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.