Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue

DOD has taken action to further assess alternatives for restructuring the governance structure of its Military Health System in order to reduce duplication within the command structure and eliminate redundant processes that add to growing defense health care costs, as GAO suggested in March 2011. Specifically, in June 2011, the Secretary of Defense established an internal task force to conduct a review of the governance of the Military Health System. The task force indentified cost containment, greater integration, and increased unity of effort as priority objectives for the Military Health System. The task force's final report concluded that the establishment of a Defense Health Agency would (1) support medically ready forces, (2) achieve cost savings through reduction in duplication and variation, and (3) provide clear decision authority and accountability. As a result, in March 2012, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed DOD leadership to form a team to develop an implementation plan for the Defense Health Agency. The Military Health System Governance Transition Organization was chartered in March 2013 to provide oversight, management, and support for the implementation of governance structure reforms. Additionally, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 required DOD to provide three separate submissions to the congressional defense committees detailing its plans to implement this reform. DOD submitted these reports in March, June, and October 2013. Finally, on October 1, 2013, DOD established the new Defense Health Agency, which it anticipates will achieve greater system integration and increase accountability for health outcomes and costs.

DOD has designed and begun implementing an architecture that includes ISR, called the Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise, which is expected to provide a common framework of tools for security and intelligence sharing that may help to align departmentwide goals. In March 2011, GAO suggested that DOD develop this type of architecture. In April 2012, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence issued a memorandum to the secretaries of the military departments, directors of the defense intelligence agencies and Defense Information Systems Agency, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the combatant commanders that outlined a governance structure for the Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise and requested their participation. The memorandum established a council that would oversee development and implementation of the enterprise. The council would also establish a framework to align some information technology systems across the intelligence community. Since 2012, DOD reported that the council had developed an architecture to align some information technology systems across the intelligence community to facilitate information sharing and the development of a common technical framework. By developing an architecture for a Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise, DOD has made it possible to identify capability gaps, prioritize investments, and realize cost efficiencies.

DOD has developed tools and performance measures to inform investment decisions, as GAO suggested in March 2011. In November 2019, DOD released a new intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) strategic roadmap, which included an ISR portfolio scorecard tool and performance measures to inform investment decisions. With the incorporation of the portfolio scorecard and performance measures in the new ISR roadmap, DOD is better positioned to reduce the likelihood of unnecessary duplication, assess the effectiveness of ISR assets, and make trade-offs among ISR capabilities.

DOD has established linkages between ISR acquisition plans and strategic goals, as GAO suggested in March 2011. In November 2019, DOD released a new ISR strategic roadmap. The roadmap articulated the linkages between strategic goals and planned investments with the goal of enabling the department to prioritize investments, close gaps, and determine appropriate sources of ISR funding. DODs identification of linkages between ISR acquisition plans and strategic goals better positions the department to avoid investing in lower-priority or duplicative capabilities.

We previously reported that DOD had taken steps to develop standards for sharing ISR data and that DOD's establishment of the Defense Intelligence Enterprise Manager (DIEM) may put DOD in a position to develop and enforce commonality and interoperability standards. What remained incomplete was a means to enforce interoperability standards. On September 27, 2022, the Office of the DOD Chief Information Officer issued instruction 8330.01 on Interoperability of Information Technology, Including National Security Systems, which covers information technology (IT), which includes any systems, applications, products and IT services, and National Security Systems that DOD acquires, procures, develops, or operates. This instruction states IT must be certified for joint interoperability, possess an interim certificate to operate, or possess a waiver before connecting to any operational DOD network if it meets at least one of the following criteria: (a) Provides direct support of DOD missions; (b) Shares, exchanges, or uses data, information, and services to enable units or forces to operate in joint operations; (c) Supports any DOD warfighting mission areas; or (d) Supports DOD mobility initiatives to include infrastructure, services, and management. This instruction broadly includes any data that supports DOD warfighting missions, including Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) data. The instruction also states that the Director of Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) will use the Defense Information Systems Network certification approval process to enforce the requirement for interoperability certification in accordance with this issuance and before connection to a DOD network. This mechanism for enforcing certification may allow DOD to enforce interoperability standards and improve sharing of ISR data.

The Department of Defense (DOD) agreed with GAO's May 2011 recommendation and has implemented it. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014 required DOD's Strategic Policy for prepositioned materiel and equipment to include "a framework for joint departmental oversight that reviews and synchronizes the services' prepositioning strategies to minimize potentially duplicative efforts and maximize efficiencies in prepositioned material and equipment across the department." (Pub. L. No. 113-66 (2013)) Subsequently, DOD issued in March 2017 its Pre-positioned War Reserve Materiel Strategic Policy. In July 2017, GAO reported that the Strategic Policy does not address five of the six required elements from section 321(a) of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014 (Pub. L. No. 113-66 (2013)) including a coordinated joint-military service approach for DOD's prepositioned stocks. DOD also submitted a Strategic Implementation Plan, as required under section 321(b), for managing its prepositioned stocks to congressional oversight committees in October 2017. However, GAO reported in January 2019 that DOD's implementation plan did not fully address four of the seven elements required by section 321(b)(2) of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014 (Pub. L. No. 113-66 (2013)), nor did the plan provide details on how DOD plans to synchronize the services' prepositioning programs and maximize efficiency in managing prepositioned assets and activities across the department. In February 2020, DOD published its updated Pre-Positioned War Reserve Materiel Strategic Implementation Plan, which lays out a method for joint oversight. In addition, this updated plan fully addressed eight of nine congressionally required elements in public laws from 2013 and 2019. In December 2021, DOD officials (1) completed a review of the information systems and data related to the military services' prepositioning programs and (2) decided to update the classified Defense Readiness Reporting System to provide a single view capability of information about the services' prepositioned programs. In 2022, DOD completed this single view web-based analytic capability to enable comprehensive prepositioning data collection and related reporting mechanism. In February 2023, DOD provided classified joint oversight reports containing various prepositioning data outputs from the single view capability. These actions meet the recommendation's intent and may help the department to synchronize the services' prepositioning programs and minimize potentially duplicative efforts in its prepositioned stocks programs.

The Department of Defense (DOD) implemented this action. In March 2017, DOD issued its Pre-positioned War Reserve Materiel (PWRM) Strategic Policy. The Strategic Policy requires the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to develop and coordinate planning and resource requirements, such as those found in DOD's Guidance for Employment of the Force and the Defense Planning Guidance, so that war materiel and prepositioned war reserve material are appropriately linked to desired capabilities in support of the national defense strategy. In addition, the Strategic Policy requires the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the DOD component heads to maintain guidance that includes component-specific requirements for planning and resourcing priorities to address current and future requirements for maintaining prepositioned stocks optimally. This guidance meets the intent of GAO's recommendations and may improve DOD's ability to recognize efficiencies and minimize potentially duplicative efforts in its prepositioned stocks programs.

In January 2012, the administration recommended a broad reorganization of agencies, including economic and business development activities in the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury, as well as SBA. According to the administration's assessment, the existing structure is inefficient and redundant. To address this redundancy, the administration's proposal would consolidate many of its economic development programs. The proposed reorganization, if implemented, could eliminate duplicative spending that may be present.

In January 2012, the administration recommended a broad reorganization of agencies, including economic and business development activities in the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury, as well as SBA. According to the administration's assessment, the existing structure is inefficient and redundant. To address this redundancy, the administration's proposal would consolidate many of its economic development programs. The proposed reorganization, if implemented, could eliminate duplicative spending that may be present.

In January 2012, the administration recommended a broad reorganization of agencies, including economic and business development activities in the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury, as well as SBA. According to the administration's assessment, the existing structure is inefficient and redundant. To address this redundancy, the administration's proposal would consolidate many of its economic development programs. The proposed reorganization, if implemented, could eliminate duplicative spending that may be present.

In January 2012, the administration recommended a broad reorganization of agencies, including economic and business development activities in the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury, as well as SBA. According to the administration's assessment, the existing structure is inefficient and redundant. To address this redundancy, the administration's proposal would consolidate many of its economic development programs. The proposed reorganization, if implemented, could eliminate duplicative spending that may be present.

In January 2012, the administration recommended a broad reorganization of agencies, including economic and business development activities in the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury, as well as SBA. According to the administration's assessment, the existing structure is inefficient and redundant. To address this redundancy, the administration's proposal would consolidate many of its economic development programs. The proposed reorganization, if implemented, could eliminate duplicative spending that may be present.

VA and DOD have conducted an analysis of their joint contracting strategies, as GAO suggested in March 2011. Both VA and DOD have reported that differences in the designs of VA's and DOD's pharmacy benefits programs make cost-effective opportunities for brand-name drug joint contracts less common than they were prior to DOD's fiscal year 2005 implementation of its uniform formulary process. As a result of these differences, VA reported in November 2013 that the departments have not entered into any joint contracts for brand-name drugs since November 2011. According to DOD, the VA/DOD Joint Executive Council, which is responsible for coordinating pharmacy activities across VA and DOD, continues to review both new and existing drugs for opportunities for cost-effective joint contracting. The council contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of each agency's formulary process, including exploring barriers to joint contracting and assessing whether there are opportunities to improve the cost and quality of one or both systems by adopting identified best practices. This evaluation was completed in February 2013, but both VA and DOD identified problems with the analysis, and DOD indicated that the analysis did not determine whether there were additional opportunities for joint contracting of brand-name drugs. In June 2013, VA and DOD reported on the results of their own formulary analysis, which supported their ongoing efforts to evaluate joint contracts on a case-by-case basis, but neither agency indicated that its own analysis identified additional joint contracting opportunities for brand-name drugs. Consistent with the analysis and VA's and DOD's decision to evaluate joint contracting opportunities on a case-by-case basis, VA reported in November 2013 that it was developing requirements for a brand-name national contract in which DOD would be invited to participate. VA and DOD report that they will continue to pursue joint contracts whenever possible and economically feasible. Doing so could allow them to purchase drugs more cost-effectively. However, while the departments expect numerous joint contracts for generic drugs, there will likely continue to be significantly fewer joint contracts for brand-name drugs than prior to DOD's implementation of its uniform formulary process.

VA and DOD have conducted an analysis of their joint contracting strategies, as GAO suggested in March 2011. Both VA and DOD have reported that differences in the designs of VA's and DOD's pharmacy benefits programs make cost-effective opportunities for brand-name drug joint contracts less common than they were prior to DOD's fiscal year 2005 implementation of its uniform formulary process. As a result of these differences, VA reported in November 2013 that the departments have not entered into any joint contracts for brand-name drugs since November 2011. According to DOD, the VA/DOD Joint Executive Council, which is responsible for coordinating pharmacy activities across VA and DOD, continues to review both new and existing drugs for opportunities for cost-effective joint contracting. The council contracted with a firm to conduct an evaluation of each agency's formulary process, including exploring barriers to joint contracting and assessing whether there are opportunities to improve the cost and quality of one or both systems by adopting identified best practices. This evaluation was completed in February 2013, but both VA and DOD identified problems with the analysis, and DOD indicated that the analysis did not determine whether there were additional opportunities for joint contracting of brand-name drugs. In June 2013, VA and DOD reported on the results of their own formulary analysis, which supported their ongoing efforts to evaluate joint contracts on a case-by-case basis, but neither agency indicated that its own analysis identified additional joint contracting opportunities for brand-name drugs. Consistent with the analysis and VA's and DOD's decision to evaluate joint contracting opportunities on a case-by-case basis, VA reported in November 2013 that it was developing requirements for a brand-name national contract in which DOD would be invited to participate. VA and DOD report that they will continue to pursue joint contracts whenever possible and economically feasible. Doing so could allow them to purchase drugs more cost-effectively. However, while the departments expect numerous joint contracts for generic drugs, there will likely continue to be significantly fewer joint contracts for brand-name drugs than prior to DOD's implementation of its uniform formulary process.

VA continues to collaborate with DOD to identify opportunities for joint contracting for generic drugs through the Federal Pharmacy Executive Steering Committee. Additionally, DOD noted in January 2012 that joint contracts had been awarded for several generic drugs that had previously been "blockbuster" brand name drugs, and additional joint contract negotiations were under way.

VA continues to collaborate with DOD to identify opportunities for joint contracting for generic drugs through the Federal Pharmacy Executive Steering Committee. Additionally, DOD noted in January 2012 that joint contracts had been awarded for several generic drugs that had previously been "blockbuster" brand name drugs, and additional joint contract negotiations were under way.

Executive branch action has been taken in each of the four identified areas where duplication and redundant efforts needed to be addressed. Jurisdiction: To address jurisdictional disputes in explosives investigations, as of May 2011, Justice created a National Explosives Task Force where ATF and FBI are co-located in headquarters. This task force monitors explosives investigations, may determine the lead agency in investigations when there is uncertainty among field agents, and ensures that ATF and FBI are coordinating. Training: To address fragmentation in the explosives training provided by ATF and FBI, the two agencies created a joint curriculum for their post-blast training as of May 2011. According to ATF and FBI, the new curriculum has resulted in both agencies providing consistent information to the agents and state and local bomb squads whom they train. They are also considering creating other joint curriculums in areas such as homemade explosives. Explosive database: To ensure that both agencies are aware of explosives incidents, ATF released a more user friendly version of the Bomb and Arson Tracking System--an explosives incident reporting system--in May 2011. Both ATF and FBI have issued new protocols requiring agents to enter explosives incidents into the Bomb and Arson Tracking System. In addition, both the ATF and FBI are requiring that all explosives incidents be reported to their respective Strategic Information Operation Centers (SIOC). The SIOCs will notify each other when an incident is reported. In addition, explosives incidents are also reported to the National Explosives Task Force. According to ATF and FBI, these multiple reporting mechanisms ensure that both ATF and FBI are aware of all explosives incidents and that the incidents are entered in the Bomb and Arson Tracking System. Explosive laboratories: To better leverage their explosives forensic capabilities, according to officials, ATF and FBI laboratories meet on a regular basis to discuss options where coordination can be increased. According to ATF and FBI officials, both laboratories are at capacity but they have agreed to use a joint lab information management system and joint training of laboratory staff. Justice plans to lay out implementation steps during fiscal year 2012. Additionally, according to ATF and FBI officials, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General meets regularly with ATF and FBI to monitor their progress and address any potential concerns. This coordination is important to help ensure that the above improvements are sustained.

In August 2011, TSA reported that the agency had discontinued conducting security reviews on trucking companies that are covered by the FMCSA program. Discontinuing such reviews should eliminate the short-term overlap between TSA's and FMCSA's reviews of hazardous materials trucking companies.

In August 2011, TSA reported that the agency had discontinued conducting security reviews on trucking companies that are covered by the FMCSA program. Discontinuing such reviews should eliminate the short-term overlap between TSA's and FMCSA's reviews of hazardous materials trucking companies.

USDA officials told GAO that it has broadened its efforts to streamline the application and certification process, enforces rules that prevent simultaneous participation in programs with similar benefits or target audiences, and reviews and monitors program operations to minimize waste and error. Consistent with suggestions made by GAO in March 2011, USDA has focused considerable administrative and financial resources on helping states to simplify and streamline eligibility procedures. For example, in November 2012, USDA established a new, simplified application procedure for schools and school food authorities already participating in the National School Lunch Program that wished to also participate in the Summer Food Services Program. Additionally, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 established state benchmarks for directly certifying for free school meals children from households receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, provided $22 million for grants for states to improve direct certification systems. According to USDA officials, as of school year 2013-2014, 87 percent of SNAP children were directly certified for free school meals, up from 68 percent in school year 2007-2008. In addition, USDA has been phasing in Community Eligibility, another provision of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, under which high-poverty schools or school districts provide free meals to all students and receive federal reimbursement based on their percentage of students directly certified. The Community Eligibility Provision eliminates the burden of collecting household applications to determine eligibility for school meals, relying instead on information from other means-tested programs such as SNAP and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Community Eligibility was operating in 11 states as of school year 2013-2014, and became available nationwide on July 1, 2014. Since then, USDA has been working to encourage school districts to utilize the Community Eligibility Provision. For example, in August 2015, the Secretaries of USDA and Education sent a joint letter to superintendents with information on the Community Eligibility Provision, which suggested they consider implementing it in their districts. Officials told GAO that USDA also implemented a provision of the Agricultural Act of 2014 that generally excludes women under 60, infants, and children from participating in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, generally making it an elderly only program. USDA directed state and local agencies to refer women under 60, infants, and children to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) or other nutrition assistance programs for which they may be eligible instead. Implementing this provision should help reduce participation in programs with similar benefits or targeted audiences.

The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) told GAO that in implementing the Federal Strategic Plan, it is working with member agencies, such as the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Health and Human Services (HHS), Education, and Veterans Affairs (VA), to set priorities, measure progress and results, and hold federal partners accountable, as GAO suggested in March of 2011. In fiscal years 2011 and 2012, USICH issued annual updates and an amendment to the Federal Strategic Plan. The updates noted progress the key member agencies had made toward the plan's goals and included a discussion of their activities and accomplishments. For example, USICH and member agencies set priorities through internal council mechanisms. These priorities are then carried forward in the President's budget, which allocates resources for those priorities. The 2014 budget request had a 21 percent increase for homeless programs compared with the 2012 enacted budget. USICH and the member agencies achieve these priorities through taking strategic actions, measuring progress, and showing results. For example, HHS issued guidance on how Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds can be used for addressing family homelessness, which sent a strong message to its local partners as to the importance HHS was placing on homelessness. In addition, HUD and HHS are working together to provide housing and services to low-income people with disabilities. HUD's 2013 Annual Homeless Assessment Report shows a continued decline in homelessness in all categories. Veterans' homelessness has dropped 26 percent since 2010. USICH's member agencies ensure accountability through their priority goals. HUD and VA share a goal on reducing veteran homelessness. HUD has quarterly HUD Stat meetings that focus on HUD's progress in meeting its priority goals. VA participates in the meetings on homelessness. USICH performs outreach to nonfederal partners through its website and newsletter and through dissemination of the Federal Strategic Plan. In addition, USICH provides annual updates to Congress on progress USICH and its member agencies are making on achieving the goals in the Federal Strategic Plan. Such efforts by USICH and its member agencies on implementing the Federal Strategic Plan should help in attaining the plan's goals, including the continued reduction in homelessness, and thus meet the intent of GAO's suggested action.

The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) told GAO that in implementing the Federal Strategic Plan, it is working with member agencies, such as the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Health and Human Services (HHS), Education, and Veterans Affairs (VA), to set priorities, measure progress and results, and hold federal partners accountable, as GAO suggested in March of 2011. In fiscal years 2011 and 2012, USICH issued annual updates and an amendment to the Federal Strategic Plan. The updates noted progress the key member agencies had made toward the plan's goals and included a discussion of their activities and accomplishments. For example, USICH and member agencies set priorities through internal council mechanisms. These priorities are then carried forward in the President's budget, which allocates resources for those priorities. The 2014 budget request had a 21 percent increase for homeless programs compared with the 2012 enacted budget. USICH and the member agencies achieve these priorities through taking strategic actions, measuring progress, and showing results. For example, HHS issued guidance on how Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds can be used for addressing family homelessness, which sent a strong message to its local partners as to the importance HHS was placing on homelessness. In addition, HUD and HHS are working together to provide housing and services to low-income people with disabilities. HUD's 2013 Annual Homeless Assessment Report shows a continued decline in homelessness in all categories. Veterans' homelessness has dropped 26 percent since 2010. USICH's member agencies ensure accountability through their priority goals. HUD and VA share a goal on reducing veteran homelessness. HUD has quarterly HUD Stat meetings that focus on HUD's progress in meeting its priority goals. VA participates in the meetings on homelessness. USICH performs outreach to nonfederal partners through its website and newsletter and through dissemination of the Federal Strategic Plan. In addition, USICH provides annual updates to Congress on progress USICH and its member agencies are making on achieving the goals in the Federal Strategic Plan. Such efforts by USICH and its member agencies on implementing the Federal Strategic Plan should help in attaining the plan's goals, including the continued reduction in homelessness, and thus meet the intent of GAO's suggested action.

The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) told GAO that in implementing the Federal Strategic Plan, it is working with member agencies, such as the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Health and Human Services (HHS), Education, and Veterans Affairs (VA), to set priorities, measure progress and results, and hold federal partners accountable, as GAO suggested in March of 2011. In fiscal years 2011 and 2012, USICH issued annual updates and an amendment to the Federal Strategic Plan. The updates noted progress the key member agencies had made toward the plan's goals and included a discussion of their activities and accomplishments. For example, USICH and member agencies set priorities through internal council mechanisms. These priorities are then carried forward in the President's budget, which allocates resources for those priorities. The 2014 budget request had a 21 percent increase for homeless programs compared with the 2012 enacted budget. USICH and the member agencies achieve these priorities through taking strategic actions, measuring progress, and showing results. For example, HHS issued guidance on how Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds can be used for addressing family homelessness, which sent a strong message to its local partners as to the importance HHS was placing on homelessness. In addition, HUD and HHS are working together to provide housing and services to low-income people with disabilities. HUD's 2013 Annual Homeless Assessment Report shows a continued decline in homelessness in all categories. Veterans' homelessness has dropped 26 percent since 2010. USICH's member agencies ensure accountability through their priority goals. HUD and VA share a goal on reducing veteran homelessness. HUD has quarterly HUD Stat meetings that focus on HUD's progress in meeting its priority goals. VA participates in the meetings on homelessness. USICH performs outreach to nonfederal partners through its website and newsletter and through dissemination of the Federal Strategic Plan. In addition, USICH provides annual updates to Congress on progress USICH and its member agencies are making on achieving the goals in the Federal Strategic Plan. Such efforts by USICH and its member agencies on implementing the Federal Strategic Plan should help in attaining the plan's goals, including the continued reduction in homelessness, and thus meet the intent of GAO's suggested action.

The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) told GAO that in implementing the Federal Strategic Plan, it is working with member agencies, such as the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Health and Human Services (HHS), Education, and Veterans Affairs (VA), to set priorities, measure progress and results, and hold federal partners accountable, as GAO suggested in March of 2011. In fiscal years 2011 and 2012, USICH issued annual updates and an amendment to the Federal Strategic Plan. The updates noted progress the key member agencies had made toward the plan's goals and included a discussion of their activities and accomplishments. For example, USICH and member agencies set priorities through internal council mechanisms. These priorities are then carried forward in the President's budget, which allocates resources for those priorities. The 2014 budget request had a 21 percent increase for homeless programs compared with the 2012 enacted budget. USICH and the member agencies achieve these priorities through taking strategic actions, measuring progress, and showing results. For example, HHS issued guidance on how Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds can be used for addressing family homelessness, which sent a strong message to its local partners as to the importance HHS was placing on homelessness. In addition, HUD and HHS are working together to provide housing and services to low-income people with disabilities. HUD's 2013 Annual Homeless Assessment Report shows a continued decline in homelessness in all categories. Veterans' homelessness has dropped 26 percent since 2010. USICH's member agencies ensure accountability through their priority goals. HUD and VA share a goal on reducing veteran homelessness. HUD has quarterly HUD Stat meetings that focus on HUD's progress in meeting its priority goals. VA participates in the meetings on homelessness. USICH performs outreach to nonfederal partners through its website and newsletter and through dissemination of the Federal Strategic Plan. In addition, USICH provides annual updates to Congress on progress USICH and its member agencies are making on achieving the goals in the Federal Strategic Plan. Such efforts by USICH and its member agencies on implementing the Federal Strategic Plan should help in attaining the plan's goals, including the continued reduction in homelessness, and thus meet the intent of GAO's suggested action.

USICH has taken several actions to increase collaborative efforts across federal agencies, as GAO suggested in its March 2011 report. According to USICH, federal partners met several times in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 to discuss improved and additional activities to support implementation of the Federal Strategic Plan, as well as better collaboration among federal partners. USICH has helped foster several interagency collaborations--for example, partnering with the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Veterans Affairs (VA). USICH and HHS organized three expert panel sessions in fiscal year 2011 to help disseminate up-to-date information on integrated care models for chronic homelessness and homelessness prevention efforts for veterans. Additionally, USICH helped HUD and VA improve the utilization and targeting of housing vouchers for homeless veterans. Moreover, the 2012 Amendment to the Federal Strategic Plan discusses the need for more work at the federal level to act collaboratively and strategically to end homelessness for children and youth, including working together to obtain better data and research on the scope of youth homelessness. Moving forward, it will be important for USICH and its key member agencies to sustain their progress and continue collaborating and communicating in order to achieve their goal of ending veteran and chronic homelessness by 2015, and ending homelessness among children, youth and families by 2020.

USICH has taken several actions to increase collaborative efforts across federal agencies, as GAO suggested in its March 2011 report. According to USICH, federal partners met several times in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 to discuss improved and additional activities to support implementation of the Federal Strategic Plan, as well as better collaboration among federal partners. USICH has helped foster several interagency collaborations--for example, partnering with the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Veterans Affairs (VA). USICH and HHS organized three expert panel sessions in fiscal year 2011 to help disseminate up-to-date information on integrated care models for chronic homelessness and homelessness prevention efforts for veterans. Additionally, USICH helped HUD and VA improve the utilization and targeting of housing vouchers for homeless veterans. Moreover, the 2012 Amendment to the Federal Strategic Plan discusses the need for more work at the federal level to act collaboratively and strategically to end homelessness for children and youth, including working together to obtain better data and research on the scope of youth homelessness. Moving forward, it will be important for USICH and its key member agencies to sustain their progress and continue collaborating and communicating in order to achieve their goal of ending veteran and chronic homelessness by 2015, and ending homelessness among children, youth and families by 2020.

USICH has taken several actions to increase collaborative efforts across federal agencies, as GAO suggested in its March 2011 report. According to USICH, federal partners met several times in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 to discuss improved and additional activities to support implementation of the Federal Strategic Plan, as well as better collaboration among federal partners. USICH has helped foster several interagency collaborations--for example, partnering with the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Veterans Affairs (VA). USICH and HHS organized three expert panel sessions in fiscal year 2011 to help disseminate up-to-date information on integrated care models for chronic homelessness and homelessness prevention efforts for veterans. Additionally, USICH helped HUD and VA improve the utilization and targeting of housing vouchers for homeless veterans. Moreover, the 2012 Amendment to the Federal Strategic Plan discusses the need for more work at the federal level to act collaboratively and strategically to end homelessness for children and youth, including working together to obtain better data and research on the scope of youth homelessness. Moving forward, it will be important for USICH and its key member agencies to sustain their progress and continue collaborating and communicating in order to achieve their goal of ending veteran and chronic homelessness by 2015, and ending homelessness among children, youth and families by 2020.

USICH has taken several actions to increase collaborative efforts across federal agencies, as GAO suggested in its March 2011 report. According to USICH, federal partners met several times in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 to discuss improved and additional activities to support implementation of the Federal Strategic Plan, as well as better collaboration among federal partners. USICH has helped foster several interagency collaborations--for example, partnering with the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Veterans Affairs (VA). USICH and HHS organized three expert panel sessions in fiscal year 2011 to help disseminate up-to-date information on integrated care models for chronic homelessness and homelessness prevention efforts for veterans. Additionally, USICH helped HUD and VA improve the utilization and targeting of housing vouchers for homeless veterans. Moreover, the 2012 Amendment to the Federal Strategic Plan discusses the need for more work at the federal level to act collaboratively and strategically to end homelessness for children and youth, including working together to obtain better data and research on the scope of youth homelessness. Moving forward, it will be important for USICH and its key member agencies to sustain their progress and continue collaborating and communicating in order to achieve their goal of ending veteran and chronic homelessness by 2015, and ending homelessness among children, youth and families by 2020.

The Coordinating Council has taken actions to improve coordination by identifying and sharing information on relevant federal programs and issuing an updated strategic plan, which addressed GAO's March 2011 suggested actions. The Department of Transportation, which is the chair of the Coordinating Council, published an updated inventory of federal programs serving the transportation-disadvantaged on the Coordinating Council's United We Ride web site. Federal departments on the Coordinating Council have also finalized a strategic plan for 2011 through 2013, which establishes agency roles and responsibilities and identifies a shared strategy to reinforce cooperation, also available on the United We Ride web site. Such actions should help federal departments on the Coordinating Council identify any additional opportunities for coordination to eliminate duplication and fragmentation.

The Coordinating Council has taken actions to improve coordination by identifying and sharing information on relevant federal programs and issuing an updated strategic plan, which addressed GAO's March 2011 suggested actions. The Department of Transportation, which is the chair of the Coordinating Council, published an updated inventory of federal programs serving the transportation-disadvantaged on the Coordinating Council's United We Ride web site. Federal departments on the Coordinating Council have also finalized a strategic plan for 2011 through 2013, which establishes agency roles and responsibilities and identifies a shared strategy to reinforce cooperation, also available on the United We Ride web site. Such actions should help federal departments on the Coordinating Council identify any additional opportunities for coordination to eliminate duplication and fragmentation.

The Coordinating Council has taken actions to improve coordination by identifying and sharing information on relevant federal programs and issuing an updated strategic plan, which addressed GAO's March 2011 suggested actions. The Department of Transportation, which is the chair of the Coordinating Council, published an updated inventory of federal programs serving the transportation-disadvantaged on the Coordinating Council's United We Ride web site. Federal departments on the Coordinating Council have also finalized a strategic plan for 2011 through 2013, which establishes agency roles and responsibilities and identifies a shared strategy to reinforce cooperation, also available on the United We Ride web site. Such actions should help federal departments on the Coordinating Council identify any additional opportunities for coordination to eliminate duplication and fragmentation.

The Coordinating Council has taken actions to improve coordination by identifying and sharing information on relevant federal programs and issuing an updated strategic plan, which addressed GAO's March 2011 suggested actions. The Department of Transportation, which is the chair of the Coordinating Council, published an updated inventory of federal programs serving the transportation-disadvantaged on the Coordinating Council's United We Ride web site. Federal departments on the Coordinating Council have also finalized a strategic plan for 2011 through 2013, which establishes agency roles and responsibilities and identifies a shared strategy to reinforce cooperation, also available on the United We Ride web site. Such actions should help federal departments on the Coordinating Council identify any additional opportunities for coordination to eliminate duplication and fragmentation.

The Coordinating Council has taken actions to improve coordination by identifying and sharing information on relevant federal programs and issuing an updated strategic plan, which addressed GAO's March 2011 suggested actions. The Department of Transportation, which is the chair of the Coordinating Council, published an updated inventory of federal programs serving the transportation-disadvantaged on the Coordinating Council's United We Ride web site. Federal departments on the Coordinating Council have also finalized a strategic plan for 2011 through 2013, which establishes agency roles and responsibilities and identifies a shared strategy to reinforce cooperation, also available on the United We Ride web site. Such actions should help federal departments on the Coordinating Council identify any additional opportunities for coordination to eliminate duplication and fragmentation.

The Coordinating Council has taken actions to improve coordination by identifying and sharing information on relevant federal programs and issuing an updated strategic plan, which addressed GAO's March 2011 suggested actions. The Department of Transportation, which is the chair of the Coordinating Council, published an updated inventory of federal programs serving the transportation-disadvantaged on the Coordinating Council's United We Ride web site. Federal departments on the Coordinating Council have also finalized a strategic plan for 2011 through 2013, which establishes agency roles and responsibilities and identifies a shared strategy to reinforce cooperation, also available on the United We Ride web site. Such actions should help federal departments on the Coordinating Council identify any additional opportunities for coordination to eliminate duplication and fragmentation.

The Coordinating Council has taken actions to improve coordination by identifying and sharing information on relevant federal programs and issuing an updated strategic plan, which addressed GAO's March 2011 suggested actions. The Department of Transportation, which is the chair of the Coordinating Council, published an updated inventory of federal programs serving the transportation-disadvantaged on the Coordinating Council's United We Ride web site. Federal departments on the Coordinating Council have also finalized a strategic plan for 2011 through 2013, which establishes agency roles and responsibilities and identifies a shared strategy to reinforce cooperation, also available on the United We Ride web site. Such actions should help federal departments on the Coordinating Council identify any additional opportunities for coordination to eliminate duplication and fragmentation.

The Coordinating Council has taken actions to improve coordination by identifying and sharing information on relevant federal programs and issuing an updated strategic plan, which addressed GAO's March 2011 suggested actions. The Department of Transportation, which is the chair of the Coordinating Council, published an updated inventory of federal programs serving the transportation-disadvantaged on the Coordinating Council's United We Ride web site. Federal departments on the Coordinating Council have also finalized a strategic plan for 2011 through 2013, which establishes agency roles and responsibilities and identifies a shared strategy to reinforce cooperation, also available on the United We Ride web site. Such actions should help federal departments on the Coordinating Council identify any additional opportunities for coordination to eliminate duplication and fragmentation.

As of January 2018, federal departments on the Coordinating Council had taken actions to develop and disseminate policies and guidance for coordinating transportation services, as GAO suggested in March 2011. For example, the Department of Transportation (DOT), which serves as the chair of the Coordinating Council, continued to work with agencies on the council to identify federal programs that can partner with DOT grantees to enhance services for transportation-disadvantaged persons, such as programs funded by the Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance to implement these partnerships is available to state and local grantees on DOT's website. In addition, in the spring of 2017, DOT worked with federal departments on the Coordinating Council to establish interagency working groups to, among other things, draft policies to facilitate vehicle-and cost-sharing opportunities for federal grantees. According to DOT, the working groups produced recommendations that federal agencies on the Coordinating Council are currently considering. Federal coordination of transportation services can lead to a number of benefits, including enhanced mobility and improved customer service for transportation-disadvantaged persons. Developing and disseminating policies and guidance for coordinating transportation services is important because state and local grantees typically seek such guidance from the departments administering the grant programs.

As of January 2018, federal departments on the Coordinating Council had taken actions to develop and disseminate policies and guidance for coordinating transportation services, as GAO suggested in March 2011. For example, the Department of Transportation (DOT), which serves as the chair of the Coordinating Council, continued to work with agencies on the council to identify federal programs that can partner with DOT grantees to enhance services for transportation-disadvantaged persons, such as programs funded by the Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance to implement these partnerships is available to state and local grantees on DOT's website. In addition, in the spring of 2017, DOT worked with federal departments on the Coordinating Council to establish interagency working groups to, among other things, draft policies to facilitate vehicle-and cost-sharing opportunities for federal grantees. According to DOT, the working groups produced recommendations that federal agencies on the Coordinating Council are currently considering. Federal coordination of transportation services can lead to a number of benefits, including enhanced mobility and improved customer service for transportation-disadvantaged persons. Developing and disseminating policies and guidance for coordinating transportation services is important because state and local grantees typically seek such guidance from the departments administering the grant programs.

As of January 2018, federal departments on the Coordinating Council had taken actions to develop and disseminate policies and guidance for coordinating transportation services, as GAO suggested in March 2011. For example, the Department of Transportation (DOT), which serves as the chair of the Coordinating Council, continued to work with agencies on the council to identify federal programs that can partner with DOT grantees to enhance services for transportation-disadvantaged persons, such as programs funded by the Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance to implement these partnerships is available to state and local grantees on DOT's website. In addition, in the spring of 2017, DOT worked with federal departments on the Coordinating Council to establish interagency working groups to, among other things, draft policies to facilitate vehicle-and cost-sharing opportunities for federal grantees. According to DOT, the working groups produced recommendations that federal agencies on the Coordinating Council are currently considering. Federal coordination of transportation services can lead to a number of benefits, including enhanced mobility and improved customer service for transportation-disadvantaged persons. Developing and disseminating policies and guidance for coordinating transportation services is important because state and local grantees typically seek such guidance from the departments administering the grant programs.

As of January 2018, federal departments on the Coordinating Council had taken actions to develop and disseminate policies and guidance for coordinating transportation services, as GAO suggested in March 2011. For example, the Department of Transportation (DOT), which serves as the chair of the Coordinating Council, continued to work with agencies on the council to identify federal programs that can partner with DOT grantees to enhance services for transportation-disadvantaged persons, such as programs funded by the Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance to implement these partnerships is available to state and local grantees on DOT's website. In addition, in the spring of 2017, DOT worked with federal departments on the Coordinating Council to establish interagency working groups to, among other things, draft policies to facilitate vehicle-and cost-sharing opportunities for federal grantees. According to DOT, the working groups produced recommendations that federal agencies on the Coordinating Council are currently considering. Federal coordination of transportation services can lead to a number of benefits, including enhanced mobility and improved customer service for transportation-disadvantaged persons. Developing and disseminating policies and guidance for coordinating transportation services is important because state and local grantees typically seek such guidance from the departments administering the grant programs.

As of January 2018, federal departments on the Coordinating Council had taken actions to develop and disseminate policies and guidance for coordinating transportation services, as GAO suggested in March 2011. For example, the Department of Transportation (DOT), which serves as the chair of the Coordinating Council, continued to work with agencies on the council to identify federal programs that can partner with DOT grantees to enhance services for transportation-disadvantaged persons, such as programs funded by the Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance to implement these partnerships is available to state and local grantees on DOT's website. In addition, in the spring of 2017, DOT worked with federal departments on the Coordinating Council to establish interagency working groups to, among other things, draft policies to facilitate vehicle-and cost-sharing opportunities for federal grantees. According to DOT, the working groups produced recommendations that federal agencies on the Coordinating Council are currently considering. Federal coordination of transportation services can lead to a number of benefits, including enhanced mobility and improved customer service for transportation-disadvantaged persons. Developing and disseminating policies and guidance for coordinating transportation services is important because state and local grantees typically seek such guidance from the departments administering the grant programs.

As of January 2018, federal departments on the Coordinating Council had taken actions to develop and disseminate policies and guidance for coordinating transportation services, as GAO suggested in March 2011. For example, the Department of Transportation (DOT), which serves as the chair of the Coordinating Council, continued to work with agencies on the council to identify federal programs that can partner with DOT grantees to enhance services for transportation-disadvantaged persons, such as programs funded by the Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance to implement these partnerships is available to state and local grantees on DOT's website. In addition, in the spring of 2017, DOT worked with federal departments on the Coordinating Council to establish interagency working groups to, among other things, draft policies to facilitate vehicle-and cost-sharing opportunities for federal grantees. According to DOT, the working groups produced recommendations that federal agencies on the Coordinating Council are currently considering. Federal coordination of transportation services can lead to a number of benefits, including enhanced mobility and improved customer service for transportation-disadvantaged persons. Developing and disseminating policies and guidance for coordinating transportation services is important because state and local grantees typically seek such guidance from the departments administering the grant programs.

As of January 2018, federal departments on the Coordinating Council had taken actions to develop and disseminate policies and guidance for coordinating transportation services, as GAO suggested in March 2011. For example, the Department of Transportation (DOT), which serves as the chair of the Coordinating Council, continued to work with agencies on the council to identify federal programs that can partner with DOT grantees to enhance services for transportation-disadvantaged persons, such as programs funded by the Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance to implement these partnerships is available to state and local grantees on DOT's website. In addition, in the spring of 2017, DOT worked with federal departments on the Coordinating Council to establish interagency working groups to, among other things, draft policies to facilitate vehicle-and cost-sharing opportunities for federal grantees. According to DOT, the working groups produced recommendations that federal agencies on the Coordinating Council are currently considering. Federal coordination of transportation services can lead to a number of benefits, including enhanced mobility and improved customer service for transportation-disadvantaged persons. Developing and disseminating policies and guidance for coordinating transportation services is important because state and local grantees typically seek such guidance from the departments administering the grant programs.

As of January 2018, federal departments on the Coordinating Council had taken actions to develop and disseminate policies and guidance for coordinating transportation services, as GAO suggested in March 2011. For example, the Department of Transportation (DOT), which serves as the chair of the Coordinating Council, continued to work with agencies on the council to identify federal programs that can partner with DOT grantees to enhance services for transportation-disadvantaged persons, such as programs funded by the Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance to implement these partnerships is available to state and local grantees on DOT's website. In addition, in the spring of 2017, DOT worked with federal departments on the Coordinating Council to establish interagency working groups to, among other things, draft policies to facilitate vehicle-and cost-sharing opportunities for federal grantees. According to DOT, the working groups produced recommendations that federal agencies on the Coordinating Council are currently considering. Federal coordination of transportation services can lead to a number of benefits, including enhanced mobility and improved customer service for transportation-disadvantaged persons. Developing and disseminating policies and guidance for coordinating transportation services is important because state and local grantees typically seek such guidance from the departments administering the grant programs.

The Financial Literacy and Education Commission has taken actions to enhance its role in coordinating federal activities, as GAO suggested in March 2011. In August 2012, the commission developed an internal web portal that will allow federal agencies involved in financial literacy efforts to share information and resources, such as news updates and minutes and materials from commission meetings. In addition, in 2012 the commission published a report entitled 2012 Research Priorities and Research Questions, which is intended to help inform, coordinate, and avoid overlap among federal research efforts. The commission has also developed a clearinghouse of federal research and data on financial literacy, which includes such things as reports, articles, and conference proceedings. Finally, in October 2012, the commission introduced "Starting Early for Financial Success," an initiative for coordinating among federal agencies various activities and resources intended to help parents and teachers prepare children and young adults for financial success. Collectively, these actions have built upon the commission's prior efforts to help ensure coordination among federal financial literacy activities and agencies involved in financial literacy, and should help reduce inefficiencies caused by overlapping activities.

The Financial Literacy and Education Commission has taken actions to enhance its role in coordinating federal activities, as GAO suggested in March 2011. In August 2012, the commission developed an internal web portal that will allow federal agencies involved in financial literacy efforts to share information and resources, such as news updates and minutes and materials from commission meetings. In addition, in 2012 the commission published a report entitled 2012 Research Priorities and Research Questions, which is intended to help inform, coordinate, and avoid overlap among federal research efforts. The commission has also developed a clearinghouse of federal research and data on financial literacy, which includes such things as reports, articles, and conference proceedings. Finally, in October 2012, the commission introduced "Starting Early for Financial Success," an initiative for coordinating among federal agencies various activities and resources intended to help parents and teachers prepare children and young adults for financial success. Collectively, these actions have built upon the commission's prior efforts to help ensure coordination among federal financial literacy activities and agencies involved in financial literacy, and should help reduce inefficiencies caused by overlapping activities.

Offices involved in financial literacy at CFPB and the Department of the Treasury have been coordinating their roles and activities, as GAO suggested in March 2011. Financial literacy staff from the two agencies have been meeting approximately monthly since CFPB was created and discuss their respective roles and responsibilities to avoid unnecessary overlap, according to staff of both agencies. They have collaborated on several projects, including one to develop evaluation measures and another aimed at youth financial literacy. In addition, after CFPB's Office of Financial Education was staffed up, the Department of the Treasury reorganized the structure of its own financial education efforts, incorporating the office responsible for financial literacy into the broader Office of Consumer Policy. Through these actions, offices within CFPB and the Department of the Treasury have enhanced their ability to coordinate and avoid unnecessary overlap.

Offices involved in financial literacy at CFPB and the Department of the Treasury have been coordinating their roles and activities, as GAO suggested in March 2011. Financial literacy staff from the two agencies have been meeting approximately monthly since CFPB was created and discuss their respective roles and responsibilities to avoid unnecessary overlap, according to staff of both agencies. They have collaborated on several projects, including one to develop evaluation measures and another aimed at youth financial literacy. In addition, after CFPB's Office of Financial Education was staffed up, the Department of the Treasury reorganized the structure of its own financial education efforts, incorporating the office responsible for financial literacy into the broader Office of Consumer Policy. Through these actions, offices within CFPB and the Department of the Treasury have enhanced their ability to coordinate and avoid unnecessary overlap.

The Financial Literacy and Education Commission, comprised of 21 federal entities, has continued to build on its progress in promoting partnerships among federal and nonfederal sectors, as GAO suggested in its March 2011 report. For example, in May 2012, the commission released a report entitled 2012 Research Priorities and Research Questions, which was developed in partnership with academic researchers, nonprofit financial educators, and other nonfederal stakeholders. In October 2012, the commission introduced "Starting Early for Financial Success," which seeks, among other things, to create a community of practice among educators and policymakers. The commission also continued to work in collaboration with the President's Advisory Council on Financial Capability, which primarily consisted of members from the private and nonprofit sectors. Given the fiscal constraints of federal agencies, partnering with and sharing resources with nonfederal entities can help make the most effective use of limited resources.

The Financial Literacy and Education Commission, comprised of 21 federal entities, has continued to build on its progress in promoting partnerships among federal and nonfederal sectors, as GAO suggested in its March 2011 report. For example, in May 2012, the commission released a report entitled 2012 Research Priorities and Research Questions, which was developed in partnership with academic researchers, nonprofit financial educators, and other nonfederal stakeholders. In October 2012, the commission introduced "Starting Early for Financial Success," which seeks, among other things, to create a community of practice among educators and policymakers. The commission also continued to work in collaboration with the President's Advisory Council on Financial Capability, which primarily consisted of members from the private and nonprofit sectors. Given the fiscal constraints of federal agencies, partnering with and sharing resources with nonfederal entities can help make the most effective use of limited resources.

Federal agencies have taken steps to measure the outcomes of their financial literacy efforts, as GAO suggested in its March 2011 report. In July 2012, GAO reviewed the evaluation efforts of the 20 significant federal financial literacy and housing counseling programs and found that at least 13 of these programs had undertaken some method of measuring outcomes, such as the program's impact on consumer behavior. GAO found that nearly all of the remaining programs had assessed or measured their activities in some other manner and noted that outcome-based evaluation is not practical or appropriate for all financial literacy efforts, such as some that use mass media or distribute information materials broadly. In addition, the Financial Literacy and Education Commission, comprised of 21 federal entities, and CFPB have played a role in developing a standard set of evaluation tools and measuring the outcomes of financial literacy efforts. CFPB staff told us that in September 2012, they signed a contract with the Corporation for Enterprise Development to develop a set of metrics and outcome measures for assessing the success of financial literacy programs. In addition, in December 2011, CFPB contracted with The Urban Institute for a financial education program evaluation pilot, which seeks to increase understanding of which interventions can improve financial decision-making skills in consumers. In May 2012, the Financial Literacy and Education Commission released a report entitled 2012 Research Priorities and Research Questions, whose objectives include making the best use of limited research dollars to address the most important questions facing the field of financial literacy. In 2012, the commission also developed a clearinghouse of federal research and data on financial literacy and related topics. These steps to develop outcome measures and assess program effectiveness should be beneficial in making the best use of limited resources.

Federal agencies have taken steps to measure the outcomes of their financial literacy efforts, as GAO suggested in its March 2011 report. In July 2012, GAO reviewed the evaluation efforts of the 20 significant federal financial literacy and housing counseling programs and found that at least 13 of these programs had undertaken some method of measuring outcomes, such as the program's impact on consumer behavior. GAO found that nearly all of the remaining programs had assessed or measured their activities in some other manner and noted that outcome-based evaluation is not practical or appropriate for all financial literacy efforts, such as some that use mass media or distribute information materials broadly. In addition, the Financial Literacy and Education Commission, comprised of 21 federal entities, and CFPB have played a role in developing a standard set of evaluation tools and measuring the outcomes of financial literacy efforts. CFPB staff told us that in September 2012, they signed a contract with the Corporation for Enterprise Development to develop a set of metrics and outcome measures for assessing the success of financial literacy programs. In addition, in December 2011, CFPB contracted with The Urban Institute for a financial education program evaluation pilot, which seeks to increase understanding of which interventions can improve financial decision-making skills in consumers. In May 2012, the Financial Literacy and Education Commission released a report entitled 2012 Research Priorities and Research Questions, whose objectives include making the best use of limited research dollars to address the most important questions facing the field of financial literacy. In 2012, the commission also developed a clearinghouse of federal research and data on financial literacy and related topics. These steps to develop outcome measures and assess program effectiveness should be beneficial in making the best use of limited resources.

DOD has conducted a comprehensive reassessment of its overseas presence, as GAO suggested in March 2011, based on findings in its September 2006 report. DOD has submitted an annual Global Defense Posture Report to Congress since 2008 that includes cost information and updates to basing strategy, and it has established a Global Posture Executive Council to govern and oversee posture decisions. Based on decisions made by the Executive Council, DOD has announced changes to its U.S. overseas presence in both Europe and the Pacific, and it has refined its posture planning process by issuing guidance to combatant commanders requiring specified cost information for new and existing posture initiatives. DOD issued supplemental guidance in 2012 requiring estimated costs and an evaluation of alternatives for new posture initiatives. In 2015, DOD issued new supplemental guidance requiring estimated costs for military construction for new posture initiatives and initial investment costs and projected sustainment costs to be identified, including estimated operation and maintenance and military construction costs, for proposed changes to certain types of locations. The guidance also directs combatant commanders to identify estimated costs for military construction and annual operation and maintenance for projects starting in the first year of the Future Years Defense Program. Furthermore, in April 2015 DOD issued a revised instruction that identifies the key cost elements to be included in proposals for changes in overseas force structure. Moreover, DOD reported in 2015 the results of a European infrastructure consolidation study that DOD officials stated should yield approximately $1.2 billion in total annual recurring savings. These actions better position DOD to make more informed overseas posture decisions.

DOD has reassessed plans and reduced its force structure in Europe in a manner that could save billions of dollars, as GAO recommended in July 2009. In February 2012, the Army announced its decision to permanently reduce the number of U.S. ground forces in Europe by: inactivating two of the four brigade combat teams stationed there, the first to occur in fiscal year 2013, and the second to occur in fiscal year 2014; inactivating its Germany-based V Corps headquarters in fiscal year 2013; and reducing the number of combat support and combat service support positions in Europe by approximately 2,500 positions. Based on the Army's analysis, the closure and consolidation of facilities in Europe presently being used by the forces earmarked for inactivation could result in cost savings of $2 billion over 10 years. In addition, the overall savings to DOD could be substantially more when the units are taken out of the force structure since the Army will no longer incur the equipping and other costs associated with those units.

DOD has employed best management practices at all phases of its weapon system acquisition process, as GAO recommended in a series of reports. In November 2017 and November 2019, GAO reported that DOD had achieved substantial, acquisition-related cost avoidance savings, including $36.0 billion in development costs and $136.1 billion in procurement costs. These savings stemmed from Congress enactment, and DODs implementation, of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of 2009, as amended, This act codified many of the recommendations GAO had made, including implementing best practices related to technology maturity, systems engineering, requirements management, and cost estimating. In GAOs analyses that identified the cost savings, GAO found that programs that started development after WSARA experienced less cost growth than those programs that began development prior to the act. GAO also found that the majority of more recent programs now incorporate the key practices of technology maturity, systems engineering, and requirements management. Further, GAO found that incorporation of the above practices led to more informed cost estimates and a corresponding lower rate of cost growth. In addition, in June 2017, GAO reported that DOD had implemented more prototyping in programs prior to system development, including in 17 of 22 programs GAO reviewed. In June 2019, GAO reported on additional emphasis DOD had placed on prototyping, including use of new, alternative pathways referred to as middle-tier acquisition to rapidly prototype and field new weapon systems. GAO found in that report that as of March 2019, DOD had initiated a total of 31 unclassified, rapid prototyping programs. These programs should help DOD expedite its delivery of new capabilities to warfighters.

DOD has taken steps to address the overall affordability of its weapon system investment portfolio as GAO suggested in March 2011. In March 2013, GAO reported that the total estimated acquisition cost of DOD's 2012 portfolio of major weapon programs was $1.6 trillion, the smallest in more than 5 years. DOD completed or ended more programs than it began, which helped drive this decrease. DOD is also implementing guidance to set and enforce affordability targets for its major defense acquisition programs. For example, GAO reported in March 2013 that 31 of 57 current or future major programs that provided data to GAO had established these targets. DOD's 2012 memorandum on its Better Buying Power 2.0 initiative also emphasizes long-term investment planning and analysis that cover the entire life cycle of systems to achieve affordable programs. These and other actions should help DOD create and maintain a more affordable portfolio of major weapon system investments.

DOD has employed best management practices at all phases of its weapon system acquisition process, as GAO recommended in a series of reports. In November 2017 and November 2019, GAO reported that DOD had achieved substantial, acquisition-related cost avoidance savings, including $36.0 billion in development costs and $136.1 billion in procurement costs. These savings stemmed from Congress enactment, and DODs implementation, of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of 2009, as amended. This act codified many of the recommendations GAO had made, including implementing best practices related to technology maturity, systems engineering, requirements management, and cost estimating. In GAOs analyses that identified the cost savings, GAO found that programs that started development after WSARA experienced less cost growth than those programs that began development prior to the act. GAO also found that the majority of more recent programs now incorporate the key practices of technology maturity, systems engineering, and requirements management. Further, GAO found that incorporation of the above practices led to more informed cost estimates and a corresponding lower rate of cost growth. As GAO reported in March 2009, reliable cost estimates are necessary to establish realistic baselines. In addition, in May 2019, GAO reported that programs DOD initiated after WSARA implementation continue to show lower total acquisition cost growth (on a percentage basis) than older programs. This performance should help DOD more efficiently acquire new warfighting capabilities.

In responding to our 2012 report, Department of Transportation officials stated that the department is prepared to consider multimodal or surface solutions should communities choose to apply to participate in the "Alternate EAS" program authorized by the Vision 100 -- Century of Aviation Reauthorization.

FCC has taken several steps to comprehensively reform the Universal Service Fund's Low Income, High Cost, Rural Health Care, and E-rate programs, as GAO suggested in March 2011. Low Income. In June 2011, FCC adopted changes to the Low Income program to detect and prevent duplicative claims from the same consumer and, in January 2012, adopted an order intended to further strengthen protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. Key to its reforms, according to FCC, were efforts to eliminate duplicate household subscriptions to service. According to FCC, as of April 2014, these efforts have resulted in $438 million in annualized savings to the program. Moreover, FCC brought a series of enforcement actions against almost a dozen carriers in late 2013 that included proposed fines totaling over $90 million. High Cost. In October 2011, FCC adopted an order intended to comprehensively reform and modernize the High Cost program the largest of the four Universal Service Fund programs. This was a significant step by FCC to restructure the High Cost program, seeking to ensure the universal availability of modern networks capable of providing advanced mobile voice and broadband services. The reforms created the Connect America Fund, which is intended to quickly expand broadband to unserved areas as part of an effort to ensure universal access to broadband in the United States by the end of the decade. According to FCC in April 2014, Phase I of the Connect America Fund had invested over $438 million to deploy broadband service to 1.6 million previously unserved Americans, and Phase II, over the course of 5 years, will provide nearly $9 billion to expand broadband in rural areas. Rural Health Care. In December 2012, FCC adopted an order to reform and modernize the Rural Health Care program that, according to FCC, will expand health care provider access to broadband, especially in rural areas, and encourage the creation of state and regional broadband health care networks. In March 2014, FCC announced the formation of the CONNECT2HEALTHFCC Task Force that will explore ways to accelerate the adoption of health care technologies by leveraging broadband and other next-generation communications services. E-rate. In July 2014, FCC adopted an order to modernize the E-rate program which, according to FCC, will begin the process of reorienting the program to focus on high-speed broadband. In the order, FCC established three goals for the E-rate program: (1) ensuring affordable access to high-speed broadband sufficient to support digital learning in schools and robust connectivity for all libraries, (2) maximizing the cost-effectiveness of spending for E-rate supported purchases, and (3) making the E-rate application process and other E-rate processes fast, simple, and efficient. FCC also announced in July 2014 the creation of a Universal Service Fund Strike Force that will be dedicated to combating waste, fraud, and abuse across all of the universal service programs. According to FCC, the Strike Force's investigations and activities will promote future compliance, protect those who depend on the programs for access to services, and safeguard Universal Service Fund contributors from the unlawful acts of others. FCC's actions to reform and protect the four universal service programs should help ensure more targeted use of Universal Service Fund moneys and improve programmatic management, oversight, and accountability.

Actions taken by Congress in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 have put in place escalating rental rates for oil and gas leases, which may encourage diligent development of those leases.

Congress took actions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 to revise royalty rates for both onshore and offshore leases.

Since 2011, OMB has taken action to reduce obligations under high-risk contracts, as GAO suggested in March 2011. In particular, OMB has taken steps to address several of GAO's recommendations related to competition that can help reduce overall contract costs and obligations. In March 2011, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) was amended to enhance competition for certain orders under federal supply schedule contracts. In November 2011, OMB issued guidance to agencies on ways to reduce use of management support services, such as engineering and program management, where spending has grown at an accelerated pace with extensive reliance on high-risk contract types, such as time and materials contracts. In December 2014, changes to the FAR were proposed to clarify rules around use of noncompetitive contracts awarded in unusual and compelling circumstances. Also in December 2014, OMB officials explained that government-wide cost and quality benchmarks have been developed that include tracking the level of competition where only one offer is received to reduce financial risk to the government. In the summer of 2014, OMB held sessions with agencies to discuss benchmark data as well as steps to improve performance. From fiscal years 2011 to 2014, the government-wide competition rate increased from 64 to 66 percent, with obligations on noncompetitive contracts decreasing by $43.5 billion, or 23 percent. Emphasis on competition is a cornerstone of the acquisition system and a critical tool for achieving the best possible return on investment for taxpayers--therefore, a focus on competition should be ongoing. Given OMB's steps to address GAO's recommendations thereby reducing obligations under high-risk contracts, GAO has determined this action is addressed. Opportunities to increase competition remain in other areas--such as those discussed in GAO-10-833 and GAO-14-108--which GAO will continue to monitor.

Because funding for medical review by the claims administration contractors is limited, starting in April 2011 CMS required each claims administration contractor to develop plans on how it would collaborate on medical reviews with the RACs in their shared jurisdiction. CMS required each claims administration contractor's plan to cover (1) the types of claims better reviewed by the claims administration contractor versus the RAC, (2) issues that the RACs could potentially review or known improper payment vulnerabilities that the RAC could help address, and (3) providers that could be referred to the RACs for review. CMS also required, and has received, regular reporting on the results of this collaboration. The claims administration contractors are now reporting to CMS when they have referred to the RACs--or plan to refer as appropriate--specific issues or providers of certain services whose claims warrant further review to identify improper payments.

As of May 2021, DHS has taken steps to ensure that program requirements and cost estimates are well-defined prior to establishing the program's acquisition program baseline (APB). These steps address the intent of the action GAO suggested in March 2011, with which DHS agreed. DHS updated its acquisition policy in February 2019 and the supporting instruction in May 2019 that adjusted the acquisition life cycle and required programs to conduct key technical reviews of program requirements and develop cost estimates prior to establishing the program's APB. In February 2021, DHS updated its Systems Engineering Life Cycle Instruction (SELC), which guides the department's technical reviews. In May 2021, DHS issued the accompanying SELC guidebook that outlines how technical reviews can be tailored to specific types of acquisitions, such as software development. These actions improve consistency across related policies and guidance, and clarify when programs should submit acquisition documents. DHS components and programs should continue to implement the policy. These actions help ensure that DHS requirements and cost estimates are well-defined prior to establishing program APBs.

DHS has addressed the need to establish and measure performance against department-approved baselines for major acquisition programs, as GAO suggested in March 2011. DHS has established an acquisition policy that reflects many key practices, requiring department-level approval of major acquisition programs' baselines prior to the development of a new capability. However, in the past, DHS did not consistently implement its policy. In April 2014, GAO reported that 21 of 46 major DHS acquisition programs lacked Acquisition Program Baselines approved by the department as required. To address the inconsistency, DHS began prioritizing and tracking the completion of baselines across its major acquisition programs. As of July 2015, DHS had reduced the number of major acquisition programs that were missing baselines to 7. At that time, DHS's Under Secretary for Management issued memoranda requiring the components that oversee these 7 programs to submit the missing documentation by October 15, 2015. By January 2016, DHS had received and approved the baselines for all 7 of these programs. DHS should continue to implement its acquisition policy in a consistent manner, as acquisition program baselines provide senior leaders with the critical knowledge they need to accurately measure major acquisition programs' performance.

As of December 2019, DHS has taken steps to better assess and prioritize investments, meeting the intent of the actions GAO suggested in March 2011. Through its annual resource allocation process, DHS has taken steps to ensure that budget decisions are informed by the results of acquisition reviews and cost estimates and that sufficient resources are identified and aligned. Since April 2016, DHS has reported annual acquisition funding gaps in its annual funding report to Congress. Most recently, in April 2019, DHS added operations and sustainment information for major acquisition programs from all components. Over this period of time, DHS has also included a description of funding variance for all programs facing gaps. GAO's review of the funding variance description found that it reflected prioritization decisions based on acquisition information, program alternatives, and cost estimates. To help ensure investment decisions are transparent and documented, DHS acquisition policy requires that the department's acquisition decision authority document investment decisions through acquisition decision memorandums. In May 2019, this policy was updated to require that deviations from DHS's acquisition policy will also be documented in this memorandum. As part of GAO's ongoing assessment process, GAO reviewed several of these and found that the documented actions reflect the updates to DHS's acquisition policy, including documentation of leadership approval for programs that deviated from requirements and trade-offs considered in these decisions. DHS should continue to report on funding variance annually to Congress and continue to document investment decisions in acquisition decision memorandums. These changes will help DHS take a more strategic approach to prioritizing its investments and provide additional context to Congressional decision makers.

As of December 2019, DHS has taken steps to ensure testing of new technologies is complete and test results are addressed before making acquisition decisions, meeting the intent of the actions GAO suggested in March 2011. DHS acquisition policy requires that programs establish quantifiable and consistent criteria in order to move through the acquisition process. However, in the past DHS did not consistently implement its policy--in March 2011, GAO found a number of instances where programs advanced through the acquisition process without addressing identified shortfalls. To address the inconsistency, DHS updated its acquisition policy to include that DHS's Director, Office of Test and Evaluation independently assess major acquisition programs' operational test results to inform acquisition decisions, among other things. In October 2019, GAO reported DHS leadership generally used the test assessments in making acquisition decisions, and most programs generally received approval to progress through the acquisition process based on ratings in the assessment. Specifically, GAO reviewed 38 assessments of operational test events and found that in more than half of the cases (26 of 38), DHS leadership placed conditions on its approval or directed programs to address issues discovered during testing. DHS should continue to consider test results when making acquisition decisions because effective testing and evaluation can help reduce the risk that a new system will not be operationally effective and suitable. Results from the test and evaluation of major acquisition programs provide DHS leadership with valuable information to make risk-based decisions about the development and deployment of capabilities needed to execute the department's many missions.