024, the ISNP has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Accordingly, until the ISNP is approved by OMB and shared with Congress, our recommendation remains open.Department of Homeland Security
                                                                                        To address the duplicative federal facility risk assessments conducted by multiple federal agencies, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should work with federal agencies to determine their reasons for duplicating the activities included in Federal Protective Service's (FPS) risk assessments and identify measures to reduce this duplication.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
FPS has taken steps to determine the reasons other federal agencies are duplicating its risk assessment activities, as GAO suggested in February 2012. According to FPS officials, in July 2014, FPS surveyed 30 tenant agencies to determine if they are conducting risk assessments of their facilities, the extent to which agencies may be duplicating FPS's assessments, and how the duplication could be eliminated. FPS found that 15 of the 21 agencies that responded were conducting risk assessments and 6 were not. The agencies stated that they were conducting risk assessments because of a congressional mandate or because FPS's assessment did not address a particular threat facing that agency although they pay FPS to conduct these assessments. In August 2016, GAO confirmed that FPS has taken steps to coordinate with these agencies. As a result of both coordinating with and surveying GSA as well as other federal agencies, FPS is in a better position to reduce unnecessary duplication of effort associated with its risk assessments. In addition, the Interagency Security Committee-a DHS-chaired organization-developed a physical security standard, The Risk Management Process for Federal Facilities (RMP), with which federal executive agencies and departments must comply. Among other things, the RMP includes a list of undesirable events (threats) that are applicable to all federal facilities and requires FPS to assess the threat, vulnerability and consequence of each. In 2013, FPS officials stated that the agency has no authority to prevent other federal agencies from conducting risk assessments, and in November 2015, FPS officials said its position had not changed. FPS also said that it plans to continue to coordinate with its tenant agencies that are conducting risk assessments and look for ways to eliminate the duplication. Given the financial and other benefits that may result from reducing duplication, GAO agrees with FPS that it should continue working with these agencies to understand why they are completing their own assessments and identify ways to minimize their duplicative assessment activities.Office of Management and Budget
                                                                                        Working with the National Security Council, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should assess whether a construct analogous to the Defense Space Council could be applied government-wide or if a separate organization should be established that would have greater authority for setting priorities than individual departments and agencies as well as responsibility for strategic planning. Given the complexity, diversity, and sensitivity of the many organizations involved in space and long-standing resistance to centralized leadership structures or even partnerships among agencies, GAO realizes such an action could not be implemented quickly and would require a phased implementation approach.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
As of October 2017, the administration had taken steps to address the issue of fragmented leadership and the lack of a single authority to oversee the acquisition of space programs, as GAO suggested in February 2012. OMB agreed with GAO that an additional organization may be needed to improve coordination of space efforts across the government. OMB stated that in June 2017 the President revived the National Space Council, which will provide a coordinated process for developing and monitoring the implementation of national space policy and strategy. In addition, the executive order reviving the council specified that the council is directed to facilitate the resolution of differences concerning space-related policy matters. With the reestablishment of the National Space Council, GAO considers this particular recommendation addressed, in that OMB assessed the need for an additional government-wide body and the President established one. In addition to and separate from this change, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, Congress made changes to certain space leadership positions and required the Department of Defense to report on a review and recommend an organizational and management structure for its national security space components. The changes have the potential to ameliorate the problems identified by GAO in its 2012 report. GAO will continue to monitor coordination of space system organizations in general.Office of Management and Budget
                                                                                        To further reduce duplication in acquiring launch services, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should assess and adopt mechanisms to ensure formal coordination of the Department of Defense (DOD) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) acquisition processes for awarding launch services contracts with an eye toward leveraging the government's buying power and ensuring that launch prices are competitive for all U.S. government customers.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
OMB has not taken actions to address the issue of reducing duplication in acquiring launch services as GAO suggested in February 2012. However, DOD and NASA have worked together to overcome some of the concerns that GAO presented in that report, and concerns related to the most recent DOD launch contract award have been overcome by events. As such, GAO considers the particular suggestions from the February 2012 report to be addressed. DOD and NASA have made significant progress in ensuring their acquisition processes for launch vehicles are coordinated through various high-level boards, which bring together program leaders and participants to communicate on launch services acquisition issues. GAO recognizes that the changes to the DOD launch vehicle acquisition strategy have led to launch contract improvements, and NASA's and DOD's work to increase coordination is significant. While GAO maintains that the prior Air Force launch contract could have better leveraged the government's buying power, the contract has been signed and work on the contract is under way. Moreover, the Air Force was able to obtain decreased launch prices through negotiations on this contract. The Air Force is currently in the middle of a number of significant changes that could impact the future potential for duplication of launch services acquisitions between DOD and NASA. For example, in the near future, the Air Force may have more than one launch provider certified to launch national security missions, similar to the arrangement that NASA utilizes to contract for its launches. Multiple launch providers hold the potential to keep prices low via competitive pressures without significant government involvement. The Air Force is currently in the process of developing a new strategy for acquiring launch services in a marketplace with more than one provider. In addition, the joint explanatory statement to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 required DOD and NASA, and other appropriate federal agencies, to identify opportunities for coordination among federal agencies in space launch acquisition, and for DOD and NASA to brief the results of their study to certain congressional committees by the end of 2015. These actions will likely contribute to the reduced possibility for duplication in launch services acquisitions between government organizations. GAO will continue to monitor the situation and if new issues arise, including possible issues identified as a result of the briefing mentioned above, we will present them separately in a future Duplication Report.Office of Management and Budget
                                                                                        To further reduce duplication in acquiring launch services, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should determine whether the government is paying twice for any overhead costs, and if duplication is found, develop a way to ensure that the government does not pay more than once for overhead costs through separate acquisition processes.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
DOD and NASA have taken steps to determine whether the government is incurring duplicative overhead costs for launch services, as GAO suggested in February 2012. In November 2012, OMB stated that the administration is updating the 2004 National Space Transportation Policy, and that one of the administration's goals for this update is to improve interagency coordination and collaboration among several space transportation-related activities. The new policy was signed by the President on November 21, 2013, and while it addresses many important areas of interagency coordination, it does not address the concern of duplicative charges for overhead costs. However, work resulting from recent implementation of the November 2011 Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition strategy for purchasing Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) launch services has provided some insight into this issue, as has the new EELV contract that was based on the 2011 acquisition strategy and awarded in June 2013. According to DOD and NASA, in this contract, DOD and the main EELV contractor, the United Launch Alliance (ULA), have better defined the charges allocated to NASA when it uses a ULA launch vehicle. NASA has verified through various reviews that these costs are not duplicative of costs paid by DOD. GAO has not reviewed whether the measures taken by DOD and ULA have fully eliminated the possibility for duplicative charges for overhead costs. However, due to many complexities of government launch services, such as the unusual contract structure in which the government pays for most of the contractor's launch infrastructure costs, these efforts represent the extent to which it is practicable at this time to examine launch services overhead costs.Social Security Administration
                                                                                        In response to prior recommendations, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has taken steps to explore the possibilities of sharing information with states and the workers' compensation insurance industry to identify persons who might be receiving workers' compensation benefits. While some information sharing has taken place, GAO continues to believe that additional opportunities exist to share information. While obtaining information from states is difficult, these efforts may help identify workers' compensation beneficiaries so that benefits can be appropriately and accurately offset.
                                                                                        Open – Partially Addressed
As GAO indicated in February 2012, additional opportunities exist for data sharing with states and the workers' compensation insurance industry to identify persons who might be receiving workers' compensation. While SSA has taken some steps to explore information sharing with states, the data SSA has on workers' compensation benefits are limited, and the agency is also now working to obtain federal workers' compensation data. In January 2013, SSA stated that its SSA Access to State Records Online (SASRO) agreements with states outline conditions under which it is permitted access to query state records, which could provide it with information, such as unemployment and wage data, and limited information from workers' compensation agencies. While state participation as party to an agreement is voluntary, SSA officials said that at that time over 40 states/territories had signed SASRO agreements. However, SSA officials estimated that only 15 states/territories with SASRO agreements provided access to unemployment data and only 15 states provided access to workers' compensation data. While access to these data might help SSA appropriately and accurately offset benefits, SSA only has access to these data from a small number of states/territories and, at that time, was still trying to determine whether the information it is receiving is useful to applying benefit offsets. In March 2014, SSA indicated that, after further evaluation, it determined that the workers' compensation information available in these few states is very limited and sometimes incorrect or unclear. Without this information, SSA is dependent solely on the disabled worker to report receipt of, or change to, the workers' compensation benefit payments. In November 2016, SSA indicated that it was negotiating with the Department of Labor (DOL) to obtain federal workers' compensation payment information through a data exchange. While this will only provide workers' compensation data for federal workers, it will help identify some workers' compensation beneficiaries so that benefits can be appropriately and accurately offset. As of December 2017, SSA indicated that the data exchange with DOL was moving forward, but that the agency's proposal for a system update to receive the Federal Employees' Compensation Act data from DOL was on hold while the agency waits for resources to become available. As of May 2021, SSA indicated that it continues to work with DOL to establish a computer matching agreement and it has updated its Program Operations Manual System to put in place a process to provide technicians with more access to federal workers' compensation payment information. As of December 2021, SSA indicated that DOL has not signed the computer matching agreement and negotiations with DOL for this agreement are at a standstill. In April 2023, SSA indicated that its cost benefit analysis of alternate approaches to obtaining verification of FECA payments concluded that the benefits of establishing a data exchange with DOL far outweighed its costs by nearly 5 to 1. As a result, SSA expects the computer matching agreement will be effectuated in 2025, allowing them to begin receiving the FECA data from DOL. In October 2023, SSA indicated that DOL is currently reviewing the computer matching agreement, and SSA anticipates completing the agreement in early 2024. SSA also indicated that it continues to review this activity for funding and expects the computer matching agreement will be effectuated in 2025. If SSA is able to get this matching agreement established, it would allow the agency to appropriately and accurately offset benefits for federal workers' compensation. SSA would still need information from the states in order to offset benefits for workers' compensation.Department of Education
                                                                                        To mitigate the effects of program fragmentation, simplify children's access to these services, collect the data necessary to coordinate operation of these programs, and identify and minimize any unwarranted overlap and potential duplication, the Secretaries of Education and Health and Human Services (HHS) should deepen and extend their ongoing coordination efforts by including all the federal agencies that provide or support early learning or child care services in an inter-departmental workgroup that focuses on this population.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
The Departments of Education (Education) and Health and Human Services (HHS) have addressed GAO's February 2012 suggestion to deepen and extend coordination efforts among federal agencies with early learning and child care programs. Education and HHS considered expanding membership of the Interagency Policy Board on Early Learning-their inter-departmental workgroup that focuses on children-to other agencies identified by GAO as providing early learning or child care services. However, rather than including these other agencies as members of their workgroup, they ultimately decided to include them in discussions at each meeting, as appropriate. Discussion topics during 2014 meetings included early childhood workforce and professional development. Additionally, in their January 2015 meeting, the agencies discussed early childhood homelessness. The Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Agriculture, two of the departments that GAO identified as providing early learning and child care programs, attended this meeting. The Board also discussed how it could coordinate early learning services with these agencies. Including these other agencies in relevant discussions can help Education and HHS coordinate the operation of early learning and child care programs. Furthermore, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014, which the President signed into law on November 19, 2014, requires the Secretary of HHS, in conjunction with the Secretary of Education, to conduct an inter-departmental review of all early learning and child care programs to develop a plan for eliminating overlapping programs, as identified by GAO, and make recommendations for streamlining these programs (Pub. L. No. 113-186, ? 13, 128 Stat. 1971, 2002). These recommendations are due no later than 1 year after enactment of the Act. This effort should provide Education and HHS with the opportunity to systematically review the multiple programs and recommend changes, as appropriate. Education and HHS officials told GAO that they have begun coordinating with each other on developing a strategy to address this requirement.Department of Health and Human Services
                                                                                        To mitigate the effects of program fragmentation, simplify children's access to these services, collect the data necessary to coordinate operation of these programs, and identify and minimize any unwarranted overlap and potential duplication, the Secretaries of Education and Health and Human Services (HHS) should deepen and extend their ongoing coordination efforts by including all the federal agencies that provide or support early learning or child care services in an inter-departmental workgroup that focuses on this population.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
The Departments of Education (Education) and Health and Human Services (HHS) have addressed GAO's February 2012 suggestion to deepen and extend coordination efforts among federal agencies with early learning and child care programs. Education and HHS considered expanding membership of the Interagency Policy Board on Early Learning-their inter-departmental workgroup that focuses on children-to other agencies identified by GAO as providing early learning or child care services. However, rather than including these other agencies as members of their workgroup, they ultimately decided to include them in discussions at each meeting, as appropriate. Discussion topics during 2014 meetings included early childhood workforce and professional development. Additionally, in their January 2015 meeting, the agencies discussed early childhood homelessness. The Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Agriculture, two of the departments that GAO identified as providing early learning and child care programs, attended this meeting. The Board also discussed how it could coordinate early learning services with these agencies. Including these other agencies in relevant discussions can help Education and HHS coordinate the operation of early learning and child care programs. Furthermore, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014, which the President signed into law on November 19, 2014, requires the Secretary of HHS, in conjunction with the Secretary of Education, to conduct an inter-departmental review of all early learning and child care programs to develop a plan for eliminating overlapping programs, as identified by GAO, and make recommendations for streamlining these programs (Pub. L. No. 113-186, ? 13, 128 Stat. 1971, 2002). These recommendations are due no later than 1 year after enactment of the Act. This effort should provide Education and HHS with the opportunity to systematically review the multiple programs and recommend changes, as appropriate. Education and HHS officials told GAO that they have begun coordinating with each other on developing a strategy to address this requirement.Office of Management and Budget
                                                                                        Priority Rec.To improve performance through greater coordination among the many federal programs that support employment for people with disabilities, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should consider establishing measurable, government-wide goals for employment of people with disabilities. Given the number of federal agencies and approaches involved in supporting employment for people with disabilities, government-wide goals could help spur greater coordination and more efficient and economical service delivery in overlapping program areas. To determine whether these goals are being met, agencies should establish related measures and indicators and collect additional data to inform these measures.
                                                                                        Open
OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation, but reported in March 2024 that it does not plan to establish government-wide goals for the employment of people with disabilities. OMB cited the difficulty of setting goals for more than 40 programs with different designs and target populations. Instead, to enhance federal coordination, OMB staff previously noted that the Department of Labor's (DOL) Office of Disability Employment Policy led an interagency subcommittee on employment of people with disabilities. However, in April 2024, OMB officials said that the subcommittee had stopped meeting temporarily, although they expect the group to reconvene in the future to work on advancing competitive, integrated employment. OMB did not provide details on when the group would reconvene, but pointed to the subcommittee's recent efforts to collaborate on a website with consolidated resources for people with disabilities, service providers, employers, and others on ways to advance competitive, integrated employment. DOL officials told us that the subcommittee's last meeting was in July 2023. Taking action in this area is important given that employment of people with disabilities remains lower than for those without disabilities, despite recent progress. We continue to believe that OMB should lead or coordinate an executive branch effort to consider establishing measurable government-wide goals across the group of agencies and programs that support employment for people with disabilities. Past OMB efforts, including a cross-agency priority goal for science, technology, engineering, and math education, may serve as a model and establishing such goals could enhance coordination and help improve employment outcomes for people with disabilities.Office of Management and Budget
                                                                                        To achieve the greatest efficiency and effectiveness, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should continue to work with executive agencies that administer overlapping programs to determine whether program consolidation might result in administrative savings and more effective and efficient delivery of services. Executive agencies should seek any necessary statutory authority to consolidate programs if there would be sufficient savings to merit such an action.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
OMB has taken steps to streamline certain programs and improve coordination more broadly, and cited proposals to further streamline programs, as GAO suggested in February 2012, and these steps sufficiently address GAOs recommendation. Previously, OMB worked with executive agencies to propose consolidating or eliminating some of the 45 programs that support employment for people with disabilities that GAO identified. In 2014, two of these programs were eliminated by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Specifically, according to the Statement of the Managers to Accompany the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, WIOA eliminated 15 programs, two of which were among the 45 GAO identified: the Veterans' Workforce Investment Program, administered by the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Program administered by the Department of Education (Education). More recently, the president's fiscal year 2021 budget request again proposed eliminating two more of these programs: the Supported Employment State Grants within Education and the Senior Community Service Employment Program within DOL. In addition, OMB cited its June 2018 report, Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century, which outlined a government-wide reform plan and reorganization recommendations. This plan was in response to Executive Order 13781, entitled Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch. As part of this plan, the administration proposed merging the Departments of Education and Labor into a single cabinet agency. According to OMB, the new agency would reduce the fragmentation and duplication of federal workforce development programs, including those that serve people with disabilities. The proposal would also create a component within the new agency to focus on disability employment by consolidating Education's Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants and DOLs Office of Disability Employment Policy into one office. According to OMB, this would allow for better coordination of services, policy direction, technical assistance, and reporting. However, OMB noted that this proposal would require legislation and neither OMB nor the affected agencies have included a discussion of this proposal as part of the fiscal year 2021 budget. The 2021 budget also proposed reforming and moving the Ticket to Work program which is intended to help Social Security disability beneficiaries find and maintain work from SSA to DOL, noting that the programs services often duplicate and are not well coordinated with employment services offered by DOL and other agencies. Pursuing opportunities to consolidate overlapping programs can result in administrative savings and more effective and efficient delivery of services.Office of Management and Budget
                                                                                        To help the Congress and federal agencies identify opportunities to address inconsistent federal funding approaches and enhance user financing, thereby reducing reliance on general fund appropriations, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should use its budget reviews to ensure that agencies review their fee-funded programs biennially, as required by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act and consistent with GAO's User Fee Design Guide, to help identify opportunities to improve the (1) efficiency, equity, revenue adequacy, and administrative burden of the fee design and (2) alignment of fee collections with program costs over time.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
In June 2018, OMB updated its Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, to specify that agencies' budget submissions should reflect the results of their biennial review of existing user fees. According to OMB staff, OMB reviews this information as part of its annual budget review process and includes the results of that process in the President's Budget as appropriate. By taking this action, OMB helps ensure that agencies regularly identify opportunities to improve the design of their user fees and to better align their fee collections with program costs over time.Office of Management and Budget
                                                                                        To help Congress and federal agencies identify opportunities to address inconsistent federal funding approaches and enhance user financing, thereby reducing reliance on general fund appropriations, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should use its budget reviews to ensure that agencies review their non-fee-funded programs on a regular basis, in accordance with OMB Circular No. A-25 guidance, and discuss the results in their Chief Financial Officer (CFO) annual report. Regular reviews of non-fee-funded programs can help agencies and Congress determine whether programs funded with general fund revenues could be fully or partially funded with user fees.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
In June 2018, OMB updated its Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, to specify that agencies' annual budget submissions should reflect the results of their biennial review of the potential for establishing new user fees, required by Circular No. A-25, and include legislative proposals as appropriate. OMB also revised Circular No. A-11 to direct agencies to follow Circular No. A-25, which requires agencies to discuss the results of their biennial reviews of user fees in their CFO annual reports. According to OMB staff, OMB reviews this information as part of its annual budget review process and includes the results of that process in the President's Budget as appropriate. By taking this action, OMB helps support the efficient use of government resources and helps reduce reliance on general fund appropriations to pay for programs that provide a service or benefit to identifiable users by ensuring that information is available for agencies and Congress to identify where similar activities are funded differently. Such information may assist in eliminating or managing inconsistent or overlapping funding sources for similar activities.Office of Management and Budget
                                                                                        To help Congress and federal agencies identify opportunities to address inconsistent federal funding approaches and enhance user financing, thereby reducing reliance on general fund appropriations, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) could direct agencies to use a framework such as GAO's User Fee Design Guide when designing or redesigning user fees.
                                                                                        Closed – Implemented
In July 2016, OMB implemented this action, which GAO suggested in February 2012, by revising OMB Circular A-11 to recommend GAO's User Fee Design Guide to federal agencies. In February 2012 GAO reported that agencies commonly identified unclear requirements as the reason for not adhering to the Chief Financial Officers Act and OMB Circular No. A-25 biennial fee review requirements. Further, GAO reported that agencies were inconsistent in their ability to provide documentation of their fee reviews. GAO found the reviews contained varying levels of detail and analysis, potentially limiting their value to decision makers. Prior to revising the Circular, OMB had used GAO's User Fee Design Guide as a reference when working with certain agencies on user fee proposals, but had not formalized this practice. As a result, this framework may have been inconsistently applied across OMB and agencies. In July 2016, OMB updated its Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, to reference the Design Guide and recommend it as a resource for federal agencies. By taking this action, OMB helps ensure that agencies use a consistent framework to design, redesign, and review user fees.

          See All 20 RecommendationsFull Report
    Full Report (426 pages)
              Accessible Text
GAO Contacts
    
      Janet St. Laurent
            
            Deputy Director
      
            stlaurentj@gao.gov
      
            (202) 512-7100
    Zina Merritt
            
            merrittz@gao.gov
      
            (202) 512-4300
Office of Public Affairs
    
      Chuck Young
            
            Managing Director
      
            youngc1@gao.gov
      
            (202) 512-4800
Topics
    
      Government OperationsHomeland securityImprovised explosive deviceAircraft acquisition programUnmanned aerial systemsU.S. NavyEnvironmental protectionScience and technologyU.S. ArmyU.S. Air ForceAfghanistan security
                                                      MultimediaVideo
    
      Comptroller General Testifies to U.S. House on Government Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation
      
        
        Comptroller General Testifies to U.S. House on Government Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation
          Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Podcasts
    
      Duplication and Overlap Across the Federal Government
    Tuesday, February 28, 2012
      
            Transcript
GAO Watchblog
          Blog Post
              2014 Duplication and Cost Savings Report
            Tuesday, April 8, 2014
      
            As the fiscal pressures facing the government continue to mount, so too does the need for executive...
          GAO Watchblog
          Blog Post
              Looking at Green Cities and Green Buildings for Earth Day
            Tuesday, April 22, 2014
      
            Today is the 34th annual Earth Day, and this year’s theme is “ Green Cities .” To mark the occasion...
 Receive GAO Updates
  Stay informed as we add new reports & testimonies.

    GAO Logo
      U.S. Government Accountability Office


                                   Column 1
                            Press Center
                              Contact Us
                              Inspector General
                              Restricted Reports
                              Column 2
                            Copyright & Terms of Use
                              Privacy Policy
                              Accessibility
                              Sitemap
                              Column 3
                            FOIA Requests
                              Scam Alerts
                              No FEAR Act Data
                              Health Care Advisory Committees