Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness
View the 2014 Annual Report
Use GAO's Action Tracker
In the 2014 annual report, GAO found evidence of fragmentation, overlap, or duplication in 11 areas of government activity, and opportunities to avoid costs or enhance federal revenue in 15 areas.
All 26 areas are detailed in the 2014 annual report, and here are a few examples. Addressing concerns in the areas below could each potentially save the government $500 million or more, or lead to other important non-financial benefits:
Area | Type | Potential Benefit |
Interoperable radio communications systems | Fragmentation | Effective responses to disasters, crimes, and terrorism |
Disability and unemployment benefits | Overlap | $1.2 billion over 10 years |
POW/MIA mission | Duplication | Better plans to provide funds, personnel, and other resources to account for missing persons |
Rescinding unused funds for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan program | Cost Savings | $4.2 billion in credit subsidy appropriations |
Denying passports or Medicaid payments to individuals with delinquent federal tax debt | Revenue Enhancement | At least $500 million over a 5-year period |
Use GAO's Action Tracker
GAO identified 64 new actions to address concerns in the 26 areas identified in the 2014 report. These and other actions that GAO identified in previous annual reports are tracked in GAO's Action Tracker. This publicly accessible online search tool tracks and provides the implementation status of every suggested action that GAO identified in its annual reports. To date:
- 123 actions have been addressed,
- 172 actions have been partially addressed, and
- 75 actions have not been addressed.
Timeline: Explore GAO's Reports and Testimonies
The federal government faces an unsustainable fiscal path. Changing the path will likely require difficult fiscal policy decisions to alter both long-term federal spending and revenue. Yet, in the near-term, executive branch agencies and Congress can act to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government programs and activities.
Opportunities to take action exist in areas where federal programs or activities are fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative. To highlight these opportunities, GAO is statutorily mandated to identify and report annually to Congress on federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives—either within departments or government-wide—that have duplicative goals or activities. In addition, GAO identifies additional opportunities to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness by means of cost savings or enhanced revenue collection.
In the first three annual reports issued from 2011 through 2013, GAO presented 162 areas where opportunities existed for executive branch agencies or Congress to reduce, eliminate, or better manage fragmentation, overlap, or duplication; achieve cost savings; or enhance revenue. Figure 1 outlines the definitions GAO used for fragmentation, overlap, and duplication for this work. In these first three reports, GAO identified approximately 380 actions that executive branch agencies and Congress could take to address the opportunities for greater efficiency and effectiveness that GAO identified.
Figure 1: Definitions of Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication
Related GAO Links
Learn More
View the Transcript
Gallery
Figure 2: Assessment of 2011, 2012, and 2013 Areas and Actions Needed, as of March 6, 2014
Note: In 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 needed in that area showed some progress toward implementation but not all actions were addressed; and “not addressed” 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” means relevant legislation has been enacted and addresses all aspects of the 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 but only addressed part of the action needed; and “not addressed” means a bill may have been introduced but did not pass out of a committee, or no relevant legislation has been introduced. In assessing actions suggested for the executive branch, we applied the following criteria: “addressed” means implementation of the action needed has been completed; “partially addressed” means the action needed is in development, or started but not yet completed; and “not addressed” means the administration, the agencies, or both have made minimal or no progress toward implementing the action needed.
Actions and areas assessed as “consolidated or other” were not assessed this year due to additional work or other information we considered. Additionally, we did not provide an overall assessment for two areas reported in 2011 and one
View Report
Figure 3: Progress in Addressing 2011, 2012, and 2013 Actions as of the 2013 and 2014 Annual Reports
Note: In assessing actions suggested for Congress, we applied the following criteria: “addressed” means relevant legislation has been enacted and addresses all aspects of the 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 but only addressed part of the action needed; and “not addressed” means a bill may have been introduced but did not pass out of a committee, or no relevant legislation has been introduced. In assessing actions suggested for the executive branch, we applied the following criteria: “addressed” means implementation of the action needed has been completed; “partially addressed” means the action needed is in development, or started but not yet completed; and “not addressed” means the administration, the agencies, or both have made minimal or no progress toward implementing the action needed. Actions assessed as “consolidated or other” were not assessed this year due to additional work or other information we considered. Additionally, 2013 actions were not assessed in 2013 since that was the year that the actions were identified.
View Report
Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2012 Obligations and Number of Actions by Agency
Notes: Individual actions needed are counted multiple times, when they are directed to more than one federal department or agency. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percent for items greater than 1 percent.
a) U.S. Postal Service obligations are primarily funded by postal revenues, although the U.S. Postal Service receives minimal appropriations for overseas voting and mail for the blind. Additionally, the U.S. Postal Service has a maximum $15 billion in borrowing authority.
b) Treasury’s percentage of fiscal year 2012 obligations includes interest on the national debt.
c) The judicial branch represented 0.2 percent of federal obligations in fiscal year 2012.
d) Actions have also been directed to agencies and other federal entities that each represented less than 0.2 percent of federal obligations in fiscal year 2012.
View Report
Proportions of Satellite Programs Using Shared or Dedicated Infrastructure by Decade since 1960
Similarities in Research Topic Areas for 34 Research Organizations, According to Mission Statements
Notes: Abbreviations are as follows: Center for Complex Operations (CCO); Center for Strategic Research (CSR); Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs (CSCMA); Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction (CSWMD); Conflict Records Research Center (CRRC); Center for Technology and National Security Policy (CTNSP); Center for Transatlantic Security Studies (CTSS); Air Force Research Institute, Air Force Counterproliferation Center (AFCPC); Center for Strategy and Technology (CSAT); Strategic Research Department (SRD); China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI); International Law Department (ILD); Strategic Studies Group (SSG); History Department (HD); Middle East Studies (MES); Translational Research Group at Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning (TRG); Strategic Studies Institute (SSI); Center for Army Leadership (CAL); Combat Studies Institute (CSI); RAND Project Air Force (RAND PAF); RAND National Defense Research Institute (RAND NDRI); RAND Arroyo; Center for Naval Analyses (CNA); Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA); George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies (Marshall Center); Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies (NESA); William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (Perry Center); Africa Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS); Naval Postgraduate School Cebrowski Institute for Information and Innovation (NPS: CI); Naval Postgraduate School Modeling, Virtual Environments and Simulation Institute (NPS: MOVES); Naval Postgraduate School Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Studies (NPS: CIRPAS); Center for Army Analysis (CAA); U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center (TRAC).
The results do not include the following three areas of concentration: (1) Public affairs and communication’, (2) Other; and (3) Unable to code. “Public affairs and communication” is not included because GAO did not code a mission statement into that area of concentration. “Other” and “Unable to code” were not included because these are not areas of concentration intended to show similarity. Rather, “Other” is intended for project titles or mission statements that do not fit into the other areas of concentration, and “Unable to code” is used for methodological purposes to categorize incomplete information.
a Army Command and General Staff College.
View Report
FHA’s Aggregate Net Execution Rate Relative to the Enterprises’ Rates for REO Dispositions, January 2007 through June 2012
Note: The year 2012 represents data from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2012. The figures that GAO reports for execution rates are aggregate calculations for individual years and the entire period rather than averages of the execution rates for individual property dispositions. The results are not controlled for the effects of property characteristics. These calculations did not include all dispositions for each entity because of missing values for certain data elements. VA did not have the property-level data available that are necessary to calculate net execution rates.
View Report
Average Disposition Timelines by Entity for REO Dispositions, January 2008 through June 2012 (All Years Combined)
Notes: The enterprises generally acquire REO properties within 24 hours of foreclosure sales, and VA generally acquires properties within 15 days. The REO sale date represents the closing date of the REO sale. The results are not controlled for the effects of property characteristics. The calculations did not include all dispositions for each entity because of missing values for certain data elements.
a) VA did not have data available for its REO properties’ initial valuation dates.
View Report
-
- Orice Williams Brown
- Managing Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment
- williamso@gao.gov
- 202-512-8678
-
- Nikki Clowers
- Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment
- clowersa@gao.gov
- 202-512-8678