Programs providing financial assistance to entrepreneurs are fragmented—which occurs when more than one agency or program is involved in the same broad area of national interest. Of the 30 financial assistance programs we reviewed, 16 can provide or guarantee loans that can be used for a broad range of purposes by existing businesses and nascent entrepreneurs in any industry. Examples of programs in this category include SBA’s 7(a) Loan Program and USDA’s Business and Industry Loans. Other programs can support loans for a more narrow range of purposes or industries or can only support other types of financial assistance, such as grants, equity investments, and surety guarantees. In addition, a number of programs overlap based on the characteristics of the targeted beneficiary. Entrepreneurs may fall into more than one beneficiary category—for example, an entrepreneur may be in an area that is both rural and economically distressed. Such entrepreneurs may be eligible for multiple subsets of financial assistance programs based on their specific characteristics. For example, a small business in a rural, economically distressed area, such as Bourbon County, Kansas, could in terms of authority, receive financial assistance in the form of guaranteed or direct loans for a broad range of uses through multiple programs at the four agencies, including Commerce’s Economic Adjustment Assistance; HUD’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)/States SBA’s 7(a) Loan Program and Small Business Investment Companies USDA’s Business and Industry Loans and Rural Business Enterprise Grants. While many programs overlap in terms of statutory authority, entrepreneurs may in reality have fewer options to access assistance from multiple programs. Agencies often rely on intermediaries (that is, third-party entities such as nonprofit organizations, higher education institutions, or local governments that use federal grants to provide eligible assistance directly to entrepreneurs) to provide specific support to entrepreneurs, and these intermediaries vary in terms of their location and the types of assistance they provide. Some programs distribute funding through multiple layers of intermediaries before it reaches entrepreneurs or may competitively award grants to multiple intermediaries working jointly in the same community to serve entrepreneurs. For example, Commerce’s Economic Adjustment Assistance program can provide grants to intermediaries, such as consortiums of local governments and nonprofits, which in turn provide technical or financial assistance to entrepreneurs. Although we identified a number of examples of statutory overlap, we did not find evidence of duplication among these programs (that is, instances when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities to provide the same services to the same beneficiaries) based on available data. However, as discussed later, most agencies were not able to provide the programmatic information, such as data on users of the program that is necessary to determine whether or not duplication actually exists among the programs. In our 2012 report, we examined entrepreneurs’ experiences with the four agencies’ technical assistance programs—which provide services such as helping with development of business plans or a loan package to obtain financing—and found that some struggle to navigate the fragmented programs. For example, some entrepreneurs and various technical assistance providers with whom we spoke—including agency field offices, intermediaries, and other local service providers—told us that the system can be confusing and that some entrepreneurs do not know what services are available or where to go for assistance. Technical assistance providers sometimes attempt to help entrepreneurs navigate the system by referring them to other programs, but these efforts are not consistently successful. In addition, programs’ Internet resources can also be difficult to navigate. Each agency has its own separate website that provides information to entrepreneurs, but they often direct entrepreneurs to other websites for additional information. SBA, Commerce, USDA, and other agencies have collaborated to develop a joint website, called BusinessUSA, with the goal of making it easier for businesses to access services. Some technical assistance providers and entrepreneurs we spoke with suggested that a single source to help entrepreneurs quickly find information instead of sorting through different websites would be helpful. Given the fragmented nature of the federal programs that provide financial assistance to entrepreneurs, enhanced collaboration between agencies could help improve program efficiency. In prior work we identified practices that can help to enhance and sustain collaboration among federal agencies, which can help to maximize performance and results, and we have recommended that the agencies follow them. These collaborative practices include identifying common outcomes, establishing joint strategies, leveraging resources, determining roles and responsibilities, and developing compatible policies and procedures. In addition, GPRAMA’s crosscutting framework requires that agencies collaborate in order to address issues, such as economic development, that transcend more than one agency, and GPRAMA directs agencies to describe how they are working with each other to achieve their program goals. While most of the agencies at the headquarters level have agreed to work together by signing formal agreements to administer some of their similar programs, they have not implemented a number of other good collaborative practices we have previously identified. For example, SBA and USDA entered into a formal agreement in April 2010 to coordinate their efforts aimed at supporting businesses in rural areas. USDA’s most recent survey of state directors indicates strong collaboration in several areas, including field offices advising borrowers of SBA’s programs, referring borrowers to SBA and its resource partners, and exploring ways to make USDA and SBA programs more complementary. However, the agencies have not implemented other good collaborative practices, such as establishing compatible policies and procedures to better support rural businesses. While the four agencies collect at least some information on program activities in either an electronic records system or through paper files, most were unable to summarize the information in a way that could be used to help administer the programs. Similarly, the agencies typically do not track detailed information on the characteristics of entrepreneurs that they serve, such as whether they are located in rural or economically distressed areas or the entrepreneurs’ type of industry. According to OMB, being able to track and measure specific program data can help agencies diagnose problems, identify drivers of future performance, evaluate risk, support collaboration, and inform follow-up actions. Analyses of patterns and anomalies in program information can also help agencies discover ways to achieve more value for the taxpayers’ money. In addition, agencies can use this information to assess whether their specific program activities are contributing as planned to the agency goals. Promising practices of program administration include a strong capacity to collect and analyze accurate, useful, and timely data. Table 1 summarizes the type of information that agencies maintain in a readily available format that could be tracked to help administer the financial assistance programs we reviewed. For example, USDA collects detailed information (19 categories) on how entrepreneurs use proceeds, such as for working capital, provided through five of its financial assistance programs. USDA maintains this information in an electronic database, and officials stated that they can provide this type of detailed information upon request. We also found that for fiscal year 2011, a number of programs that support entrepreneurs failed to meet some or all of their performance goals. GPRAMA requires agencies to develop annual performance plans that include performance goals for an agency’s program activities and accompanying performance measures. According to GPRAMA, these performance goals should be in a quantifiable and measurable form to define the level of performance to be achieved for program activities each year. Leading organizations recognize that performance measures can create powerful incentives to influence organizational and individual behavior. Some of their good practices include setting and measuring performance goals. Measuring performance allows organizations to track the progress they are making toward their goals and gives managers crucial information on which to base their organizational and management decisions. Further, from 2000 through 2012, the agencies had conducted program evaluations of 13 of the 30 financial assistance programs that support entrepreneurs we reviewed. Based on our review, we found that SBA has conducted program evaluation studies on 5 of its 10 programs. We also found that USDA has evaluated 1 of its 8 financial assistance programs, but the study did not address the extent to which the program was achieving its mission. Although GPRAMA does not require agencies to conduct formal program evaluations, it does require agencies to describe program evaluations that were used to establish or revise strategic goals, as well as program evaluations they plan to conduct in the future. Additionally, while not required to do so, agencies can use periodic program evaluations to complement ongoing performance measurement. Program evaluations that systematically study the benefits of programs may help identify the extent to which overlapping and fragmented programs are achieving their objectives. In addition, program evaluations can help agencies determine reasons why a performance goal was not met and give an agency direction on how to improve program performance. Since our August 2012 report we have also evaluated certain SBA financial assistance programs. For example, in September 2013 we reported on a pilot initiative within SBA’s 7(a) loan guarantee program, the Patriot Express Pilot Loan Program, which provided small businesses owned and operated by veterans and other eligible members of the military community access to capital. We found that SBA did not establish measurable goals for the pilot and did not evaluate the effects of this pilot, which would have allowed SBA to assess if program operations have resulted in the desired benefits, and, for pilots, determine whether to make the programs permanent. In this report, we made two additional recommendations pertaining to program evaluation. SBA said it would consider the findings as it reviewed extending the pilot program. Subsequently, SBA discontinued the Patriot Express Pilot Program as of December 31, 2013, but announced a temporary program, the SBA Veterans Advantage Program, to serve veteran-owned small businesses. To address the issues identified in our August 2012 report and to help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal efforts to support entrepreneurs, we made the following recommendations: The Director of the Office and Management and Budget; the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development; and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration should work together to identify opportunities to enhance collaboration among programs, both within and across agencies.