Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue
Published: 2011-06-01T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: This testimony discusses our first annual report to Congress responding to the statutory requirement that GAO identify federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives--either within departments or governmentwide--that have duplicative goals or activities. This work can help inform government policymakers as they address the rapidly building fiscal pressures facing our national government. Our simulations of the federal government's fiscal outlook show continually increasing levels of debt that are unsustainable over time, absent changes in the federal government's current fiscal policies. Since the end of the recent recession, the gross domestic product has grown slowly, and unemployment has remained at a high level. While the economy is still recovering and in need of careful attention, widespread agreement exists on the need to look not only at the near term but also at steps that begin to change the long-term fiscal path as soon as possible without slowing the recovery. With the passage of time, the window to address the fiscal challenge narrows and the magnitude of the required changes grows. This testimony today is based on our March 2011 report, which provided an overview of federal programs or functional areas where unnecessary duplication, overlap, or fragmentation exists and where there are other opportunities for potential cost savings or enhanced revenues. In that report, we identified 81 areas for consideration--34 areas of potential duplication, overlap, or fragmentation and 47 additional areas describing other 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. The 81 areas we identified span a range of federal government missions such as agriculture, defense, economic development, energy, general government, health, homeland security, international affairs, and social services. Within and across these missions, the report touches on hundreds of federal programs, affecting virtually all major federal departments and agencies. My testimony today highlights some key examples of overlap and duplication from our March report on the federal government's management of programs providing services in the areas of (1) domestic food assistance, (2) employment and training, (3) homelessness, and (4) transportation for disadvantaged populations. For each area, this statement will discuss some of the challenges related to overlap and duplication, as well as examples of how better information about each program could help policymakers in determining how to address this overlap and duplication.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The federal government spent more than $90 billion on domestic food and nutrition assistance programs in fiscal year 2010. This assistance is provided through a decentralized system of primarily 18 different federal programs that help ensure that millions of low-income individuals have consistent, dependable access to enough food for an active, healthy life. The Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Homeland Security as well as multiple state and local government and nonprofit organizations work together to administer a complex network of programs and providers, ranging from agricultural commodities to prepared meals to vouchers or other targeted benefits used in commercial food retail locations. However, some of these programs provide comparable benefits to similar or overlapping populations. For example, individuals eligible for groceries through USDA's Commodity Supplemental Food Program are also generally eligible for groceries through USDA's Emergency Food Assistance Program and for targeted benefits that are redeemed in authorized stores through the largest program, USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Federally funded employment and training programs play an important role in helping job seekers obtain employment. In fiscal year 2009, 47 programs spent about $18 billion to provide services, such as job search and job counseling, to program participants. Most of these programs are administered by the Departments of Labor, Education, and HHS. However, 44 of the 47 federal employment and training programs GAO identified, including those with broader missions such as multipurpose block grants, overlap with at least one other program in that they provide at least one similar service to a similar population. In some cases, these programs may have meaningful differences in their eligibility criteria or objectives, or they may provide similar types of services in different ways. Several federal agencies provide a range of programs that offer not only housing assistance but also supportive services to those experiencing homelessness and to those at risk of becoming homeless, yet coordination of these programs varies by program and agency. We previously reported that in 2009, federal agencies spent about $2.9 billion on over 20 programs targeted to address the various needs of persons experiencing homelessness. A number of federal programs are specifically targeted to address issues related to homelessness while other mainstream programs that are generally designed to help low-income individuals by providing housing assistance and services such as health care, job training, and food assistance may also serve those experiencing homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless. We found the potential for overlap because in some cases, different agencies may be offering similar types of services to similar populations. Federal agencies fund transportation services to millions of Americans who are unable to provide their own transportation--frequently because they are elderly, have disabilities, or have low incomes--through programs that provide similar services to similar client groups. The variety of federal programs providing funding for transportation services to the transportation disadvantaged has resulted in fragmented services that can be difficult for clients to navigate and narrowly focused programs that may result in service gaps. GAO previously identified 80 existing federal programs across eight departments that provided funding for transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged in fiscal year 2010. These programs may provide funding to service providers for bus tokens, transit passes, taxi vouchers, or mileage reimbursement, for example, to transportation-disadvantaged persons for trips to access government services (such as job-training programs), the grocery store, medical appointments, or for other purposes.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: We appreciate the opportunity to discuss our first annual report to Congress  responding to the statutory requirement that GAO identify federal programs,  agencies, offices, and initiatives—either within departments or  governmentwide—that have duplicative goals or activities. This work can  help inform government policymakers as they address the rapidly building  fiscal pressures facing our national government. Our simulations of the  federal government’s fiscal outlook show continually increasing levels of  debt that are unsustainable over time, absent changes in the federal  government’s current fiscal policies. Since the end of the recent recession,  the gross domestic product has grown slowly, and unemployment has  remained at a high level. While the economy is still recovering and in need  of careful attention, widespread agreement exists on the need to look not  only at the near term but also at steps that begin to change the long-term  fiscal path as soon as possible without slowing the recovery. With the  passage of time, the window to address the fiscal challenge narrows and the  magnitude of the required changes grows.
My testimony today is based on our March 2011 report, which provided an  overview of federal programs or functional areas where unnecessary  duplication, overlap, or fragmentation exists and where there are other  opportunities for potential cost savings or enhanced revenues. In that  report, we identified 81 areas for consideration—34 areas of potential  duplication, overlap, or fragmentation (see app. I of this statement) and 47  additional areas describing other 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 (see app. II of  this statement). The 81 areas we identified span a range of federal  government missions such as agriculture, defense, economic development,  energy, general government, health, homeland security, international  affairs, and social services. Within and across these missions, the report  touches on hundreds of federal programs, affecting virtually all major  federal departments and agencies. My testimony today highlights some key  examples of overlap and duplication from our March report on the federal  government’s management of programs providing services in the areas of  (1) domestic food assistance, (2) employment and training, (3)  homelessness, and (4) transportation for disadvantaged populations. For  each area, this statement will discuss some of the challenges related to  overlap and duplication, as well as examples of how better information  about each program could help policymakers in determining how to  address this overlap and duplication.
The issues raised in the report were drawn from our prior and ongoing  work. This statement is based substantially upon our March report, which  was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards or with GAO’s quality assurance framework, as  appropriate.
Overlap and fragmentation among government programs or activities can  be harbingers of unnecessary duplication. Reducing or eliminating  duplication, overlap, or fragmentation could potentially save billions of tax  dollars annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective  services. These actions, however, will require some difficult decisions and  sustained attention by the Administration and Congress. Many of the  issues we identified concern activities that are contained within single  departments or agencies. In those cases, agency officials can generally  achieve cost savings or other benefits by implementing existing GAO  recommendations or by undertaking new actions suggested in our March  report. However, a number of issues we have identified span multiple  organizations and therefore may require higher-level attention by the  executive branch, enhanced congressional oversight, or legislative action.  Appendix III contains a list of selected federal programs in the subject  areas discussed in this statement.
subsections: section_title: Actions Needed to Reduce Administrative Overlap among Domestic Food Assistance Programs
paragraphs: The federal government spent more than $90 billion on domestic food and  nutrition assistance programs in fiscal year 2010. This assistance is  provided through a decentralized system of primarily 18 different federal  programs that help ensure that millions of low-income individuals have  consistent, dependable access to enough food for an active, healthy life.  The Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Health and Human Services  (HHS), and Homeland Security as well as multiple state and local  government and nonprofit organizations work together to administer a  complex network of programs and providers, ranging from agricultural  commodities to prepared meals to vouchers or other targeted benefits  used in commercial food retail locations. However, some of these  programs provide comparable benefits to similar or overlapping  populations. For example, individuals eligible for groceries through  USDA’s Commodity Supplemental Food Program are also generally  eligible for groceries through USDA’s Emergency Food Assistance  Program and for targeted benefits that are redeemed in authorized stores  through the largest program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance  Program (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program), which is also  administered by USDA.
The availability of multiple programs with similar benefits helps ensure  that those in need have access to nutritious food, but can also increase  administrative costs, which account for approximately a tenth to more  than a quarter of total costs among the largest of these programs.  Administrative inefficiencies can also result from program rules related to  determining eligibility, which often require the collection of similar  information by multiple entities. For example, six USDA programs—the  National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, the Fresh  Fruit and Vegetable Program, the Summer Food Service Program, the  Special Milk Program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program—all  provide food to eligible children in settings outside the home, such as at  school, day care, or summer day camps.
Most of the 18 programs have specific and often complex legal  requirements and administrative procedures that federal, state, and local  organizations follow to help manage each program’s resources. According  to previous GAO work and state and local officials, rules that govern these  and other nutrition assistance programs often require applicants who seek  assistance from multiple programs to submit separate applications for  each program and provide similar information verifying, for example,  household income. This can create unnecessary work for both providers  and applicants and may result in the use of more administrative resources  than needed.
One of the possible methods for reducing program overlap and  inefficiencies would entail USDA broadening its efforts to simplify,  streamline, or better align eligibility procedures and criteria across  programs to the extent that it is permitted by law. USDA recently stated  that on an ongoing basis, the agency will continue efforts to promote  policy and operational changes that streamline the application and  certification process; enforce rules that prevent simultaneous participation  in programs with similar benefits or target audiences; and review and  monitor program operations to minimize waste and error. While options  such as consolidating or eliminating overlapping programs also have the  potential to reduce administrative costs, they may not reduce spending on  benefits unless fewer individuals are served as a result.
In addition to challenges resulting from overlap, not enough is known  about the effectiveness of many of the domestic food assistance programs.  USDA tracks performance measures related to its food assistance  programs such as the number of people served by a program. However,  these performance measures are insufficient for determining a program’s  effectiveness. Additional research that GAO consulted suggests that  participation in 7 USDA programs—including the Special Supplemental  Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the National  School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, and the  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—is associated with positive  health and nutrition outcomes consistent with programs’ goals, such as  raising the level of nutrition among low-income households, safeguarding  the health and well-being of the nation’s children, and strengthening the  agricultural economy. Yet little is known about the effectiveness of the  remaining 11 programs because they have not been well studied. GAO has  suggested that USDA consider which of the lesser-studied programs need  further research, and USDA agreed to consider the value of examining  potential inefficiencies and overlap among smaller programs.
section_title: Information on Colocation, Administrative Consolidation, and Performance Could Improve Efficiency of Federal Employment and Training Programs
paragraphs: Federally funded employment and training programs play an important  role in helping job seekers obtain employment. In fiscal year 2009, 47  programs spent about $18 billion to provide services, such as job search  and job counseling, to program participants. Most of these programs are  administered by the Departments of Labor, Education, and HHS. However,  44 of the 47 federal employment and training programs GAO identified,  including those with broader missions such as multipurpose block grants,  overlap with at least one other program in that they provide at least one  similar service to a similar population. Some of these overlapping  programs serve multiple population groups. Others target specific  populations, most commonly Native Americans, veterans, and youth. In  some cases, these programs may have meaningful differences in their  eligibility criteria or objectives, or they may provide similar types of  services in different ways.
GAO examined potential duplication among three selected large programs  that provide employment and training services—the Temporary Assistance  for Needy Families, Employment Service, and Workforce Investment Act  Adult programs. These programs maintain parallel administrative  structures to provide some of the same services, such as job search  assistance to low-income individuals (see fig. 1). At the state level, the  state human services or welfare agency typically administers Temporary  Assistance for Needy Families, while the state workforce agency  administers Employment Service and Workforce Investment Act Adult  programs through one-stop centers. In one-stop centers, Employment  Service staff provide job search and other services to Employment Service  customers, while Workforce Investment Act staff provide job search and  other services to Workforce Investment Act Adult customers. Agency  officials acknowledged that greater efficiencies could be achieved in  delivering services through these programs, but said various factors could  warrant having multiple entities provide the same services, including the  number of clients that any one-stop center can serve and one-stop centers’  proximity to clients, particularly in rural areas.
Colocating services and consolidating administrative structures may  increase efficiencies and reduce costs, but implementation can be  challenging. Some states have colocated Temporary Assistance for Needy  Families employment and training services in one-stop centers where  Employment Service and Workforce Investment Act Adult services are  provided. Three states—Florida, Texas, and Utah—have gone a step  further by consolidating the agencies that administer these programs, and  state officials said this has reduced costs and improved services, but they  could not provide a dollar figure for cost savings. States and localities may  face challenges to colocating services, such as limited office space. In  addition, consolidating administrative structures may be time consuming  and any cost savings may not be immediately realized. An obstacle to  further progress in achieving greater administrative efficiencies across  federal employment and training programs is that limited information is  available about the strategies and results of such initiatives. In addition,  little is known about the incentives that states and localities have to  undertake such initiatives and whether additional incentives are needed.
To facilitate further progress by states and localities in increasing  administrative efficiencies in employment and training programs, GAO  recommended in 2011 that the Secretaries of Labor and HHS work  together to develop and disseminate information that could inform such  efforts. This should include information about state initiatives to  consolidate program administrative structures and state and local efforts  to colocate new partners, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy  Families, at one-stop centers. Information on these topics could address  challenges faced, strategies employed, results achieved, and remaining  issues. As part of this effort, Labor and HHS should examine the incentives  for states and localities to undertake such initiatives, and, as warranted,  identify options for increasing such incentives. Labor and HHS agreed they  should develop and disseminate this information. HHS noted that it lacks  legal authority to mandate increased Temporary Assistance for Needy  Families – Workforce Investment Act coordination or create incentives for  such efforts. In terms of achieving efficiencies through program  consolidation, the Administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2012  proposes consolidating nine programs into three as part of its proposed  changes to the Workforce Investment Act. The Administration also  proposed consolidating Education’s Career and Technical Education –  Basic Grants to States and Tech Prep Education programs, at the same  time reducing program funding. In addition, to improve coordination  among similar programs, the budget proposal would transfer the Senior  Community Service Employment Program from Labor to HHS.
Consolidating or colocating employment and training programs is further  complicated by the lack of comprehensive information on the results of  these programs. For example, nearly all 47 programs GAO identified track  multiple outcomes measures, but only 5 programs have completed an  impact study since 2004 to assess whether outcomes resulted from the  program and not some other cause. Based on our survey of agency  officials, we determined that only 5 of the 47 programs have had impact  studies that assess whether the program is responsible for improved  employment outcomes. The five impact studies generally found that the  effects of participation were not consistent across programs, with only  some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to be small,  inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts. Officials from the  remaining 42 programs cited other types of studies or no studies at all. And  among the three programs GAO reviewed for potential duplication—the  Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Employment Service, and  Workforce Investment Act Adult—the extent to which individuals receive  the same services from these programs is unknown due to limited data.
section_title: Better Coordination of Federal Homelessness Programs May Minimize Overlap and Fragmentation As Well As Improve Usefulness of Program Data Collected
paragraphs: Several federal agencies provide a range of programs that offer not only  housing assistance but also supportive services to those experiencing  homelessness and to those at risk of becoming homeless, yet coordination  of these programs varies by program and agency. We previously reported  that in 2009, federal agencies spent about $2.9 billion on over 20 programs  targeted to address the various needs of persons experiencing  homelessness. A number of federal programs are specifically targeted to  address issues related to homelessness while other mainstream programs  that are generally designed to help low-income individuals by providing  housing assistance and services such as health care, job training, and food  assistance may also serve those experiencing homelessness or at risk of  becoming homeless.
We found the potential for overlap because in some cases, different  agencies may be offering similar types of services to similar populations.  For example, we reported in July 2010 that at least seven federal agencies  administered programs that provide some type of shelter or housing  assistance to persons experiencing homelessness. Similarly, five agencies  administered programs that deliver food and nutrition services, and four  agencies administered programs that provide health services including  mental health services and substance abuse treatment. In addition to  similar services, this range of programs has resulted in a fragmented  service system.
Overlap and fragmentation in some of these programs may be due in part  to their legislative creation as separate programs under the jurisdiction of  several agencies. Moreover, additional programs have since developed  incrementally over time to address the specific needs of certain segments  of the population. Nevertheless, this fragmentation can create difficulties  for people in accessing services as well as administrative burdens for  providers who must navigate various application requirements, selection  criteria, and reporting requirements. For example, as we reported in July  2010, providers in rural areas told us they have limited resources and  therefore must apply to and assemble multiple funding sources from both  state and federal programs. As a result, the time consumed in grant writing  and meeting the various compliance and review requirements set by  statute represented an administrative and workload burden, according to  these providers.
Coordination of targeted homelessness programs with other mainstream  programs that support individuals or families experiencing homelessness  includes agencies working together on program guidance and prevention  strategies. In July 2010, GAO reported that agencies had taken some steps  toward improved coordination. For instance, the U.S. Interagency Council  on Homelessness (USICH) has provided a renewed focus on such  coordination and has developed a strategic plan for federal agencies to  end homelessness. However, the lack of federal coordination was still  viewed by some local service providers as an important barrier to the  effective delivery of services to those experiencing homelessness. Without  more formal coordination of federal programs to specifically include the  linking of supportive services and housing, federal efforts to address  homelessness may remain fragmented and not be as effective as they  could be. In June 2010, GAO recommended that the Departments of  Education, HHS, and Housing and Urban Development develop a common  vocabulary to facilitate federal efforts to determine the extent and nature  of homelessness and develop effective programs to address homelessness.  We also recommended in July 2010 that HHS and Housing and Urban  Development consider more formally linking their housing and supportive  services programs.
Fragmentation of programs across federal agencies has also resulted in  differing methods for collecting data on those experiencing homelessness.  In part because of the lack of comprehensive data collection requirements,  the data have limited usefulness. Complete and accurate data are essential  for understanding and meeting the needs of those who are experiencing  homelessness and preventing homelessness from occurring. USICH has  made the development of a common data standard for federal  homelessness programs a priority. USICH recognizes that collection,  analysis, and reporting of quality, timely data on homelessness are  essential for targeting interventions, tracking results, strategic planning,  and resource allocation. Currently each federal program noted above  generally has distinct and different data requirements. USICH  acknowledges that a common data standard and uniform performance  measures across all federal programs that are targeted at homelessness  would facilitate greater understanding and simplify local data  management. USICH representatives noted that agencies are taking steps  to improve and coordinate data collection and reporting, specifically citing  the December 2010 announcement by the Department of Veterans Affairs  of its plan to utilize the Homeless Information Management System over  the next 12 months.
section_title: Greater Coordination Needed to Minimize Fragmentation, Enhance Services, and Improve Information about Federal Programs for Transportation- Disadvantaged Persons
paragraphs: Federal agencies fund transportation services to millions of Americans  who are unable to provide their own transportation—frequently because  they are elderly, have disabilities, or have low incomes—through programs  that provide similar services to similar client groups. The variety of federal  programs providing funding for transportation services to the  transportation disadvantaged has resulted in fragmented services that can  be difficult for clients to navigate and narrowly focused programs that may  result in service gaps. GAO previously identified 80 existing federal  programs across eight departments that provided funding for  transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged in fiscal year  2010 (see app. III). These programs may provide funding to service  providers for bus tokens, transit passes, taxi vouchers, or mileage  reimbursement, for example, to transportation-disadvantaged persons for  trips to access government services (such as job-training programs), the  grocery store, medical appointments, or for other purposes. For example,  the Departments of Agriculture and Labor both provide funding for  programs that could provide bus fare for low-income youths seeking  employment or job training. Further, these services can be costly because  of inconsistent, duplicative, and often restrictive program rules and  regulations. For example, GAO has previously reported that a  transportation provider in one state explained that complicated fee  structures or paperwork requirements for services funded under different  programs may result in overlapping service such as two vehicles on the  same route at the same time.
The Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and  Mobility, a federal entity charged with promoting interagency  coordination, has taken steps to encourage and facilitate coordination  across agencies, but action by federal departments will be necessary to  better coordinate and eliminate duplication and fragmentation. The  Coordinating Council’s “United We Ride” initiative and the Federal Transit  Administration (FTA) have also encouraged state and local coordination.  However, there has been limited interagency coordination and direction at  the federal level. Additionally, while certain FTA transit programs require  that projects selected for grant funding be derived from locally developed,  coordinated public transit, human service transportation plans,  participation by non-FTA grantees—which is optional—has varied,  limiting these efforts.
As GAO and others have reported, improved coordination could not only  help to reduce duplication and fragmentation at the federal level, but  could also lead to economic benefits, such as funding flexibility, reduced  costs or greater efficiency, and increased productivity, as well as improved  customer service and enhanced mobility. A 2009 report by the National  Resource Center for Human Service Transportation Coordination found  that three federal departments providing transportation services—the  Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Education—had  yet to coordinate their planning with the Department of Transportation  (DOT).
To reduce fragmentation and to realize these benefits, federal agencies on  the Coordinating Council should identify and assess their transportation  programs and related expenditures and work with other departments to  identify potential opportunities for additional coordination. For example,  neither the Coordinating Council nor most federal departments have an  inventory of existing programs providing transportation services or their  expenditures and they lack the information to identify opportunities to  improve the efficiency and service of their programs through coordination.  The Coordinating Council should develop the means for collecting and  sharing this information. In 2003, GAO discussed three potential options to  overcome obstacles to the coordination of transportation for the  transportation disadvantaged, two of which would require substantial  statutory or regulatory changes and include potential costs: making  federal program standards more uniform or creating some type of  requirement or financial incentive for coordination. We recommended  expanding the Coordinating Council and better disseminating guidance.  Subsequently, the Coordinating Council was expanded and several  coordination initiatives were launched, and progress has been made in  coordination efforts, particularly at the state and local levels. Furthermore,  we reported in March 2011 that, to assure that coordination benefits are  realized, Congress may want to consider requiring key programs to  participate in coordinated planning. The Administration, DOT,  transportation interest groups, and legislators have issued proposals to  revise DOT programs in the next surface transportation reauthorization.  For example, the President’s Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2012  proposes combining three FTA programs that provide services to  transportation-disadvantaged populations—the Job Access and Reverse  Commute program, the New Freedom program, and the Elderly  Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program.
In conclusion, as I have outlined in my testimony, opportunities exist to  streamline and more efficiently carry out programs in the areas of  domestic food assistance, employment and training, homelessness, and  transportation for disadvantaged populations. Specifically, addressing  duplication, overlap, and fragmentation in these areas could help to  minimize the administrative burdens faced by those entities—including  states and localities as well as nonprofits—that are delivering these  programs’ services. Such administrative burdens range from eligibility  requirements and the application process to costs associated with carrying  out the program and reporting requirements. Improving consistency  among these various requirements and processes as well as considering  how multiple agencies could better coordinate their delivery of programs  could result in benefits both for those providing and those receiving the  services. We have previously reported on the challenges federal grantees  face in navigating differences among programs across agencies.  Additionally, reducing duplication might also help improve agencies’  ability to track and monitor their programs which, as described earlier, is  needed to better assess coordination as well as performance. As we are  completing our governmentwide examination on this topic, we will  continue to look closely at these specific administrative burden and  assessment issues.
As the nation rises to meet the current fiscal challenges, we will continue  to assist Congress and federal agencies in identifying actions needed to  reduce duplication, overlap, and fragmentation; achieve cost savings; and  enhance revenues. As part of current planning for our future annual  reports, we are continuing to look at additional federal programs and  activities to identify further instances of duplication, overlap, and  fragmentation as well as other opportunities to reduce the cost of  government operations and increase revenues to the government. We will  be using an approach to ensure governmentwide coverage through our  efforts by the time we issue our third report in fiscal year 2013. We plan to  expand our work to more comprehensively examine areas where a mix of  federal approaches is used, such as tax expenditures, direct spending, and  federal loan programs. Likewise, we will continue to monitor  developments in the areas we have already identified. Issues of  duplication, overlap, and fragmentation will also be addressed in our  routine audit work during the year as appropriate and summarized in our  annual reports.
Careful, thoughtful actions will be needed to address many of the issues  discussed in our March report, particularly those involving potential  duplication, overlap, and fragmentation among federal programs and  activities. 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. Continued oversight by the Office of Management and  Budget and Congress will be critical to ensuring that unnecessary  duplication, overlap, and fragmentation are addressed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Kucinich, and Members of the  Subcommittee. This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased  to answer any questions you may have.
For further information on this testimony or our March report, please  contact Janet St. Laurent, Managing Director, Defense Capabilities and  Management, who may be reached at (202) 512-4300, or  StLaurentJ@gao.gov; and Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, Physical  Infrastructure, who may be reached at (202) 512-2834, or  SiggerudK@gao.gov. Specific questions about domestic food assistance as  well as employment and training issues may be directed to Barbara  Bovbjerg, Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security,  who may be reached at (202) 512-7215, or BovbjergB@gao.gov. Specific  questions about homelessness issues may be directed to Orice Williams  Brown, Managing Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment,  who may be reached at (202) 512-5837, or WilliamsO@gao.gov. Specific  questions about transportation-disadvantaged issues may be directed to  Katherine Siggerud. Contact points for our Congressional Relations and  Public Affairs offices may be found on the last page of this statement.
section_title: Appendix I: Duplication, Overlap, or Fragmentation Areas Identified
paragraphs: DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Two bureaus within the Department of State (State)
section_title: Appendix II: Federal Agencies and Programs Where Cost-Saving or Revenue-Enhancement Opportunities May Exist
paragraphs: Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury)  Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Department of Health and Human Services’  Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services  (CMS)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
DHS’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
section_title: Appendix III: Federal Programs Cited in This Review
subsections: section_title: Domestic Food Assistance Programs
paragraphs: The federal government spent more than $62.5 billion on the following 18  domestic food nutrition and assistance programs in fiscal year 2008.
section_title: Homelessness Programs
paragraphs: Table 2 lists selected federal programs that provide shelter or housing  assistance.
section_title: Employment and Training Programs
paragraphs: Forty-four of the 47 federal employment and training programs GAO  identified (see table 3), including those with broader missions such as  multipurpose block grants, overlap with at least one other program in that  they provide at least one similar service to a similar population. However,  our review of 3 of the largest programs showed that the extent to which  individuals receive the same services from these programs is unknown due  to program data limitations.
section_title: Federal Programs Providing Transportation Services for Transportation- Disadvantaged Persons, As of October 2010
paragraphs: This list contains programs that GAO identified as providing  transportation services to transportation-disadvantaged persons, with  limited information available on funding. Transportation is not the primary  purpose of many of these programs, but rather access to services, such as  medical appointments. In many cases, funding data were not available as  funds are embedded in broader program spending. However, GAO  obtained fiscal year 2009 funding information for 23 programs (see table  4), which spent an estimated total of $1.7 billion on transportation services  that year.