gao report on fraud, waste, abuse

7/27/2019 GAO Report on Fraud, Waste, Abuse

1/283

2013 Annual Report:Actions Needed toReduce FragmentationOverlap, andDuplication andAchieve OtherFinancial Benefits

Report to Congressional Addressees

April 2013

GAO-13-279SP

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO


2/283

Page 1 GAO-13-279SP 2013 Annual Repor

United States Government Accountability OfficeWashington, DC 20548

April 9, 2013

Congressional Addressees

As the fiscal pressures facing the nation continue, so too does the needfor executive branch agencies and Congress to improve the efficiencyand effectiveness of government programs and activities. Opportunities totake such action exist in areas where federal programs or activities arefragmented, overlapping, or duplicative. To highlight these challenges andto inform government decision makers on actions that could be taken to

address them, GAO is statutorily required to identify and report annuallyto Congress on federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives, eitherwithin departments or government-wide, that have duplicative goals oractivities.1 In light of todays challenging fiscal environment, we have also

identified additional opportunities to achieve greater efficiency andeffectiveness by means of cost savings or enhanced revenue collection.

In March 2011, we issued our first annual report in this series, whichpresented 80 areas where opportunities existed for executive branchagencies or Congress to reduce fragmentation, overlap, or duplication;achieve cost savings; or enhance revenue.2 Figure 1 outlines the

definitions we use for fragmentation, overlap, and duplication for thiswork. In February 2012, we issued our second annual report, whichidentified an additional 51 areas. In these two reports, we have identifieda total of approximately 300 actions that executive branch agencies andCongress could take to improve the efficiency and effectiveness ofgovernment programs and activities.

1Pub. L. No. 111-139, 21, 124 Stat. 29 (2010), 31 U.S.C. 712 Note. See appendix I forthe list of congressional addressees for this work.

2In assessing progress on the 81 areas we identified in our 2011 annual report for thisyears report, we combined two areas related to the Department of Homeland Securitysmanagement of acquisitions (Areas 75 and 76) into one area. Therefore, we areevaluating progress for 80 areas identified in our 2011 annual report and 51 areasidentified in our 2012 annual report. See appendix II for additional information on scopeand methodology.


3/283


Figure 1: Definitions of Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication

This third annual report for 2013 identifies an additional 31 areas whereagencies may be able to achieve greater efficiency or effectiveness.Within these 31 areas, we identify 81actions that the executive branch orCongress could take to reduce fragmentation, overlap, or duplication, aswell as other cost savings or revenue enhancement opportunities. Inaddition to identifying new areas, we have continued to monitor theprogress executive branch agencies and Congress have made inaddressing the areas we previously identified. With the release of thisreport, we are also concurrently launchingGAOs Action Tracker, apublicly accessible website containing the status of actions suggested in

our first three reports. The website will allow executive branch agencies,Congress, and the public to track the progress the government is makingin addressing the issues we have identified.

Section I of this report presents 17 new areas in which we found evidencethat fragmentation, overlap, or duplication exists among federal programsor activities. Although it may be appropriate for multiple agencies orentities to be involved in the same programmatic or policy area due to the
http://www.gao.gov/duplication/actiontrackerhttp://www.gao.gov/duplication/actiontrackerhttp://www.gao.gov/duplication/actiontrackerhttp://www.gao.gov/duplication/actiontracker


4/283


nature or magnitude of the federal effort, the instances of fragmentation,overlap, or duplication we describe in Section I occur in areas wheremultiple programs and activities may be creating inefficiencies. Section IIdescribes 14 new areas where the federal government may achieve costsavings or enhance revenue collections. This report is based upon workGAO previously conducted in accordance with generally acceptedgovernment auditing standards. See appendix II for more information onour scope and methodology.

In this report, we first identify 17 areas in which we found evidence of

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication among federal programs oractivities. These areas cover a broad range of government missions andfunctions. Section I of this report discusses all of these areas in greaterdetail.

We consider programs or activities to be fragmented when more than onefederal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) isinvolved in the same broad area of national need and opportunities mayexist to improve how the government delivers services. We identifiedfragmentation in multiple programs we reviewed. For example, we foundthat the Department of Defenses (DOD) fragmented approach todeveloping and acquiring uniforms could be more efficient. Since 2002,the military services have shifted from using two camouflage patterns toseven service-specific camouflage uniforms with varying patterns andcolors. Although DOD established a board to help ensure collaborationand DOD-wide integration of clothing and textile activities, we continue toidentify inefficiencies in DODs uniform acquisition approach. We haveidentified several actions DOD should take to realize potential efficienciesand up to $82 million in development and acquisition cost savings throughincreased collaboration among the military services. These actionsinclude directing the Secretaries of the military departments to activelypursue partnerships for the joint development and use of uniforms, aswell as identifying and implementing actions necessary to enable the

board to develop and issue joint criteria for uniforms prior to thedevelopment or acquisition of any new camouflage uniform.

Similarly, we found DOD obligated over $6.8 billion from fiscal years 2008through 2012 on contracts to acquire a range of foreign languageservices and products, such as translation and interpretation services.

Although DOD has gained some efficiencies by centralizing contractingfor certain services under an executive agent, it has not taken steps tocomprehensively assess whether additional opportunities exist to gain

Opportunities Exist toImprove Efficiencyand Effectivenessacross the FederalGovernment


5/283


efficiencies in fragmented contracts for foreign language support, whichare estimated to cost more than $1 billion annually. Our prior work hasfound that agencies, including DOD, reported savings ranging between 5and 20 percent by implementing more coordinated acquisitionapproaches rather than fragmented contracting. Given the departmentslevel of obligations for foreign language support services, DOD couldachieve significant cost savings by assessing and addressing thefragmentation in its current approach for managing these contracts.

In some of the programs and activities where there was fragmentation,we also found instances of overlap. Overlap occurs when multiple

agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities orstrategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. We foundoverlap among federal programs or initiatives in a variety of areas suchas joint veterans and defense health care services, export promotionactivities, drug abuse prevention and treatment programs, and veteransemployment and training programs, among others.

For example, within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), wefound six department components involved in research and developmentactivities. We examined 50 research and development contracts awardedby these components and found 35 instances among 29 contracts inwhich the contracts overlapped with activities conducted elsewhere in thedepartment. Taken together, these 29 contracts were worth about $66million. An example of the overlap we found: two DHS componentsawarded five separate contracts that each addressed detection of thesame chemical. Moreover, DHS did not have the policies andmechanisms necessary to coordinate or track research and developmentactivities across the department. Without adequate coordination,components may engage in overlapping research and developmentactivities. To prevent such overlap of efforts, we suggested that DHSdevelop and implement policies and guidance for defining and overseeingresearch and development.

In other instances we found evidence of duplication, which occurs whentwo or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities orprovide the same services to the same beneficiaries. Our 2013 reportincludes several areas where we identified potentially duplicative federalefforts, such as rural water infrastructure programs. Moreover, in some ofthese areasincluding catfish inspection and geospatial investmentswe identified financial benefits that may result if executive branchagencies or Congress took action to address the issues we discuss.


6/283


For example, we identified duplication in the Medicaid Integrity Program,which provides federal support and oversight of state programs.3

Specifically, we identified duplication in two Medicaid Integrity programactivities: (1) the National Medicaid Audit Program, which consists ofaudits of state Medicaid claims data to identify overpayments, and (2)state program integrity assessments, one of several tools through whichthe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) collects data onstate program integrity activities. To address this duplication, wesuggested that CMS merge certain functions of the federal review andaudit contractors and discontinue the annual state program integrityassessment to eliminate or avoid duplicative activities.

In addition to these 17 areas of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication infederal efforts, we present 14 areas in which we identified opportunitiesfor executive branch agencies or Congress to reduce the cost ofgovernment operations or enhance revenue collections for the Treasury.For example:

We report concerns about CMSs Medicare Advantage Quality BonusPayment Demonstration, which will cost $8.35 billion over 10 years,most of which will be paid to plans with average performance.Medicare Advantage provides health care coverage through privatehealth plans offered by organizations under contract with CMS. Theagencys stated research goal for the demonstration is to test whetheran alternative bonus structure leads to larger and faster annual qualityimprovement for Medicare Advantage plans. We found that thedemonstrations design precludes a credible evaluation of itseffectiveness because it lacks an appropriate comparison groupneeded to isolate the demonstrations effects, and because thedemonstrations bonus payments are based largely on planperformance that predates the demonstration. Based on theseconcerns, we suggest that HHS cancel the Medicare AdvantageQuality Bonus Payment Demonstration. In addition, thedemonstrations design raises legal concerns about whether it fallswithin the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

3Medicaid is the joint federal-state health care financing program for certain low-incomeindividuals and is one of the largest social programs in federal and state budgets. Wehave had long-standing concerns about Medicaids program integrity because of problemswith the sufficiency of federal and state oversight. For example, the Centers for Medicare& Medicaid Services estimated that in fiscal year 2012, $19.2 billion (7.1 percent) ofMedicaids federal expenditures involved improper payments.


7/283


demonstration authority. Although the demonstration is now in itssecond year, HHS still has an opportunity to achieve significant costsavingsabout $2 billion, based on GAOs analysis of CMS actuariesestimatesif it cancels the demonstration for 2014.

Additional cost savings and increased revenue collections may berealized by improving the Internal Revenue Services (IRS)enforcement of tax laws. IRS has estimated that the net tax gapthedifference between taxes owed and taxes paid on time or recoveredwas $385 billion for tax year 2006 (the most recent year for which datawere available). To help reduce this gap, in fiscal year 2012, Congress

appropriated $7.5 billion to IRS for its enforcement and taxpayerservice activities. Notwithstanding IRSs enforcement and serviceprograms, the net tax gap remains large. To help close this gap, wehave identified several areas where IRS can improve its programs,reduce its costs, and facilitate voluntary compliance with existing taxlaws. For example, we suggested that IRS should complete a broadstrategy, including a timeline and performance measures, for how itintends to use information collected to improve tax compliance. Theseand other actions we have identified could help the federal governmentincrease revenue collections by billions of dollars.

As we have previously reported, the net tax gap has been a persistent

problem and reducing it will require applying multiple strategies over asustained period of time.4 One such strategy is additional informationreporting. Taxpayers are much more likely to report their incomeaccurately when the income is also reported to IRS by a third party.By matching information received from third-party payers with whatpayees report on their tax returns, IRS can detect incomeunderreporting, including the failure to file a tax return. Additionally,taxpayers who rent out real estate are required to report to IRSexpense payments for certain services, such as payments for propertyrepairs, only if their rental activity is considered a trade or business.Expanding third-party information reporting on rental real estateservice payments and service payments to corporations could

increase revenues by an estimated $5.9 billion over 10 years,according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

4GAO, Tax Gap: IRS Could Significantly Increase Revenues by Better TargetingEnforcement Resources,GAO-13-151 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 5, 2012).
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-151http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-151http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-151http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-151


8/283


Opportunities may also exist for the Department of Energy (Energy) togenerate additional revenue by increasing the price for isotopes that itsells to commercial customers.5 Energys Isotope Development andProduction for Research and Applications program (Isotope Program)sells isotopes to commercial customers for a variety of uses, such asmedical procedures and radiation detection equipment. To achieve itsmission, the Isotope Program relies on annual appropriations andrevenues from isotope sales. Although revenues from sales ofisotopes alone totaled over $25 million in fiscal year 2012, we foundthat Energy may be forgoing revenue because it is not using thoroughassessments to set prices for commercial isotopes. Thus, we

suggested that Energy examine the prices it sets for commercialisotopes to determine if prices can be increased.

Within these 31 areas, we identified 81 actions that the executive branchand Congress could take to reduce or eliminate fragmentation, overlap, orduplication or achieve other financial benefits. Given that the areasidentified extend across the government and that we found a range ofconditions among these areas, we suggest a similarly wide range ofactions for the executive branch and Congress to consider. For example,the actions we suggest in the report include, among many others,canceling a demonstration program, strengthening oversight of certain

payments and investments, and limiting or reducing subsidies for aparticular program. Although the actions vary depending on the conditionswe found, several themes emerged among our suggested actions,including the following:

Improving planning: Given the crosscutting policy areas included in thisreport, planning is an important action in helping federal agenciesaddress challenges, particularly those related to fragmentation, overlap,or duplication. Planning can help federal agencies manage theirprograms more effectively and guide progress in achieving desiredresults. For example, we report that a total of 31 federal departmentsand agencies invest an estimated billions of dollars to collect, maintain,

and use geospatial informationinformation linked to specificgeographic locations that supports many government functions, such

5Isotopes are varieties of a given chemical element with the same number of protons butdifferent numbers of neutrons. For example, the helium-3 isotope, which is used inresearch and to detect neutrons in radiation detection equipment, has one less neutronthan the helium-4 isotope, which is the helium isotope commonly used in party balloons.

Suggested Actions toAchieve GreaterEfficiency orEffectiveness inGovernment


9/283


as maintaining roads and responding to natural disasters. We foundthat federal agencies had not effectively implemented policies andprocedures that would help them to identify and coordinate geospatialdata acquisitions across the government. As a result, the agenciesmake duplicative investments and risk missing opportunities to jointlyacquire data. Better planning and coordination among federal agenciescould help reduce duplicative investments and provide the opportunityfor potential savings of millions of dollars.

Measuring performance and results: Performance measurement,because of its ongoing nature, can serve as an early warning system

to management and a vehicle for improving accountability to thepublic. To ensure that their performance information will be bothuseful and used by decision makers, agencies need to consider thediffering information needs of various usersincluding those inCongress. As we have previously reported, agency performanceinformation must meet Congresss needs for completeness, accuracy,validity, timeliness, and ease of use to be useful for congressionaldecision making.6 Similarly, in this report, we find that betterevaluation of performance and results is needed for multiple federalprograms and activities to help inform decisions about how to addressthe fragmentation, overlap, or duplication identified. For example,federal agencies could achieve significant cost savings annually by

expanding and improving their use of strategic sourcingacontracting process that moves away from numerous individualprocurement actions to a broader aggregated approach. We havereported that a reduction of 1 percent from selected agenciesprocurement spending would equate to over $4 billion in savings.7However, a lack of clear guidance on metrics for measuring successhas hindered the management of ongoing strategic sourcing effortsacross the federal government. By establishing metrics to measureprogress toward goals and identifying spending categories mostsuitable for strategic sourcing, the Office of Management and Budget(OMB) can help federal agencies better implement strategic sourcing

6GAO, Managing for Results:A Guide for Using the GPRA Modernization Act to HelpInform Congressional Decision Making,GAO-12-621SP (Washington, D.C.:June 15, 2012).

7These selected agencies include DOD, DHS, Energy, and the Department of VeteransAffairs, which accounted for 80 percent of the $537 billion in federal procurementspending in fiscal year 2011.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-621SPhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-621SPhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-621SPhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-621SP


10/283


practices and maximize their ability to realize billions of dollars inpotential savings annually.

Improving management oversight: When issues span multipleorganizations or multiple entities within an organization, improvedmanagement oversight is needed to avoid potential overlap andduplication. For example, although OMB guidance calls for agenciesto analyze whether their information technology investments arecontinuing to meet business and customer needs and are contributingto meeting the agencys strategic goals, we found that agencies didnot conduct such an analysis on 52 of the 75 major existing

information technology investments we reviewed.8 As a result, there isincreased potential for these information technology investments inoperations and maintenancetotaling $37 billion in fiscal year 2011to result in waste and duplication. To avoid wasteful or duplicativeinvestments in operations and maintenance, we suggest thatagencies analyze all information technology investments annually andreport the results of their analyses to OMB. These actions could helpagencies achieve cost savings by strengthening the oversight of theirexisting information technology investments in operations andmaintenance, resulting in the potential for billions of dollars in savings.

Similarly, we found that many states are making Medicaid payments

to many providers that are far in excess of those providers costs ofproviding Medicaid services. Specifically, 39 states made payments tocertain providers in excess of Medicaid costs by a total of about $2.7billion. To improve the transparency of and accountability for certainhigh-risk Medicaid payments, we suggest that Congress considerrequiring CMS to take steps that would facilitate the agencys ability tooversee these payments, including identifying payments that are notused for Medicaid purposes or are otherwise inconsistent withMedicaid payment principles. Such action could lead to cost savingsin the hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars.

Enhancing interagency coordination and collaboration: When

executive branch agencies carry out activities in a fragmented anduncoordinated way, the resulting patchwork of programs can wastescarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the

8Our review included major information technology investments at DOD, HHS, DHS,Treasury, and VA.


11/283


overall effectiveness of the federal effort. Our report includes severalareas in which improved interagency coordination and collaborationcould help agencies better leverage limited resources or identifyopportunities to operate more efficiently. For example, the Departmenof Veterans Affairs (VA) and DOD operate two of the nations largesthealth care systems, together providing health care to nearly 16million veterans, service members, military retirees, and otherbeneficiaries at estimated costs for fiscal year 2013 of about $53billion and $49 billion, respectively. As part of their health care efforts,the departments have established collaboration siteslocationswhere the two departments share health care resources through

hundreds of agreements and projectsto deliver care jointly with theaim of improving access, quality, and cost-effectiveness of care.However, we found that the departments do not have a fullydeveloped and formalized process for systematically identifying allopportunities for new or enhanced collaboration, potentially missingopportunities to improve health care access, quality, and costs.

Considering legislative changes:Although executive branch agencieshave authority to implement the majority of the suggested actions, thisreport includes several areas where legislative changes are needed.For example, we found that when the U.S. Department of Agricultures(USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service begins the catfish

inspection program as mandated in the Food, Conservation, andEnergy Act of 2008, the program will duplicate work alreadyconducted by the Food and Drug Administration and by the NationalMarine Fisheries Service. To avoid this duplication, we suggest thatCongress repeal the provisions of the act that assigned USDAresponsibilities for examining and inspecting catfish and establishing acatfish inspection program. Taking this action could save taxpayersmillions annually, according to Food Safety and Inspection Serviceestimates of the programs cost.9

9To create this potential savings, Congress would need to repeal the provision in theFood, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, or direct in the Food Safety and InspectionServices appropriation that no funds may be spent on the program. If Congress enacts alegislative restriction, there may be some opportunity to rescind appropriated amounts.Because the inspection program is funded from a lump sum appropriation to USDA, fundsthat would have been used for the program could be available for new obligations withinthe appropriations account. USDA could identify the amount of funds currently availablefor obligation that would have been used for the catfish inspection program and Congresscould rescind those amounts.


12/283


As another example, we report that unlike many farm programs, theFederal Crop Insurance program, which provides subsidies to pay forpart of a farmers crop insurance premium, does not have statutoryincome and payment limits. Congress could achieve up to $1.2 billionper year in cost savings by limiting the subsidy for premiums that anindividual farmer can receive each year, reducing the subsidy for all orhigh-income farmers participating in the program, or somecombination of both.

Congress could also consider taking action to help reduce the tens ofbillions of dollars spent each year developing and launching U.S.

government satellite systems. To save money, several federalagencies are actively using or exploring nontraditional approaches tomanaging their space-based programs, such as developing public-private partnerships and hosting government capabilities oncommercial spacecraft.10 While these approaches hold promise forproviding lower-cost access to space in the future, there are also avariety of technical, cultural, logistical, legal, and policy challenges.For example, federal law and policy have limited the governmentsaccess to some hosted payload arrangements where governmentinstruments are placed on commercial satellites, and ride sharingarrangements where multiple satellites share the same launchvehicle. We identify actions that Congress may wish to consider to

address these legal challenges and better take advantage ofnontraditional approaches.

10Several federal agencies, including DOD, the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard, are actively using or beginning tolook at these approaches in order to save costs.


13/283


In addition to the new actions identified for this report, we have continuedto monitor the progress that the executive branch agencies and Congresshave made in addressing the issues we identified in our 2011 and 2012annual reports. In these reports, we identified approximately 300 actionsthat the executive branch and Congress could take to reduce or eliminatefragmentation, overlap, or duplication or achieve other potential financialbenefits.11

We evaluated progress by determining an overall assessment rating foreach area and an individual rating for each action within an area (see fig.2). We found that the executive branch agencies and Congress have

made progress in addressing the 131 areas we identified in 2011 and2012. As of March 6, 2013, the date we completed our audit work, 16 ofthe 131 areas were addressed; 87 were partially addressed; and 27 werenot addressed.12 We also found that of the approximately 300 actions

needed within these areas, 65 were addressed; 149 were partiallyaddressed; and 85 were not addressed.13

11An additional 9 actions reported in 2011 and 2012 were not assessed this year due toadditional audit work or other information we considered. See appendix II for additionalinformation on our scope and methodology for monitoring the progress of actions.

12In assessing overall progress for an area, we determined that an area was addressed if

all actions in that area were addressed; partially addressed if at least one action neededin that area showed some progress toward implementation but not all actions wereaddressed; and not addressed if none of the actions needed in that area were addressedor partially addressed. In addition, 1 area reported in 2011 was not assessed this year dueto additional audit work or other information we considered.

13In assessing actions suggested for Congress, we applied the following criteria:

addressed means relevant legislation has been enacted and addresses all aspects ofthe action needed; partially addressed means a relevant bill has passed a committee,the House of Representatives, or the Senate, or relevant legislation has been enacted butonly addressed part of the action needed; and not addressed means a bill may havebeen introduced but did not pass out of a committee, or no relevant legislation has beenintroduced. In assessing actions suggested for the executive branch, we applied thefollowing criteria: addressed means implementation of the action needed has beencompleted; partially addressed means the action needed is in development, or startedbut not yet completed; and not addressed means the administration, the agencies, orboth have made minimal or no progress toward implementing the action needed.

The Executive Branchand Congress HaveMade Some Progressin Addressing theAreas That WePreviously Identified


14/283


Figure 2: Assessment of 2011 and 2012 Areas and Actions Needed, as of March 6, 2013

Note: In assessing overall progress for an area, we determined that an area was addressed if allactions in that area were addressed; partially addressed if at least one action needed in that area

showed some progress toward implementation but not all actions were addressed; and notaddressed if none of the actions needed in that area was addressed or partially addressed.

In assessing actions suggested for Congress, we applied the following criteria: addressed meansrelevant legislation has been enacted and addresses all aspects of the action needed; partiallyaddressed means a relevant bill has passed a committee, the House of Representatives, or theSenate, or relevant legislation has been enacted but only addressed part of the action needed; andnot addressed means a bill may have been introduced but did not pass out of a committee, or norelevant legislation has been introduced. In assessing actions suggested for the executive branch, weapplied the following criteria: addressed means implementation of the action needed has beencompleted; partially addressed means the action needed is in development, or started but not yetcompleted; and not addressed means the administration, the agencies, or both have made minimalor no progress toward implementing the action needed.


15/283


Consolidated areas and actions were not assessed this year due to additional work or otherinformation GAO considered. See appendix II for more information.

An example of the progress made is DODs efforts to implement oursuggested action related to the area of overseas defense posture.Specifically, in our 2012 annual report, we suggested the Secretary ofDefense should direct appropriate organizations within DOD to completea business case analysis, including an evaluation of alternative courses ofaction, for the strategic objectives that have to this point driven thedecision to implement tour normalization in South Koreathat is, a DODinitiative to transform its defense posture in South Korea. Based on the

resulting business case analysis, DOD officials stated that United StatesForces Korea determined that the tour normalization initiative was notaffordable. This decision not to move forward with the tour normalizationinitiative resulted in cost avoidance of $3.1 billion from fiscal years 2012through 2016.

Congress has also taken steps to address some of our suggestedactions. For example, in our 2011 annual report, we stated that Congresscould reduce revenue losses by more than $5.7 billion annually byaddressing duplicative federal efforts directed at increasing domesticethanol production. To reduce these revenue losses, we suggested thatCongress consider whether revisions to the ethanol tax credit were

needed and we suggested options to consider, including allowing thevolumetric ethanol excise tax credit to expire at the end of 2011.Congress allowed the tax credit to expire at the end of 2011, which endedthe ethanol tax credit for fuel blenders that purchase and blend ethanolwith gasoline.

Although the executive branch and Congress have made some progressin addressing the issues that we have previously identified, additionalsteps are needed to address the remaining areas to achieve associatedbenefits. A number of the issues are difficult to address, andimplementing many of the actions identified will take time and sustainedleadership. Table 1 outlines selected actions that we reported in 2011 and2012 that, when addressed, may result in or lead to cost savings orenhanced revenue.


16/283


Table 1: Selected Areas with Associated Cost-Savings and Revenue-Enhancement Opportunities in 2011 and 2012 AnnualReports

Annualreport

Areas identified Overall assessment of2011 2012 actions

a

2011 Farm Program Payments (Area 35): Reducing farm program direct payments could resultin savings from $800 million over 10 years to up to $5 billion annually.

2011 Federal Data (Area 15):Consolidating federal data centers provides an opportunity toimprove government efficiency.

2011 Competition for Federal Contracts (Area 47): Promoting competition for the over $500billion in federal contracts could potentially savebillions of dollars over time.

2012 Passenger Aviation Security Fees (Area 48):Options for adjusting the passenger aviationsecurity fee could further offset billions of dollars in civil aviation security costs.

2011 Social Security Offsets (Area 80):Social Security needs data on pensions fromnoncovered earnings to better enforce offsetsand ensure benefit fairness, which could resultin an estimated $2.4 billion to $2.9 billion in savings over 10 years.

2011 Oil and Gas Resources (Area 45): Improved management of federal oil and gas resourcescould result in approximately $2 billion in revenues over 10 years.

2012 U.S. Currency (Area 42):Legislation replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would provide asignificant financial benefit to the government over time.

2011 Baggage Screening Systems (Area 78): More efficient baggage screening systems couldresult in about $470 million in reduced Transportation Security Administration personnelcosts over the next 5 years.

2011 Federal Facility Ownership and Leasing (Area 51): Improved cost analyses used formaking federal facility ownership and leasing decisions could save millions of dollars.

2012 Immigration Inspection Fee (Area 49):The air passenger immigration inspection user feeshould be reviewed and adjusted to fully recover the cost of the air passenger immigrationinspection activities conducted by the Department of Homeland Securitys U.S. Immigrationand Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection rather than usinggeneral fund appropriations.

2012 Auto Recovery Office (Area 39):Unless the Secretary of Labor can demonstrate how theAuto Recovery Office has uniquely assisted auto communities, Congress may wish toconsider prohibiting the Department of Labor from spending any of its appropriations on theAuto Recovery Office and instead require that the department direct the funds to otherfederal programs that provide funding directly to affected communities.

Source: GAO.

aAs of March 6, 2013.

Legend:

=Partially addressed, meaning at least one action needed in that area showedsome progress toward implementation, but not all actions were addressed. = Not addressed, meaning none of the actions needed in that area wereaddressed.


17/283


To help maintain attention on these issues, as mentioned earlier, we areconcurrently releasingGAOs Action Tracker, a publicly accessible, onlinewebsite of the 162 areas and approximately 380 actions neededpresented in our 2011, 2012, and 2013 reports. GAOs Action Trackerincludes progress updates and assessments of legislative and executivebranch actions needed. We will add areas and suggested actionsidentified and future reports to GAOs Action Trackerand periodicallyupdate the status of all identified areas and activities.

Our 2013 annual report completes our 3-year systematic examination

across the federal government to identify major instances offragmentation, overlap, or duplication. Through our three annual reports,we have identified a total of 162 areas with actions that the executivebranch and Congress could take to address fragmentation, overlap, andduplication or achieve cost savings (see app. III). Collectively, thesereports show that, if the actions are implemented, the government couldpotentially save tens of billions of dollars annually.

These three reports touch on areas in virtually all major federaldepartments and agencies. Specifically, the reports collectively identifyopportunities to reduce fragmentation, overlap, and duplication or achieveother financial benefits within all 15 cabinet-level executive departmentsand at least 17 other federal entities. Figure 3 illustrates actions neededthat we directed to federal departments and agencies in our three annualreports. As the figure shows, we have directed numerous actions to largefederal departments and agencies that represent the majority of thefederal obligations, including 90 actions directed to DOD, 51 to Treasury,and 44 to HHS, representing 56 percent of fiscal year 2011 obligations.

Over 3 Years, GAOHas Identified 162Areas Where FederalPrograms CouldAchieve GreaterEfficiency or IncreaseEffectiveness
http://www.gao.gov/duplication/actiontrackerhttp://www.gao.gov/duplication/actiontrackerhttp://www.gao.gov/duplication/actiontrackerhttp://www.gao.gov/duplication/actiontracker


18/283


Figure 3: Actions Needed Directed to Federal Departments and Agencies in 2011-2013 Annual Reports

aU.S. Postal Service obligations are primarily funded by postal revenues, although the U.S. PostalService receives minimal appropriations for overseas voting and mail for the blind. Additionally, theU.S. Postal Service has a maximum $15 billion in borrowing authority.bTreasurys percentage of fiscal year 2011 obligations includes interest on the national debt.

Note: Individual actions needed are counted multiple times, when they are directed to more than onefederal department or agency.


19/283


Our systematic examination required a multiphased approach. First, wereviewed the budget functions of the federal government representingnearly all of the overall federal funds obligated in fiscal year 2010.14

Because federal budget functions classify budget resources by nationalneed (such as National Defense, Energy, and Agriculture), instances inwhich multiple federal agencies obligate funds within a particular budgetfunction may indicate potential duplication or cost savings opportunities(see fig. 4 for spending patterns by executive branch agency and budgetfunction). Although this type of analysis cannot answer the question ofwhether overlap or fragmentation existsnor indicate whether theoverlap identified is duplicativeit can help in the selection of areas for

further investigation. Using this information, we identified each instance inwhich an executive branch or independent agency obligated more than$10 million within these 18 budget functions for further consideration.

14Our examination did not include two budget functions: Allowances, because there wereno actual obligations, and Undistributed Offsetting Receipts, because no obligations arecharged to agencies.


20/283


Figure 4: Spending Patterns by Executive Branch Agency and Budget Function, Fiscal Year 2010

aTwo budget functions are not shown above: Allowances, because there are no 2010 actualobligations, and Undistributed Offsetting Receipts, because no obligations are charged to agencies.

Second, we reviewed key agency documents, such as strategic plans,performance and accountability reports, and budget justifications, as wehave found that when multiple executive branch agencies have similarmissions, goals, or programs, the potential for fragmentation, overlap, orduplication exists. Third, we reviewed key external published sources of


21/283


information. In particular, we reviewed reports published by theCongressional Budget Office, Inspectors General, and the CongressionalResearch Service, as well as the Presidents budgets, to identify potentialoverlap and duplication among agency missions, goals, and programs.15

We relied on our previous work and professional judgment to target areasfor further review by considering a variety of factors, including the extentof potential cost savings; opportunities for enhanced program efficiency oreffectiveness; the degree to which multiple programs may be fragmented,overlapping, or duplicative; whether issues had been identified by GAO orexternal sources; and the level of coordination among agency programs.

Based on our multiphased approach, we have identified, to date, 162areas in which there are opportunities to reduce fragmentation, overlap,or duplication or to achieve cost savings or revenue enhancement. Theareas included in our reports, however, do not represent the full extent ofour systematic evaluation; we evaluated many additional areas butdetermined for various reasons that the available evidence did notsupport their inclusion at this time. The federal inmate reentry grantprograms administered by the Departments of Justice, Labor, and Healthand Human Services illustrate this point. Although the federal programsare fragmented, we found that overlap is minimal and the risk ofduplication is low because the programs vary across eligible applicants,

beneficiaries, and primary services. Moreover, the departments havetaken steps to coordinate their reentry efforts to prevent duplication andshare promising practices.

As another example, we examined the extent to which functions oractivities provided under DODs civil augmentation programswhich aredesigned to help meet the military services logistics requirements duringoperationsare potentially fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative. Wefound no instances of overlap or duplication in the implementation ofthese programs. Further, we examined the cost or savings implications ofconsolidating the planning, execution, and oversight of the civilaugmentation programs and did not identify clear opportunities to improve

the effectiveness or efficiency of the programs.

15Our examination did not include the fiscal year 2014 Presidents budget because of thetiming of its release.


22/283


In still other instances, agencies took steps to address issues weidentified during the course of our audit work. For example, through ourreview of the federal governments aerostat and airship acquisition effortswe identified two concurrent and potentially duplicative airshipdevelopment effortsone was being developed by the U.S. Army and theother by the U.S. Air Force. However, the potential duplication endedbefore we issued our report when the Air Force terminated its programdue to technical problems experienced with the airframe and the need toavoid the efforts substantially increasing costs. We were not able todetermine any cost savings that resulted from the programs terminationbecause the Air Force had not budgeted for program costs beyond fiscal

year 2012. In addition, in February 2013 the U.S. Army terminated itseffort because of schedule delays and increasing costs. The U.S. Armyhad budgeted approximately $80 million between fiscal years 2013 and2015 for this effort.

Although our three annual reports provide extensive coverage across thefederal government, the areas identified in our annual reports are notintended to represent every instance of fragmentation, overlap, orduplication within the federal government. As statutorily required, we willcontinue to identify new issues for executive branch agencies andCongress to consider. Likewise, we will continue to monitor developmentsin the areas we have already identified in this series.

During the past two decades, our work on managing for results hassuggested how effective implementation of the Government Performanceand Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) could improve collaboration to achievemeaningful results. Congress used our work in crafting the GPRAModernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), which updates GPRA to establisha framework aimed at taking a more crosscutting and integrated approachto focusing on results and improving government performance.16 Effectiveimplementation of GPRAMA could help clarify desired outcomes, addressprogram performance spanning multiple organizations, and facilitate

future actions to reduce fragmentation, overlap, and duplication.Moreover, effective implementation could help address challenges toidentifying and addressing the areas of fragmentation, overlap, andduplication we highlight in this series. These challenges include the lack

16Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993); Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011).

GPRA ModernizationAct Can Help AddressChallenges inIdentifying andAddressingFragmentation,

Overlap, orDuplication


23/283


of a comprehensive list of federal programs and funding information andthe need for improved and regular performance information. GPRAMA, ifeffectively implemented, could help address these challenges as well asimprove information sharing and coordination among federal agenciesboth of which are needed to help address issues of fragmentation,overlap, and duplication.

First, this series highlights challenges associated with the lack of acomprehensive list of federal programs and funding information.A firststep in identifying potential fragmentation, overlap, or duplication amongfederal programs or activities involves creating a comprehensive list of

programs along with related funding information. Currently, nocomprehensive list exists, nor is there a common definition for whatconstitutes a federal program. The lack of a common definition ofprogram makes it difficult to develop a comprehensive list of all federalprograms. The lack of a list, in turn, makes it difficult to determine thescope of the federal governments involvement in particular areas and,therefore, where action is needed to avoid fragmentation, overlap, orduplication. We also found that federal budget information is often notavailable or sufficiently reliable to identify the level of funding provided toprograms or activities. For example, agencies could not isolate budgetaryinformation for some programs because the data were aggregated athigher levels. Without knowing the full range of programs involved or thecost of implementing them, gauging the magnitude of the federalcommitment to a particular area of activity or the extent to whichassociated federal programs are duplicative is difficult.17

To help address these challenges, GPRAMA requires the Director ofOMB to compile and make publicly available a comprehensive list of allfederal programs, and to include the purposes of each program, how itcontributes to the agencys mission, and recent funding information.

According to OMB, agencies currently use the term program in differentways, and OMB plans to allow them to continue to define programs inways that reflect their particular facts and circumstances within prescribed

guidelines.18

OMB expects 24 large federal agencies to publish an initial

17In addition, see appendix IV for a listing of federal programs or other activities related toareas in this report, along with budgetary information, if available.

18OMB, Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget,Aug. 3, 2012.


24/283


inventory of federal programs by May 2013.19 In future years, this effort

will be expanded to other agencies that will update their inventoriesannually to reflect the annual budget and appropriations process. OMBalso expects to enhance the initial program inventory by collecting relatedinformation, such as financing and related agency strategic goals.

Second, this series calls repeated attention to challenges associated withthe need for improved and regular performance information. The regularcollection and review of performance information, both within and amongfederal agencies, could help executive branch agencies and Congressdetermine whether some of the federal programs or initiatives included in

this series are making progress toward addressing the identified issuesand could determine the actions that need to be taken to improve results.However, as we previously noted, our annual reports highlight severalinstances in which executive branch agencies do not collect necessaryperformance data. For example, in our 2011 annual report we noted thatOMB has not used its budget and performance review processes tosystematically review tax expenditures and promote integrated reviews ofrelated tax and spending programs. Coordinated performance reviews oftax expenditures with related federal spending programs could helppolicymakers reduce overlap and inconsistencies and direct scarceresources to the most effective or least costly methods to deliver federal

support. Similarly, we have previously reported that as Congressoversees federal programs and activities, it needs pertinent and reliableinformation to adequately assess agencies progress, ensureaccountability, and understand how individual programs and activities fitwithin a broader portfolio of federal efforts. The lack of reliableperformance data also makes it difficult for decision makers to determinehow to address identified fragmentation, overlap, or duplication.

GPRAMA requires that federal agencies regularly collect performanceinformation for federal programs and ensure that it is made publiclyavailable. Specifically, agency leaders are required to conduct quarterly,

19These 24 agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education,Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and UrbanDevelopment, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, andVeterans Affairs, as well as the Agency for International Development, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, National Science Foundation, Office of Personnel Management, SmallBusiness Administration, Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers Civil Works program.


25/283


data-driven reviews of their performance in achieving priority goals andidentify strategies to improve performance where goals are not being met.In addition, OMB has directed agencies to take our work in this series intoconsideration when establishing their budget and management plans. Aswe recently reported, according to our survey of PerformanceImprovement Officers in 24 agencies, all 24 agencies were conductingperformance reviews at least quarterly as required by GPRAMA.20 While

we found the reviews have shown promise in improving internal agencycoordination and collaboration, few agency Performance ImprovementOfficers reported they are using the reviews to coordinate or collaboratewith other agencies that have similar goals. We recommended that the

Director of OMB identify and share promising practices for including otherrelevant entities that contribute to achieving their agency performancegoals. OMB agreed with our recommendation.

In addition, GPRAMA requires OMB to coordinate with executive branchagencies to establish crosscutting priority goals and to develop a federalgovernment performance plan that defines the level of performanceneeded to achieve them.21 As we reported in May 2012, the Presidents

2013 budget submission included the first list of 14 interim crosscuttingpriority goals.22 For each of the interim goals, as required by GPRAMA,

OMB listed the agencies and programs that contribute to the goal in the

federal government performance plan. However, based on our prior work,we identified additional agencies and programs that should be included.Accordingly, we recommended that OMB consider adding thoseadditional contributors to the crosscutting priority goals. OMB concurredwith this recommendation, and in its December 2012 update to thefederal government performance plan, OMB added some of the additionaagencies and programs that we identified. GPRAMA also requiresagencies to describe how they are working with each other to achievetheir strategic and performance goals, as well as any relevant

20These 24 agencies are those covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, whichare subject to GPRAMAs requirements. See GAO, Managing for Results: Data-DrivenPerformance Reviews Show Promise but Agencies Should Explore How to Involve OtherRelevant Agencies,GAO-13-228 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2013).

2131 U.S.C. 1120(a)(1),1115(a). See also GAO, Managing for Results: GAOs WorkRelated to the Interim Crosscutting Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act,GAO-12-620R (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2012).

22GAO-12-620R.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-228http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-228http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-228http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-620Rhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-620Rhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-620Rhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-620Rhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-620Rhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-620Rhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-620Rhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-228


26/283


crosscutting priority goals. Moreover, each agency, for each of itsperformance goals, has to identify the various federal organizations,programs, and activitiesboth within and external to the agencythatcontribute to the goal. These new requirements provide additionalopportunities for collaboration across executive branch agencies. Wehave previously identified key practices that can help federal agenciesenhance and sustain their collaborative efforts along with key features toconsider as they implement collaborative mechanisms.23

Furthermore, our work has identified strategies for addressing duplicativegovernment functions and improving efficiency. Efficiency initiatives

generally fell within two categories: (1) reexamining programs, structures,and functions to determine whether they effectively and efficientlyachieved their mission; and (2) streamlining and consolidating operationsto make them more cost effective. To help federal departments implementthese initiatives we identified key practices, such as targeting both short-term and long-term efficiency initiatives, that they could use to improveefficiency.24 In addition, we have identified key questions that agencies

should consider when evaluating whether to consolidate physicalinfrastructure or management functions.25

In order for information from performance measurement initiatives to be

useful to executive branch agencies and Congress in making decisions,garnering congressional support on what to measure and how to presentthis information is critical. Thus, GPRAMA significantly enhancesrequirements for agencies to consult with Congress. Specifically, at leastonce every two years, OMB is required to consult with relevantcommittees with broad jurisdiction on crosscutting priority goals, whileagencies must consult with their relevant appropriations, authorization,and oversight committees when developing or making adjustments totheir strategic plans and agency priority goals. We recently prepared a

23GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain

Collaboration among Federal Agencies,GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005)and Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency CollaborativeMechanisms,GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).

24GAO, Streamlining Government: Key Practices from Select Efficiency Initiatives ShouldBe Shared Governmentwide,GAO-11-908 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2011).

25GAO, Streamlining Government: Questions to Consider When Evaluating Proposals toConsolidate Physical Infrastructure and Management Functions,GAO-12-542(Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2012).
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-908http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-908http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-908http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-542http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-542http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-542http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-908http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15


27/283


guide to help ensure that these consultations and the performanceinformation produced by executive branch agencies are useful toCongress in carrying out its various decision-making responsibilities.26

Beyond providing input to OMB and agencies during the consultations toshape their goals, Congress can foster results-oriented cultures in thefederal government by using performance information in carrying out itsvarious legislative responsibilities and oversight activities. In addition, intwo recent reports we highlighted several instances in which Congresshas used performance information in its decision making to (1) identifyissues that the federal government should address, (2) measure progress

towards addressing those issues, and (3) identify better strategies toaddress the issues, when necessary.27

Congressional use of agency goals and measured results in its decisionmaking will send an unmistakable message to agencies that Congressconsiders agency performance a priority. For example, in our 2011annual report, we noted that the federal government distributed surfacetransportation funding without regard to performance. However, in July2012, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)was enacted, reauthorizing surface transportation programs through2014.28 This law identified seven national performance goals for surface

transportation and requires the Secretary of Transportation to establishperformance measures for them. In addition, states must establishperformance targets for those measures and report their progress inachieving them, thereby incorporating accountability for results.Moreover, MAP-21 links funding to performance by requiring states to usefederal funds to improve interstate system pavement and bridgeconditions to meet minimum standards.

26GAO-12-621SP.

27

GAO-12-621SP and GAO, Managing for Results: Opportunities for Congress to AddressGovernment Performance Issues,GAO-12-215R (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2011). Forexample, three case studies from our June 2012 report demonstrate how Congress hasused performance information to inform its decision making. The case studies coveredefforts to (1) transform the processing of immigration benefits, (2) coordinate U.S. effortsto address the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, and (3) identify and address improperpayments made by federal programs.

28Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405(2012).
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-621SPhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-621SPhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-621SPhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-621SPhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-621SPhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-621SPhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-215Rhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-215Rhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-215Rhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-215Rhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-621SPhttp://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-621SP


28/283


Realizing the intent of GPRAMA for improving government performanceand accountability and reducing fragmentation, overlap, and duplicationwill require sustained oversight of implementation. To assist Congresswith this oversight, GPRAMA includes provisions requiring us to review itsimplementation at several critical junctures. First, following a period ofinitial implementation, we are to report by June 2013 on implementationof GPRAMAs planning and reporting requirements, at both thegovernment-wide and agency levels. Subsequently, following fullimplementation, we are to evaluate by September 2015 and 2017whether performance management is being used by federal agencies toimprove the efficiency and effectiveness of agency programs. Also in

September 2015 and 2017and every 4 years thereafterwe are toevaluate the implementation of the federal government priority goals andperformance plans and related reporting required by GPRAMA.

This report was prepared under the coordination of Orice Williams Brown,Managing Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment, whomay be reached at (202) 512-8678 [email protected], and A. NicoleClowers, Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment, whomay be reached at (202) 512-8678 [email protected]. Specificquestions about individual issues may be directed to the area contactlisted at the end of each summary.

Gene L. DodaroComptroller Generalof the United States
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


29/283

Page 28 GAO-13-279SP Abbreviations

Abbreviations

AFF Assets Forfeiture FundAPHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceBBG Broadcasting Board of Governors

BRAC Base Realignment and ClosureCBP U.S. Customs and Border ProtectionCHIPRA Childrens Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesCommerce Department of CommerceDHS Department of Homeland SecurityDOD Department of DefenseDOE Department of EnergyDOJ Department of JusticeDOT Department of TransportationDSH disproportionate share hospitalEDS explosives detection system

Education Department of EducationEnergy Department of EnergyEPA Environmental Protection AgencyETD explosives trace detectionFAA Federal Aviation AdministrationFAFSA Free Application for Federal Student AidFBI Federal Bureau of InvestigationFDA Food and Drug AdministrationFEMA Federal Emergency Management AgencyFGDC Federal Geographic Data CommitteeFSIS Food Safety and Inspection ServiceFSSI Federal Strategic Sourcing InitiativeGPRA Government Performance and Results ActGPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010GPS Global Positioning SystemGSA General Services AdministrationHHS Department of Health and Human ServicesHIDTA High-Intensity Drug Trafficking AreasInterior Department of the InteriorIRS Internal Revenue ServiceIT information technologyMA Medicare AdvantageNASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNSDI National Spatial Data InfrastructureNTIS National Technical Information ServiceOMB Office of Management and BudgetONDCP Office of National Drug Control PolicyOPM Office of Personnel ManagementOSD Office of the Secretary of DefensePPACA Patient Protection and Affordable Care ActR&D research and development


30/283

Page 29 GAO-13-279SP Abbreviations

RMA Risk Management AgencyROI return on investmentS&T Science & Technology DirectorateSAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services AdministrationSBA Small Business AdministrationSBDC Small Business Development CentersSOI Statistics of Income

SRF State Revolving FundSSA Social Security AdministrationState Department of StateTFF Treasury Forfeiture FundTPCC Trade Promotion Coordinating CommitteeTreasury Department of the TreasuryTSA Transportation Security AdministrationUSDA U.S. Department of AgricultureUSPS U.S. Postal ServiceVA Department of Veterans Affairs


31/283

Page 30 GAO-13-279SP Report at a Glance

Report at a Glance

Section I of this report presents 17 areas in which we found evidence offragmentation, overlap, or duplication among federal governmentprograms.

Table 1: Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication Areas Identified in This Report

Mission Areas Identified Page

Agriculture 1. Catfish Inspection: Repealing provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill that assigned U.S. Department ofAgricultures Food Safety and Inspection Service responsibility for examining and inspecting catfishand for creating a catfish inspection program would avoid duplication of federal programs andcould save taxpayers millions of dollars annually without affecting the safety of catfish intended forhuman consumption.

34

Defense 2. Combat Uniforms:The Department of Defenses fragmented approach to developing andacquiring uniforms could be more efficient, better protect service members, and result in up to $82million in development and acquisition cost savings through increased collaboration among themilitary services.

37

3. Defense Foreign Language Support Contracts: The Department of Defense should exploreopportunities to gain additional efficiencies in contracts for foreign language support, which isestimated to cost more than $1 billion annually, by addressing fragmentation in the departmentsacquisition approach.

45

Energy 4. Renewable Energy Initiatives: Federal support for wind and solar energy, biofuels, and otherrenewable energy sources, which has been estimated at several billion dollars per year, isfragmented because 23 agencies implemented hundreds of renewable energy initiatives in fiscalyear 2010the latest year for which GAO developed these original data. Further, the Departmentsof Energy and Agriculture could take additional actionsto the extent possible within their statutoryauthorityto help ensure effective use of financial support from several wind initiatives, which GAOfound provided duplicative support that may not have been needed in all cases for projects to bebuilt.

51

Health 5. Joint Veterans and Defense Health Care Services: The Departments of Veterans Affairs andDefense should enhance their collaboration to reduce costs, overlap, and potential duplication in

the delivery of health care services.

60

6. Medicaid Program Integrity: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services needs to take stepsto eliminate duplication and increase efficiency in two Medicaid Integrity Program activitiesprovider audits and the collection of state program integrity data.

66

Homelandsecurity/lawenforcement

7. Department of Homeland Security Research and Development: Better policies and guidancefor defining, overseeing, and coordinating research and development investments and activitieswould help the Department of Homeland Security address fragmentation, overlap, and potentialunnecessary duplication.

71

8. Field-Based Information Sharing: To help reduce inefficiencies resulting from overlap inanalytical and investigative support activities, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Securityand the Office of National Drug Control Policy could improve coordination among five types of field-based information sharing entities that may collect, process, analyze, or disseminate information insupport of law enforcement and counterterrorism-related effortsJoint Terrorism Task Forces,Field Intelligence Groups, Regional Information Sharing Systems centers, state and major urban

area fusion centers, and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Investigative Support Centers.

77

9. Justice and Treasury Asset Forfeiture: Conducting a study to evaluate the feasibility ofconsolidating the Departments of Justices and Treasurys multimillion dollar asset forfeitureactivities could help the departments identify the extent to which consolidation of potentiallyduplicative activities would help increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the programs andachieve cost savings.

90

Informationtechnology

10. Dissemination of Technical Research Reports: Congress may wish to consider whether the fee-based model under which the National Technical Information Service currently operates fordisseminating technical information is still viable or appropriate, given that many of the reportsoverlap with similar information available from the issuing organizations or other sources for free.

96


32/283



11. Geospatial Investments:Better coordination among federal agencies that collect, maintain, anduse geospatial information could help reduce duplication of geospatial investments and provide theopportunity for potential savings of millions of dollars.

103

Internationalaffairs

12. Export Promotion:Enhanced collaboration between the Small Business Administration and twoother agencies could help to limit overlapping export-related services for small businesses. 111

13. International Broadcasting: The Broadcasting Board of Governorswith a budget of $752 millionin fiscal year 2012has recognized the need to reduce overlap and reallocate limited resources tobroadcasts that will have the greatest impact, but the agency could do more to achieve this goal,such as systematically considering overlap of language services in its annual language servicesreview.

117

Science and theenvironment

14. Rural Water Infrastructure: Additional coordination by the Environmental Protection Agency andthe Department of Agriculture could help three water and wastewater infrastructure programs withcombined funding of about $4.3 billion avoid potentially duplicative application requirements, aswell as associated costs and time developing engineering reports and environmental analyses.

121

Social services 15. Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Programs: More fully assessing the extent of overlapand potential duplication across the fragmented 76 federal drug abuse prevention and treatmentprograms and identifying opportunities for increased coordination, including those programs whereno coordination has occurred, would better position the Office of National Drug Control Policy tobetter leverage resources and increase efficiencies.

128

Training,employment, andeducation

16. Higher Education Assistance: Federal agencies providing assistance for higher education shouldbetter coordinate to improve program administration and help reduce fragmentation. 138

17. Veterans Employment and Training: The Departments of Labor, Veterans Affairs, and Defenseneed to better coordinate the employment services each provides to veterans, and Labor needs tobetter target the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program so that it does not overlap with otherprograms.

145

Section II of this report summarizes 14 additional opportunities foragencies or Congress to consider taking action that could either reducethe cost of government operations or enhance revenue collections for theTreasury.

Table 2: Cost Savings and Revenue Enhancement Opportunities Identified in This Report


Agriculture 18. Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Fees: The United States Department of AgriculturesAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service could have achieved as much as $325 million insavings (based on fiscal year 2011 data, as reported in GAOs March 2013 report) by more fullyaligning fees with program costs; although the savings would be recurring, the amount woulddepend on the cost-collections gap in a given fiscal year and would result in a reduced relianceon U.S. Customs and Border Protections annual Salaries and Expenses appropriations used foragricultural inspection services.

152

19. Crop Insurance: To achieve up to $1.2 billion per year in cost savings in the Federal CropInsurance program, Congress could consider limiting the subsidy for premiums that an individualfarmer can receive each year, reducing the subsidy for all or high-income farmers participating in

the program, or some combination of limiting and reducing these subsidies.

158

Defense 20. Joint Basing:The Department of Defense needs an implementation plan to guide joint bases toachieve millions of dollars in cost savings and efficiencies anticipated from combining supportservices at 26 installations located close to one another.

163

Energy 21. Department of Energys Isotope Program:Assessing the value of isotopes to customers, andother factors such as prices of alternatives, may show that the Department of Energy couldincrease prices for isotopes that it sells to commercial customers to create cost savings bygenerating additional revenue.

170


33/283



Generalgovernment

22. Additional Opportunities to Improve Internal Revenue Service Enforcement of Tax Laws:The Internal Revenue Service can realize cost savings and increase revenue collections bybillions of dollars by, among other things, using more rigorous analyses to better allocateenforcement and other resources.

174

23. Agencies Use of Strategic Sourcing:Selected agencies could better leverage their buyingpower and achieve additional savings by directing more procurement spending to existingstrategically sourced contracts and further expanding strategic sourcing practices to their highest

spending procurement categoriessavings of one percent from selected agencies procurementspending alone would equate to over $4 billion.

181

24. Opportunities to Help Reduce Government Satellite Program Costs:Government agenciescould achieve considerable cost savings on some missions by leveraging commercial spacecraftthrough innovative mechanisms such as hosted payload arrangements and sharing launchvehicle costs. Selected agencies have reported saving hundreds of millions of dollars to datefrom using these innovative mechanisms.

186

Health 25. Medicare Prepayment Controls:More widespread use of prepayment edits could reduceimproper payments and achieve other cost savings for the Medicare program, as well as providemore consistent coverage nationwide.

195

26. Medicaid Supplemental Payments: To improve the transparency of and accountability forcertain high-risk Medicaid payments that annually total tens of billions of dollars, Congressshould consider requiring the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to take steps that would

facilitate the agencys ability to oversee these payments, including identifying payments that arenot used for Medicaid purposes or are otherwise inconsistent with Medicaid payment principles,which could lead to cost savings. GAOs analysis of providers for which data are availablesuggests that savings could be in the hundreds of millions, or billions, of dollars.

200

27. Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus Payment Demonstration: Rather than implementing theMedicare Advantage quality bonus payment program specifically established by law, the Centersfor Medicare & Medicaid Services is testing an alternative bonus payment structure under a broaddemonstration authority through a 3-year demonstration that has design flaws, raises legalconcerns, and is estimated to cost over $8 billion; about $2 billion could be saved if it werecanceled for its last year, 2014.

205

Homelandsecurity/lawenforcement

28. Checked Baggage Screening: By reviewing the appropriateness of the federal cost share theTransportation Security Administration applies to agreements financing airport facilitymodification projects related to the installation of checked baggage screening systems, theTransportation Security Administration could, if a reduced cost share was deemed appropriate,

achieve cost efficiencies and be positioned to install a greater number of optimal baggagescreening systems than it currently anticipates.

210

Informationtechnology

29. Cloud Computing:Better planning of cloud-based computing solutions provides an opportunityfor potential savings of millions of dollars.

217

30. Information Technology Operations and Maintenance: Strengthening oversight of key federalagencies major information technology investments in operations and maintenance providesopportunity for savings on billions in information technology investments.

222

Internationalaffairs

31. Tobacco Taxes:Federal revenue losses were as much as $615 million to $1.1 billion between April2009 and 2011 because manufacturers and consumers substituted higher-taxed smoking tobaccoproducts with similar lower-taxed products. To address future revenue losses, Congress shouldconsider modifying tobacco tax rates to eliminate significant tax differentials between similar products.

227

Table 3: Appendixes

Appendixes Page

Appendix I: List of Congressional Addressees 232

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 233

Appendix III: Areas Identified in 2011-2013 Annual Reports, by Mission 239

Appendix IV: Lists of Programs Identified 251


34/283

Page 33 GAO-13-279SP Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication

Section I: Areas in Which GAO Has IdentifiedFragmentation, Overlap, or Duplication

This section presents 17 areas in which we found evidence offragmentation, overlap, or duplication among federal governmentprograms.


35/283


Agriculture

1. Catfish InspectionRepealing provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill that assigned U.S. Department of Agricultures Food Safety andInspection Service responsibility for examining and inspecting catfish and for creating a catfish inspectionprogram would avoid duplication of federal programs and could save taxpayers millions of dollars annuallywithout affecting the safety of catfish intended for human consumption.

The U.S. food safety system is characterized by inconsistent oversight,ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources; thesecharacteristics have placed the system on GAOs high-risk list. Assigningresponsibility for examining and inspecting domestic and imported catfishto the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) adds to the potential forthe ineffective coordination and inefficient use of resources in food safety.Specifically, giving the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) suchauthority would introduce duplication into the already fragmented U.S.food safety system. Historically, FSIS has been responsible for meat,

poultry, and processed egg products, and the Department of Health andHuman Services Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible forall other food, including seafood. Moreover, the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administrations National Marine Fisheries Service, throughits fee-for-service inspection program, assesses seafood processorscompliance with federal food safety regulations.

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill)assigned regulatory responsibility for catfish inspection to USDA once theagency issues final regulations for the catfish inspection program. AsGAO reported in May 2012, should USDA begin the catfish inspectionprogram as mandated in the 2008 Farm Bill, the program would duplicatework already being conducted by FDA, and by the National MarineFisheries Service, which provides fee-for-service inspections of seafoodfor industry.

Under FSISs proposed program, processers would implement writtensanitation and hazard control plans; FSIS would conduct continuousinspections of domestic catfish processing; and for imported catfishwhich equal about 3 percent of all seafood importsforeign countrieswould need to demonstrate equivalence to U.S. standards. According toFSISs estimate, the annual cost to the federal government to implement

this program would be about $14 million dollars. We did notindependently audit FSISs estimate, but we observed some limitationswith FSISs cost data and assumptions that would affect the finalaccuracy of the agencys estimate.

If FSISs proposed program were implemented, GAO expects it wouldcause duplication and inefficient use of resources in several key areas.First, the program would require implementation of hazard analysis plansthat are essentially the same as FDAs hazard analysis requirements. For

Why This Area IsImportant

What GAO Found


36/283


example, both agencies programs would require industry participants toidentify hazards that are reasonably likely to occur; identify a point, step,or procedure in the production process where controls can be applied todeal with the hazard; establish corrective action plans; and establishrecord-keeping and documentation procedures, among other things.Second, if the program is implemented, as many as three agenciesFDA, FSIS, and the National Marine Fisheries Servicecould inspect

facilities that process both catfish and other types of seafood. Both FDAand National Marine Fisheries Service officials stated that continuousinspection will not improve catfish safety and, according to FDA officials,is counter to the use of FDAs hazard analysis requirements, in whichsystems are most efficiently monitored periodically rather than daily.Third, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, enacted in January 2011,gives FDA authority to establish a system to recognize accreditationbodies to accredit third-party auditors, including foreign governments, toconduct food safety audits to determine compliance with the FederalFood, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and to certify that foreign seafoodprocessors and imported seafood meet FDA regulatory requirements.FDA officials stated that this new authority complements FDAs existing

authority to obtain assurances about the safety of seafood exports fromcountries with food safety systems FDA determined are comparable tothose of the United States. With its new authority under the FDA FoodSafety Modernization Act, FDA has an opportunity to enhance the safetyof all imported seafoodincluding catfishand to avoid the duplication ofeffort and cost that would result from FSISs implementation of itsproposed program.

With FDAs new authority under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act,the federal government has an opportunity to enhance the effectivenessof the food safety system of all imported seafood, including catfish, andavoid the duplication of effort and costs that would result from FSISsimplementation of its proposed catfish inspection program. GAOrecommended in May 2012 that Congress may wish to consider thefollowing action:

repealing provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill assigning USDAresponsibility for examining and inspecting catfish and for creating acatfish inspection program.

Doing so could save U.S. taxpayers about $14 million dollars annually,according to FSIS estimates of the programs cost.

In commenting on the May 2012 report on which this analysis is based,USDA stated that it appreciated our work in planning, conducting, andissuing the report and added that it was committed to completing therulemaking process on catfish inspection in a manner that was consistentwith the 2008 Farm Bill provisions.

Actions Needed and

Potential Financial orOther Benefits

Agency Commentsand GAOs Evaluation


37/283


GAO provided a draft of this report section to the Departments ofAgriculture, Commerce, and Health and Human Services for review andcomment. The Departments did not have any comments on this reportsection and the Department of Agriculture reiterated its commitment tocompleting the rulemaking process on catfish inspection.

The information contained in this analysis is based on findings from theproduct listed in the related GAO product section. To conduct this work,GAO reviewed FSISs proposed catfish inspection program and relateddocuments, including the risk assessment and impact analysis. Inaddition, GAO reviewed written public comments on the proposedregulations provided by industry and consumer groups. GAO interviewedofficials from FSIS involved in the development of the proposedregulations and officials from FDA, the National Marine Fisheries Service,and other federal agencies, as well as representatives from industry andconsumer advocacy groups. We reviewed the FDA Food SafetyModernization Act to identify the additional authorities to enhance theoversight of imported seafood this legislation granted FDA. We

interviewed officials from FSIS, FDA, and the National Marine FisheriesService to better understand FSISs proposed program, its costs andbenefits, and the similarities and differences between it and FDA and theNational Marine Fisheries Service inspection programs. Table 1 inappendix IV lists the programs GAO identified that might have similar oroverlapping objectives, provide similar services, or be fragmented acrossgovernment missions. Overlap and fragmentation might not necessarilylead to actual duplication, and some degree of overlap and duplicationmay b

gao report on fraud, waste, abuse

Documents