Our work has repeatedly shown that mission fragmentation and program overlap are widespread in the federal government. In 1998 and 1999, we found that this situation existed in 12 federal mission areas, ranging from agriculture to natural resources and environment. We also identified, in 1998 and 1999, 8 new areas of program overlap, including 50 programs for the homeless that were administered by 8 federal agencies. These programs provided services for the homeless that appeared to be similar. For example, 23 programs operated by 4 agencies offered housing services, and 26 programs administered by 6 agencies offered food and nutrition services. Although our work indicates that the potential for inefficiency and waste exists, it also shows areas where the intentional participation by multiple agencies may be a reasonable response to a complex public problem. In either situation, implementation of federal crosscutting programs is often characterized by numerous individual agency efforts that are implemented with little apparent regard for the presence of efforts of related activities. In our past work, we have offered several possible approaches for better managing crosscutting programs—such as improved coordination, integration, and consolidation—to ensure that crosscutting goals are consistent; program efforts are mutually reinforcing; and, where appropriate, common or complementary performance measures are used as a basis for management. One of our oft-cited proposals is to consolidate the fragmented federal system to ensure the safety and quality of food. Perhaps most important, however, we have stated that the Results Act could provide the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), agencies, and Congress with a structured framework for addressing crosscutting program efforts. OMB, for example, could use the governmentwide performance plan, which is a key component of this framework, to integrate expected agency-level performance. It could also be used to more clearly relate and address the contributions of alternative federal strategies. Agencies, in turn, could use the annual performance planning cycle and subsequent annual performance reports to highlight crosscutting program efforts and to provide evidence of the coordination of those efforts. OMB guidance to agencies on the Results Act states that, at a minimum, an agency’s annual plan should identify those programs or activities that are being undertaken with other agencies to achieve a common purpose or objective, that is, interagency and cross-cutting programs. This identification need cover only programs and activities that represent a significant agency effort. An agency should also review the fiscal year 2003 performance plans of other agencies participating with it in a crosscutting program or activity to ensure that related performance goals and indicators for a crosscutting program are consistent and harmonious. As appropriate, agencies should modify performance goals to bring about greater synergy and interagency support in achieving mutual goals. In April 2002, as part of its spring budget planning guidance to agencies for preparing the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request, OMB stated that it is working to develop uniform evaluation metrics, or “common measures” for programs with similar goals. OMB asked agencies to work with OMB staff to develop evaluation metrics for several major crosscutting, governmentwide functions as part of their September budget submissions. According to OMB, such measures can help raise important questions and help inform decisions about how to direct funding and how to improve performance in specific programs. OMB’s common measures initiative initially focused on the following crosscutting program areas: job training and employment, health. We recently reported that one of the purposes of the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 is to improve the quality of agency financial and performance data. We found that only 5 of the 24 CFO Act agencies’ fiscal year 2000 performance reports included assessments of the completeness and reliability of their performance data in their transmittal letters. The other 19 agencies discussed, at least to some degree, the quality of their performance data elsewhere in their performance reports. To address these objectives, we first defined the scope of each crosscutting program area as follows: Drug control focuses on major federal efforts to control the supply of illegal drugs through interdiction and seizure, eradication, and arrests. Family poverty focuses on major federal efforts to address the needs of families in poverty through programs aimed at enhancing family independence and well-being. We focused on agencies that provide key support and transition tools associated with the income, health, and food support and assistance to poor families. Financial institution regulation focuses on major federal efforts to supervise and regulate depository institutions. Supervision involves monitoring, inspecting, and examining depository institutions to assess their condition and their compliance with relevant laws and regulations. Regulation of depository institutions involves making and issuing specific regulations and guidelines governing the structure and conduct of banking. Public health systems focuses on major federal efforts to prevent and control infectious diseases within the United States. To identify the agencies involved in each area we relied on our previous work and confirmed the agencies involved by reviewing the fiscal year 2001 Results Act performance report and fiscal year 2003 Results Act performance plans for each agency identified as contributing to the crosscutting program area. To address the remaining objectives, we reviewed the fiscal year 2001 performance reports and fiscal year 2003 performance plans and used criteria contained in the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 and OMB guidance. The act requires that an agency’s performance report include a transmittal letter from the agency head containing, in addition to any other content, an assessment of the completeness and reliability of the performance and financial data used in the report. It also requires that the assessment describe any material inadequacies in the completeness and reliability of the data and the actions the agency can take and is taking to resolve such inadequacies. OMB guidance states that agency annual plans should include a description of how the agency intends to verify and validate the measured values of actual performance. The means used should be sufficiently credible and specific to support the general accuracy and reliability of the performance information that is recorded, collected, and reported. We did not include any changes or modifications the agencies may have made to the reports or plans after they were issued, except in cases in which agency comments provided information from a published update to a report or plan. Furthermore, because of the scope and timing of this review, information on the progress agencies may have made in addressing their management challenges during fiscal year 2002 was not yet available. We did not independently verify or assess the information we obtained from agency performance reports and plans. Also, that an agency chose not to discuss its efforts to coordinate in these crosscutting areas in its performance reports or plans does not necessarily mean that the agency is not coordinating with the appropriate agencies. We conducted our review from September through November 2002, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As shown in table 1, multiple agencies are involved in each of the crosscutting program areas we reviewed. The discussion of the crosscutting areas below summarizes detailed information contained in the tables that appear in appendixes I through IV. Fourteen million Americans use illegal drugs regularly, and drug-related illness, death, and crime cost the nation approximately $110 billion annually. From 1990 through 1997, there were more than 100,000 drug- induced deaths in the United States. Despite U.S. and Colombian efforts, the illegal narcotics threat from Colombia continues to grow and become more complex. From 1995 through 1999, coca cultivation and cocaine production in Colombia more than doubled and Colombia became a major supplier of the heroin consumed in the United States. Moreover, over time, the drug threat has become more difficult to address. ONDCP was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 to set policies, priorities, and objectives for the nation's drug control program. The Director of ONDCP is charged with producing the National Drug Control Strategy, which directs the nation's antidrug efforts and establishes a budget and guidelines for cooperation among federal, state, and local entities. ONDCP’s 2001 Annual Report discussed two strategic goals that pertain to controlling the supply of drugs that enter the United States, including (1) “shielding U.S. borders from the drug threat” and (2) “reducing the supply of illegal drugs.” ONDCP reported two performance goals under the strategic goals—reduce the rate of illicit drug flow through transit zones and reduce the shipment rate of illicit drugs from arrival zones and supply zones. For fiscal year 2001, all the agencies we reviewed—Justice, State, Transportation, and Treasury—discussed coordination with other agencies in the area of drug control, although the level of detail varied. For example, Transportation stated that the Coast Guard worked with ONDCP and Customs to finalize an interagency study of the deterrent effect that interdiction has on drug trafficking organizations. Also, Justice reported that it collaborated with Transportation to prosecute cases that relate to maritime drug smuggling. In contrast, State identified the lead and partner agencies it coordinated with to accomplish its goals, but it did not discuss specific coordination efforts. None of the agencies distinguished between coordination efforts that occurred in fiscal year 2001 and those that were planned for fiscal year 2003. None of the agencies reported having met all of their goals and measures relating to drug control in fiscal year 2001. Customs reported that it met eight of its nine measures for seizures of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin. Customs reported that it did not meet its target for number of marijuana seizures. State reported that it met the targets for its goal of increasing foreign governments’ effectiveness in dissolving major drug trafficking organizations and prosecuting and convicting major traffickers. For the other goal—increasing foreign governments’ effectiveness in reducing the cultivation of coca, opium poppy, and marijuana—State did not meet two of its four targets. For its two measures, Transportation reported that it did not establish a target for one, the amount of drugs that are seized or destroyed at sea, and it did not meet its target for the other, the seizure rate for cocaine that is shipped through the transit zone. Justice reported that it exceeded the target for one measure—number of priority drug trafficking organizations dismantled or disrupted by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—and did not meet one of two targets for the second measure—the number of drug trafficking organizations dismantled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).