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. 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. 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. 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. DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Two bureaus within the Department of State (State) 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) The federal government spent more than $62.5 billion on the following 18 domestic food nutrition and assistance programs in fiscal year 2008. Table 2 lists selected federal programs that provide shelter or housing assistance. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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.