C ongressional employees are retained to perform public duties that include assisting Members in official responsibilities in personal, committee, leadership, or administrative office settings. The roles, duties, and activities of congressional staff are matters of ongoing interest to Members of Congress, congressional staff, groups, and individuals, including those who raise concerns about congressional operations. Most observers recognize that Congress does not function without staff, but there is little systematic attention to what staff do, or what Members expect of them. In congressional offices, there may be interest in identifying Member expectations of congressional staff duties by position from multiple perspectives, including assessment of staffing needs in Member offices; guidance in setting position expectations, qualifications, and experience when offices choose to hire staff; and informing current and potential congressional employees of position expectations. Members of the House and Senate generally establish their own employment policies and practices for their personal offices. It is arguably the case that within Member offices, a common group of activities is executed for which staff with relevant skillsets and other qualifications are necessary. A body of publicly available job advertisements for staff positions from a number of different offices can shed light on the expectations Members have for position duties, as well as staff skills, characteristics, experience, and other expectations. For 33 commonly used congressional staff position titles, this report describes the most frequently listed job duties, applicant skills, characteristics, prior experiences, and other expectations found in a sample of job advertisements placed by Members of Congress between approximately December 2014 and September 2019 seeking staff in their offices. Table 1 lists the position titles and the frequency with which advertisements for them appeared in the sample. Identifying Job Advertisements for Congressional Staff Positions Data used in developing sample position expectations were taken from several publicly available sources, including the following, over the periods specified: The House Employment Bulletin, published weekly by the House Vacancy Announcement and Placement Service (HVAPS) in the Human Resources Office of the House Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). Data were collected from ads published between approximately January 2015 and September 2019. The Employment Bulletin, published online by the Senate "as a service to Senate offices choosing to advertise staff vacancies." Data were collected from ads, which were not dated, appearing from approximately July 2016 to July 2019. The House GOP Job and Resume Bank, which posts ads on behalf of the House Republican Conference on Facebook. Ads were collected between approximately January and June 2017. Other ads were collected from the period between approximately December 2014 and January 2017 from the House GOP Job Bank web page on the website of Representative Virginia Foxx during part of her tenure as the House Republican Conference Secretary. The Job Announcements Board hosted by Representative Steny Hoyer during part of his tenure as House Minority Whip. Data were collected from ads posted between approximately January 2016 and December 2017. Categorizing and Coding Job Advertisements More than 1,800 ads were collected from all sources. Duplicate ads resulting from posts to more than one source, and ads that appear to have been frequently reposted, were removed, as were ads for positions in congressional settings other than personal offices, yielding 880 ads for positions in Member personal offices. Substantially similar position titles (e.g., deputy scheduler and state deputy scheduler) for which there were five or more ads were identified and grouped together, as were related job titles (e.g., positions designated as district, field, or regional representative that had essentially similar job duties and expectations) for which there were five or more substantially similar ads, yielding a total of 704 ads. Ads for the 33 identified position titles were further categorized if there were five or more ads that specified the advertised position as "not entry level" or other signifier of presumptive advanced status. The 704 ads were coded against a variety of variables within eight categories, including ad tracking information; ad details; position responsibilities and responsibility areas; expected job skills, qualifications, and credentials; application materials; and office type. The distribution of ads by job title and level is provided in Table 1 . Solicitations of applicants for congressional staff appear to originate in a highly decentralized manner. Means of identifying appropriate candidates might potentially include reassigning staff within offices, placing ads in services that make them available by subscription, word of mouth, and other nonpublic means of identifying potential applicants for congressional staff positions. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether the dataset of ads analyzed in this report is representative of all congressional employment solicitations. In addition, the process by which candidates for some Member office senior staff positions are identified may not be public-facing. Based on information specified within the ads, most position titles were identified by one of the following four primary responsibility areas (some positions were identified by up to three responsibility areas): Legislative, Policy, and Oversight, Media, Messaging, and Speeches, Constituent Communications, Outreach, and Service, and Office Administration and Support. For each position, at least one sample position description was created based on the coded data. Information includes the most frequently occurring of the following: primary responsibility areas; widely expected duties, typically up to six of the most frequently occurring duties specified in all ads for that position; other potential duties, typically up to six other duties mentioned in more than one ad; applicant information, including characteristics, skills, and knowledge and prior experience; and other expectations. Concluding Observations Categorizing congressional staff positions by position title relies on an assumption that similarly titled positions in House and Senate personal offices carry out the same tasks under essentially similar circumstances. While personal offices may carry out similar activities, the assumption might be questionable given the differences in staff resources in House and Senate offices, as well as potential differences within offices of each chamber. Generalizations about staff roles and duties may also be limited in some ways due to the broad discretion Members have with regard to running their office activities. Variations from office to office, which might include differences in job duties, work schedules, office emphases, and other factors, may limit the extent to which sample position expectations provided here match operational practices in all congressional offices. Sample Position Expectations Caseworker18 Communications Director19 Communications Director, "Senior Level" or "Not Entry Level"20 Constituent Services Representative21 Correspondence Manager22 Deputy Press Secretary23 Deputy Scheduler24 Deputy Scheduler/Assistant to Chief of Staff25 Digital Director/Press Assistant26 Digital Media Director27 District Director28 Executive Assistant29 Executive Assistant/Scheduler30 Executive Assistant/Scheduler, "Not Entry Level"31 Field, District, or Regional Representative32 Field Representative/Caseworker33 Legislative Aide34 Legislative Assistant35 Legislative Assistant, "Not Entry Level"36 Legislative Correspondent37 Legislative Correspondent/Press Assistant38 Legislative Correspondent/Staff Assistant39 Legislative Counsel40 Legislative Director, House41 Legislative Director "Senior Level," or "Not Entry Level"42 Legislative Director, Senate43 Military Legislative Assistant44 Press Assistant45 Press Secretary46 Regional Coordinator47 Scheduler48 Scheduler, "Not Entry Level"49 Scheduler/Office Manager50 Senior Legislative Assistant51 Speechwriter52 Staff Assistant53 Staff Assistant/Driver54 Staff Assistant/Press Assistant55 Systems Administrator56


CBP Has Taken Steps to Improve Its Recruting and Hiring Process, but the Process Remains Lengthy CBP Has Enhanced Its Recruitment Efforts and Applications for Law Enforcement Officer Positions Have Increased We reported in June 2018 that CBP increased its emphasis on recruitment by establishing a central recruitment office and increasing its participation in recruitment events. Specifically, CBP’s recruitment budget allocated by the centralized recruting office almost doubled, from approximately $6.4 million in fiscal year 2015 to more than $12.7 million in fiscal year 2017. CBP also more than tripled the total number of recruitment events it participated in, from 905 events in fiscal year 2015 to roughly 3,000 in both fiscal years 2016 and 2017. In addition, we reported that CBP had increased its use of recruitment incentives for OFO specifically from fiscal years 2015 through 2017 to help staff hard-to-fill locations. A recruitment incentive may be paid to a newly-appointed employee if an agency determines that a position is likely to be difficult to fill in the absence of such an incentive. From fiscal years 2015 through 2017, OFO increased the number of recruitment incentives it paid to CBP officers from nine incentives in two locations at a total cost of about $77,600 to 446 incentives across 18 locations at a cost of approximately $4.3 million. AMO and Border Patrol did not use recruitment incentives from fiscal years 2015 through 2017. As a result of its efforts, CBP also experienced an increase in the number of applications it received for law enforcement officer positions across all three operational components from fiscal years 2013 through 2017. For example, with the exception of fiscal year 2014, applications for Border Patrol agent positions increased every year, from roughly 27,000 applications in fiscal year 2013 to more than 91,000 applications in fiscal year 2017. Further, during the same period, applications for CBP officer positions increased from approximately 22,500 to more than 85,000, and applications for AMO’s law enforcement officer positions increased from about 2,000 to more than 5,800. CBP’s Hiring Process Has Improved, but the Process Remains Lengthy As we reported in June 2018, CBP’s law enforcement applicants undergo a lengthy and rigorous hiring process that includes nearly a dozen steps, including a background investigation, medical examination, physical fitness test, and polygraph examination. Several of these steps can be done concurrently—for example, CBP can begin the background investigation while the candidate completes the physical fitness test and medical examination process steps. Figure 1 depicts the hiring process for Border Patrol agent and CBP officer positions. From fiscal years 2015 through 2017, CBP generally improved its performance in two key metrics to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of its hiring process for law enforcement officer positions. Specifically, CBP reduced its time-to-hire (the average number of days that elapsed between the closing date of a job announcement and an applicant’s entry- on-duty date) and increased the percentage of applicants that are hired. With regard to the time-to-hire metric, as shown in table 1, CBP’s time-to- hire decreased from fiscal years 2015 through 2017. With regard to the percentage of applicants that are hired, CBP’s overall applicant pass rate metric calculates the estimated percentage of applicants who successfully complete the hiring process and enter on duty. CBP data indicate that overall applicant pass rates more than doubled for CBP officer and Border Patrol agent positions from fiscal years 2016 through 2017. CBP officials told us that higher overall applicant pass rates paired with recent increases in the number of applications received by the agency are starting to result in an increase in the number of law enforcement officers hired, as applicants complete CBP’s hiring process and officially enter on duty. As we reported in June 2018, CBP data indicated that more law enforcement officers entered on duty in the first half of fiscal year 2018 than entered on duty in the first half of fiscal year 2017. Specifically, the total number of CBP officers and Border Patrol agents that entered on duty in the first half of fiscal year 2018 increased by roughly 50 percent and 83 percent, respectively, when compared to the same period of the prior fiscal year. Further, the total number of AMO law enforcement officers that entered on duty in the first half of fiscal year 2018 more than doubled from the same period of fiscal year 2017. As we reported in June 2018, CBP has made efforts to improve its hiring process by revising certain aspects of the process, among other things. According to agency officials, these efforts to streamline and improve CBP’s overall hiring process have collectively resulted in the decreased time-to-hire and increased overall applicant pass rates discussed above. For example, in March 2017, CBP was granted the authority to waive the polygraph examination for veterans who meet certain criteria, including those who hold a current, active Top-Secret/Sensitive-Compartmented- Information clearance. Also, in April 2017, CBP received approval from the Office of Personnel Management to use direct-hire authority for law enforcement positions, which allows CBP to expedite the typical hiring process by eliminating competitive rating and ranking procedures and veterans’ preference. As of March 31, 2018, 77 CBP officers and 107 Border Patrol agents had entered on duty through this authority. CBP has also made revisions to specific steps in its hiring process, including the application, entrance examination, and polygraph examination, among others. For example, in fiscal year 2016, CBP reordered its hiring process to place the entrance examination as the first step directly after an applicant submitted an application. Prior to this change, CBP conducted qualification reviews on applicants to ensure they met position requirements before inviting them to take the entrance exam. According to CBP officials, this updated process provided applicants with the opportunity to obtain a realistic preview of the job they were applying for earlier in the hiring process. These officials explained that this helps to ensure that only those applicants who are committed to completing the hiring process and entering on duty at CBP continue through the hiring pipeline, which may help to address high applicant discontinue rates (e.g., roughly half of all eligible applicants in fiscal year 2015 did not take the exam). According to CBP officials, this revision also created efficiencies as the agency no longer has to spend time and resources on completing qualification reviews for applicants who either did not show up to take the exam or failed the exam itself. CBP has also made several changes to its polygraph examination process step, which has consistently had the lowest pass rate of any step in its hiring process. For example, among other things, CBP has increased the number of polygraph examiners available to administer the test, according to agency officials, and was piloting a new type of polygraph exam. According to CBP officials, the new examination focuses on identifying serious crimes and is sufficiently rigorous to ensure that only qualified applicants are able to pass. Preliminary data from CBP’s pilot show that this new exam has demonstrated higher pass rates when compared with CBP’s traditional polygraph exam while also taking less time, on average, per test to complete. At the time of our review, it was too early to tell if these efforts will result in improvements to the polygraph examination step. Available CBP data indicate mixed results. Specifically, while the average duration to complete this step decreased for all law enforcement officer positions from fiscal years 2015 through 2017, pass rates also declined slightly over this same period. For example, for Border Patrol agents, the pass rate declined from 28 to 26 percent, while for CBP officers, it declined from 32 to 25 percent. While CBP had reduced its time-to-hire and made efforts to improve its hiring process for law enforcement officers, CBP officials noted that the hiring process remained lengthy, which directly affected the agency’s ability to recruit and hire for law enforcement positions. CBP officials also stated that their ability to further improve CBP’s time-to-hire and increase law enforcement hires was affected by hiring process steps that can be challenging and time-consuming for applicants to complete, as well as CBP’s reliance on applicants to promptly complete certain aspects of the process. In fiscal year 2017, it took an average of 274 days for Border Patrol agent applicants and 318 days for CBP officer applicants to complete all hiring steps and enter on duty. According to a leading practice in hiring we identified for such positions, agencies should ensure that the hiring process is not protracted or onerous for applicants. According to CBP officials, the agency’s multi-step hiring process for its law enforcement officer positions was intentionally rigorous and involves extensive applicant screening to ensure that only qualified candidates meet the technical, physical, and suitability requirements for employment at CBP. Even so, CBP officials across several components told us that the agency’s time-to-hire was too long and directly affected the component’s ability to recruit and hire for law enforcement positions. For example, OFO officials told us that the longer the hiring process takes to complete, the more likely it was that an applicant will drop out. Further, qualified applicants may also decide to apply for employment at a competing law enforcement agency that may have a less rigorous process than CBP’s, according to CBP officials. One factor that affects CBP’s ability to efficiently process and onboard law enforcement officers are specific hiring process steps that are time- consuming and challenging for candidates to complete. For example, CBP officials cited the polygraph examination as a significant bottleneck within CBP’s hiring process. In addition to having the lowest pass rate of any step in CBP’s process, the polygraph examination also took CBP officer and Border Patrol agent applicants, on average, the longest amount of time to complete in fiscal year 2017—74 days and 94 days, respectively. Further, CBP officials told us that these already lengthy time frames may increase further because of the growing number of applicants for CBP’s law enforcement positions. In addition, on average, it took CBP law enforcement officer applicants across all three components 55 days or more to complete the medical examination and more than 60 days to complete the background investigation. CBP’s Accenture Contract Is Intended to Further Enhance CBP’s Recruitment and Hiring Efforts In November 2017, CBP hired a contractor—Accenture Federal Services, LLC—to help the agency recruit and hire the 5,000 Border Patrol agents called for in Executive Order 13767, as well as an additional 2,000 CBP officers and 500 AMO personnel. Specifically, at the time of our June 2018 report, the contract had a total potential period of 5 years at a not- to-exceed value of $297 million. The contract included a base year and four 1-year option periods, which CBP may exercise at its discretion for a total potential period of 5 years. Under this performance-based contract, Accenture is responsible for enhancing CBP’s recruitment efforts and managing the hiring process for those applicants it recruits. We reported that the Accenture contract is intended to enhance CBP’s recruitment efforts by improving its marketing strategy and utilizing new ways to capture and analyze data to better inform recruitment efforts, according to CBP officials. To meet target staffing levels, CBP expected that the contractor would augment CBP’s current hiring infrastructure while pursuing new and innovative hiring initiatives. Specifically, the contractor is responsible for implementing the same hiring process steps and ensuring that all applicants recruited by Accenture meet CBP’s standards. CBP officials also told us that Accenture has the flexibility to pursue novel hiring tactics and pilot initiatives that CBP may not have considered or been able to undertake. For example, Accenture plans to pilot innovative ways to reduce the time-to-hire, including by streamlining steps in the hiring process, which could help to improve CBP’s overall process and generate increased hires for law enforcement positions. At the time of our June 2018 report, some key issues were still being negotiated between CBP and the contractor. For example, while CBP officials told us that the main metric used to assess Accenture’s effectiveness will be the total number of hires the contractor produces, they were still working to finalize other key metrics for evaluating the contractor’s effectiveness as well as an oversight plan to ensure the contractor operates according to agency requirements. As a result, we reported that it was too early to determine whether these initiatives would help increase the number and quality of applicants for CBP’s law enforcement officer positions. We also reported that it was too early to evaluate whether the contractor would be able to efficiently and effectively provide the surge hiring capacity CBP needs to achieve its staffing goals. CBP Has Enhanced Its Retention Efforts, but Does Not Systematically Collect and Analyze Data on Departing Law Enforcement Personnel Retaining Law Enforcement Officers in Hard-to-Fill Locations Has Been Challenging for CBP In June 2018, we reported that CBP’s annual rates of attrition were relatively low, but CBP faced challenges retaining law enforcement officers in hard-to-fill locations. From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, OFO’s annual attrition rates for the CBP officer position were consistent at about 3 percent, while rates for Border Patrol agent and AMO’s Marine Interdiction Agent positions were below 5 percent in 4 out of the 5 fiscal years we reviewed. When we compared CBP’s annual attrition rates for these positions to those of other selected law enforcement agencies, we found that CBP’s attrition rates were similar to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) annual attrition rates for its law enforcement positions and generally lower than those of the Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Annual attrition rates for AMO’s aviation positions were higher, ranging from 5.0 percent to 9.2 percent for the Air Interdiction Agent position and 7.8 percent to 11.1 percent for the Aviation Enforcement Agent position. Even so, fiscal years 2015 through 2017, attrition rates for these positions have generally remained lower than those of the Secret Service and the Bureau of Prisons. In addition, from fiscal years 2013 through 2017, CBP’s ability to hire more law enforcement officers than it lost varied across positions. Specifically, CBP consistently hired more CBP officers and Aviation Enforcement Agents than it lost. Further, while CBP generally maintained its staffing levels for Marine Interdiction Agents, the agency consistently lost more Border Patrol agents and Air Interdiction Agents than it hired. Even so, onboard staffing levels for all five of CBP’s law enforcement officer positions have consistently remained below authorized staffing levels. CBP has acknowledged that improving its retention of qualified law enforcement personnel is critical in addressing staffing shortfalls, but CBP officials identified difficulties in retaining key law enforcement staff as a result of geographically-remote and hard-to-fill duty locations. CBP officials across all three operational components cited location—and specifically employees’ inability to relocate to posts in more desirable locations—as a primary challenge facing the agency in retaining qualified personnel. Border Patrol officials explained that duty stations in certain remote locations present retention challenges due to quality-of-life factors. For example, the officials told us that agents may not want to live with their families in an area without a hospital, with low-performing schools, or with relatively long commutes from their homes to their duty station. Border Patrol’s difficulty in retaining law enforcement staff in such locations is exacerbated by competition with other federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations for qualified personnel. According to Border Patrol officials, other agencies are often able to offer more desirable duty locations—such as major cities—and, in some cases, higher compensation. CBP data indicate that Border Patrol agents consistently leave the component for employment with other law enforcement agencies, including OFO as well as other DHS components such as ICE. For example, while retirements accounted for more than half of annual CBP officer losses from fiscal years 2013 through 2017, they accounted for less than a quarter of annual Border Patrol agent losses, indicating that the majority of these agents are not retiring but are generally leaving to pursue other employment. Further, according to CBP data, the number of Border Patrol agents departing for employment at other federal agencies increased steadily, from 75 agents in fiscal year 2013 to 348 agents in fiscal year 2017—or nearly 40 percent of all Border Patrol agent losses in that fiscal year. Border Patrol officials told us, for example, that working a standard day shift at ICE in a controlled indoor environment located in a major metropolitan area for similar or even lower salaries presents an attractive career alternative for Border Patrol agents who often work night shifts in extreme weather in geographically remote locations. The President of the National Border Patrol Council also cited this challenge, stating that unless Border Patrol agents have a strong incentive to remain in remote, undesirable locations—such as higher compensation when compared with other law enforcement agencies—they are likely to leave the agency for similar positions located in more desirable locations. While OFO officials told us the component did not face an across-the- board challenge in retaining CBP officers, they have had difficulty retaining officers in certain hard-to-fill locations that may be geographically remote or unattractive for families, such as Nogales, Arizona, and San Ysidro, California. As a result, CBP officer staffing levels in these locations have consistently remained below authorized targets. AMO has also had difficulty retaining its law enforcement personnel—and particularly its Air Interdiction Agent staff—in hard-to-fill locations, such as Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, and Laredo, Texas. However, given the unique qualifications and competencies required for the Air Interdiction Agent position, AMO does not compete with other law enforcement organizations. Instead, AMO officials told us they compete with the commercial airline industry for qualified pilots. Specifically, they stated that this competition is exacerbated by a nationwide shortage of pilots. In addition, AMO officials explained that there is a perception among applicants that commercial airlines are able to offer pilots more desirable locations and higher compensation. However, they told us that AMO generally provided pilots with higher starting salaries than many regional airlines as well as most career options available to helicopter pilots. CBP Has Taken Steps to Address Retention Challenges All three CBP operational components have taken steps to retain qualified law enforcement personnel by offering opportunities for employees to relocate to more desirable locations and pursuing the use of financial incentives, special salary rates, and other payments and allowances. Relocation opportunities. Border Patrol, OFO, and AMO have formal programs that provide law enforcement officers with opportunities to relocate. For example, in fiscal year 2017, Border Patrol implemented its Operational Mobility Program and received initial funding to relocate about 500 Border Patrol agents to new locations based on the component’s staffing needs. According to Border Patrol officials, retaining current employees is a top focus for leadership at the component and this program provides Border Patrol agents with opportunities for a paid relocation to a more desirable location at a lower cost to CBP than an official permanent change of station transfer. As of April 2018, Border Patrol officials told us that 322 Border Patrol agents had accepted reassignment opportunities through the program and the component hoped to continue receiving funding to provide these opportunities. Financial Incentives and Other Payments and Allowances. CBP’s three operational components have also taken steps to supplement employees’ salaries through the use of human capital flexibilities—such as retention and relocation incentives and special salary rates—as well as other payments and allowances. CBP’s goal in pursuing these human capital flexibilities is to retain current employees—especially in remote or hard-to-fill locations—who are likely to internally relocate within CBP to more desirable duty locations or depart the agency for similar positions at other law enforcement organizations or commercial airlines. However, we found that from fiscal years 2013 through 2017, CBP’s use of such financial incentives and other payments was limited, as the agency paid a total of four retention incentives and 13 relocation incentives, and implemented one special salary rate for all positions during this 5-year period. From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, Border Patrol did not offer retention incentives to agents and paid two relocation incentives to transfer Border Patrol agents to Artesia, New Mexico, and Washington, D.C., at a cost of roughly $78,000. However, in fiscal year 2018, Border Patrol increased its use of relocation incentives to facilitate the transfer of agents to duty stations along the southwest border that are less desirable due to the remoteness of the location and lack of basic amenities and infrastructure. Specifically, as of April 2018, 67 Border Patrol agents had received such incentives to relocate to duty stations in Ajo, Arizona; Calexico, California; and Big Bend, Texas; among others. While Border Patrol did not offer retention incentives during our review period, it submitted a formal request to CBP leadership in February 2018 for a 10 percent across-the-board retention incentive for all Border Patrol agents at the GS-13 level and below, which represents the majority of the component’s frontline workforce. According to Border Patrol documentation, these incentives, if implemented, could help reduce Border Patrol’s attrition rate—which has consistently outpaced its hiring rate—by helping retain agents who may have otherwise left Border Patrol for similar positions in OFO, ICE, or other law enforcement agencies. According to CBP officials, as of April 2018, CBP leadership was evaluating Border Patrol’s group retention incentive request, including the costs associated with implementing this 10 percent across-the-board incentive. In addition, as the incentive would benefit Border Patrol agents in all of the component’s duty locations, the extent to which this effort would be effective in targeting agent attrition in the remote locations that represent CBP’s largest staffing challenges remains to be seen. Border Patrol approved the 10 percent retention incentive and is awaiting funding for implementation, according to officials. From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, OFO paid a total of four retention incentives at a cost of $149,000 to retain CBP officers in Tucson, Arizona; Detroit, Michigan; Carbury, North Dakota; and Laredo, Texas. Further, OFO paid seven relocation incentives at a cost of approximately $160,000 to relocate personnel to the hard-to-fill ports of Alcan and Nome, Alaska; Coburn Grove, Maine; and Detroit, Michigan. One OFO official told us OFO did not regularly use these incentives because its relatively low annual attrition rates make it difficult to propose a persuasive business case to CBP leadership that such incentives are necessary. Further, another OFO official explained that OFO’s strategy is focused on using recruitment incentives to staff hard-to-fill locations with new employees. From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, AMO did not offer retention incentives to law enforcement personnel and paid a total of four relocation incentives to transfer three Air Interdiction Agents and one Marine Interdiction Agent to Puerto Rico at a cost of approximately $84,000. However, AMO has taken steps to pursue additional human capital flexibilities to address its difficulty in retaining Air Interdiction Agents, including a group retention incentive and a special salary rate. CBP Does Not Have a Systematic Process to Capture and Analyze Data on Departing Law Enforcement Officers In June 2018, we reported that CBP does not have a systematic process for capturing and analyzing information on law enforcement officers who are leaving, such as an exit interview or survey. As a result, the agency does not have important information it could use to help inform future retention efforts. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should obtain relevant data from reliable sources and process these data into quality information to make informed decisions in achieving key objectives. Taking steps to ensure that the agency’s operational components are systematically collecting and analyzing complete and accurate information on all departing law enforcement officers—including the factors that influenced their decision to separate—would better position CBP to understand its retention challenges and take appropriate action to address them. We recommended that CBP should ensure that its operational components systematically collect and analyze data on departing law enforcement officers and use this information to inform retention efforts. CBP agreed with the recommendation. CBP officials reported in February 2019 that they developed and implemented a CBP-wide exit survey in August 2018 and have taken steps to promote the survey and encourage exiting CBP employees to fill it out. The officials also noted that they plan to analyze the survey results on a quarterly basis starting in April 2019. These actions, if fully implemented, should address the intent of our recommendation. Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you or the members of the committee may have. GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments If you or your staff have any questions about this statement, please contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony are Adam Hoffman (Assistant Director), Bryan Bourgault, Sasan J. “Jon” Najmi, and Michelle Serfass. This is a w ork of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety w ithout further permission from GAO. How ever, because this w ork may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you w ish to reproduce this material separately.


Congress and Executive Branch Agencies Continue to Address Actions Identified over the Last 10 Years across the Federal Government, Resulting in Significant Benefits Congress and executive branch agencies have made consistent progress in addressing many of the actions we have identified since 2011, as shown in figure 2 and table 4. As of March 2020, Congress and executive branch agencies had fully or partially addressed nearly 80 percent of the actions we identified from 2011 to 2019. See GAO’s online Action Tracker for the status of all actions. Actions Taken by Congress and Executive Branch Agencies Led to Billions in Financial Benefits As a result of steps Congress and executive branch agencies have taken to address our open actions, we have identified approximately $429 billion in total financial benefits, including $166 billion identified since our last report. About $393 billion of the total benefits accrued between 2010 and 2019, while approximately $36 billion are projected to accrue in 2020 or later, as shown in figure 3. Since our first annual report in 2011, these benefits have contributed to missions across the federal government, as shown in figure 4. Table 5 highlights examples of results achieved in addressing actions we identified over the past 10 years. Other Benefits Resulting from Actions Taken by Congress and Executive Branch Agencies Our suggested actions, when implemented, often result in benefits such as strengthened program oversight; improvements in major government programs or agencies; more effective and equitable government; and increased international security. The following recent examples illustrate these types of benefits. Housing Assistance (2012-28): The federal government and state and local entities provide both rental assistance and affordable housing through a wide variety of programs. In February 2012, we found instances of fragmentation and overlap among federal rental assistance program. We recommended that the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) work with states and localities to develop an approach for compiling and reporting on the collective performance of federal, state, and local rental assistance programs. In 2019, Executive Order 13878 established the White House Council on Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing. The establishment of the council and the actions taken by HUD are positive steps for reaching out to states and localities and allowing Congress, decision makers, and stakeholders to evaluate collective performance data and provide mechanisms for setting priorities, allocating resources, and restructuring efforts, as needed, to achieve long-term housing goals. Military and Veterans Health Care (2012-15): The Departments of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs (VA) play key roles in offering support to servicemembers and veterans through various programs and activities. In 2012, we found that the departments needed to improve integration across care coordination and case management programs to reduce duplication and better assist servicemembers, veterans, and their families. We recommended that the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs develop and implement a plan to strengthen functional integration across all DOD and VA care coordination and case management. The departments took several steps between 2012 and 2019 to address this, including establishing a Care Coordination Business Line within their joint Health Executive Committee. This function is intended to develop mechanisms for making joint policy decisions, involve the appropriate decision makers for timely implementation of policy, and ensure that outcomes and goals are identified and achieved, among other things. By taking these steps, DOD and VA strengthen their oversight and more closely integrate care coordination efforts. Tax Policies and Enforcement (2015-17): Since 1980, partnerships’ and S corporations’ share of business receipts increased greatly. These entities generally do not pay income taxes; instead, income or losses (hundreds of billions of dollars annually) flow through to partners and shareholders on their personal income tax returns. In 2014, we found that the full extent of partnership and S corporation income misreporting is unknown. Electronic filed (e-filed) tax returns provide the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with digital information to improve enforcement operations and service to taxpayers. We recommended that Congress consider expanding the mandate that partnerships and corporations e-file their tax returns to cover a greater share of filed returns. In 2018, Congress passed and the President signed legislation lowering the e-file threshold for partnership and corporation returns. Requiring greater e-filing of tax return information will help IRS identify which partnership and corporation tax returns would be most productive to examine, and could reduce the number of compliant taxpayers selected for examination. Further, expanded e-filing will reduce IRS’s tax return processing costs. Coordination of Overseas Stabilization Efforts (2019-12): The United States has a national security interest in promoting stability in countries affected by violent conflict. We looked at how three federal agencies and an independent institute support conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization efforts, such as removing explosives hidden near homes. In 2019, we found that although these entities have worked together in Iraq, Nigeria, and Syria, they had not documented their agreement on key areas of collaboration, such as clarifying roles and responsibilities for stabilization efforts. We recommended that the Departments of State and Defense and the U.S. Agency for International Development should document their agreement to coordinate U.S. stabilization efforts. In 2019, the agencies took several steps to address this such as publishing a directive with the agreed upon definition of stabilization, description of agency roles and responsibilities, and related policies and guidance. Articulating their agreement in formal documents should help strengthen the agencies’ coordination of U.S. stabilization efforts and mitigate the risks associated with fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. Action on Remaining and New Areas Could Yield Significant Additional Benefits Congress and executive branch agencies have made progress toward addressing the 1,076 actions we have identified since 2011. However, further efforts are needed to fully address the 467 actions that are partially addressed, not addressed, or new. We estimate that at least tens of billions of dollars in additional financial benefits could be realized should Congress and executive branch agencies fully address open actions, and other improvements can be achieved as well. Open Areas Directed to Congress and Executive Branch Agencies with Potential Financial Benefits In our 2011 to 2020 annual reports, we directed 110 actions to Congress, including the three new congressional actions we identified in 2020. Of the 110 actions, 58 (about 53 percent) remained open as of March 2020. Appendix V has a full list of all open congressional actions. We also directed 966 actions to executive branch agencies, including 165 new actions identified in 2020. As shown in figure 5, these actions span the government and are directed to dozens of federal agencies. Six of these agencies—DOD, IRS, OMB, VA, and the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Homeland Security, have more than 20 open actions. Of the 966 actions, 409 (42 percent) remained open as of March 2020. A significant number of open actions are directed to four agencies that made up about 79 percent of federal outlays in fiscal year 2019—HHS, the Social Security Administration, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and DOD. Figure 6 highlights agencies with open actions as well as their fiscal year 2019 share of federal outlays. We identified potential financial benefits associated with many open areas with actions directed to Congress and the executive branch. These benefits range from millions of dollars to tens of billions of dollars. For example, DOD could potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars annually by accurately measuring and reducing excess funded, unfinished work at military depots. In another example, IRS should establish a formal collaborative mechanism with the Department of Labor to better manage fragmented efforts and enhance compliance for certain individual retirement accounts that engaged in prohibited transactions, and thereby potentially increase revenues by millions of dollars. Table 6 highlights examples of areas where additional action could potentially result in financial benefits of $1 billion or more. Open Areas with Other Benefits Directed to Congress and Executive Branch Agencies Table 7 shows selected areas where Congress and executive branch agencies can take action to achieve other benefits, such as increased public safety, and more effective delivery of services. This report was prepared under the coordination of Jessica Lucas-Judy, Director, Strategic Issues, who may be reached at (202) 512-9110 or lucasjudyj@gao.gov, and J. Christopher Mihm, Managing Director, Strategic Issues, who may be reached at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Specific questions about individual issues may be directed to the area contact listed at the end of each summary. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Section 21 of Public Law 111-139, enacted in February 2010, requires us to conduct routine investigations to identify federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities within departments and government-wide. This provision also requires us to report annually to Congress on our findings, including the cost of such duplication, with recommendations for consolidation and elimination to reduce duplication and specific rescissions (legislation canceling previously enacted budget authority) that Congress may wish to consider. Our objectives in this report are to (1) identify potentially significant areas of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication and opportunities for cost savings and enhanced revenues that exist across the federal government; (2) assess to what extent have Congress and executive branch agencies addressed actions in our 2011 to 2019 annual reports; and (3) highlight examples of open actions directed to Congress or key executive branch agencies. For the purposes of our analysis, we used the term “fragmentation” to refer to circumstances in which more than one federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad area of national need. We used the term “overlap” when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. We considered “duplication” to occur when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries. While fragmentation, overlap, and duplication are associated with a range of potential costs and benefits, we include them in this report only if there may be opportunities to improve how the government delivers these services. This report presents 18 new areas of fragmentation, overlap, or duplication where greater efficiencies or effectiveness in providing government services may be achievable. The report also highlights 11 other new opportunities for potential cost savings or revenue enhancements. In addition to these 29 new areas, we identified 88 new actions related to 10 existing areas presented in our 2011 to 2019 annual reports. To identify what actions, if any, exist to address fragmentation, overlap, and duplication and take advantage of opportunities for cost savings and enhanced revenues, we reviewed and updated our prior work and recommendations to identify what additional actions Congress may wish to consider and agencies may need to take. For example, we used our prior work identifying leading practices that could help agencies address challenges associated with interagency coordination and collaboration and with evaluating performance and results in achieving efficiencies. To identify the potential financial and other benefits that might result from actions addressing fragmentation, overlap, or duplication, or taking advantage of other opportunities for cost savings and enhanced revenues, we collected and analyzed data on costs and potential savings to the extent they were available. Estimating the benefits that could result from addressing these actions was not possible in some cases because information about the extent and impact of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among certain programs was not available. Further, the financial benefits that can be achieved from addressing fragmentation, overlap, or duplication or taking advantage of other opportunities for cost savings and enhanced revenues were not always quantifiable in advance of congressional and executive branch decision- making. In addition, the needed information was not readily available on, among other things, program performance, the level of funding devoted to duplicative programs, or the implementation costs and time frames that might be associated with program consolidations or terminations. As possible, we used partial data and conservative assumptions to provide rough estimates of potential savings magnitude, when more precise estimates were not possible. Appendix VI provides additional information on the federal programs or other activities related to the new areas of fragmentation, overlap, duplication, and cost savings or revenue enhancement discussed in this report, including budgetary information when available. We assessed the reliability of any computer-processed data that materially affected our findings, including cost savings and revenue enhancement estimates. The steps that we take to assess the reliability of data vary but are chosen to accomplish the auditing requirement that the data be sufficiently reliable given the purposes for which they are used in our products. We review published documentation about the data system and inspector general or other reviews of the data. We may interview agency or outside officials to better understand system controls and to assure ourselves that we understand how the data are produced and any limitations associated with the data. We may also electronically test the data to see whether values in the data conform to agency testimony and documentation regarding valid values, or we may compare data to source documents. In addition to these steps, we often compare data with other sources as a way to corroborate our findings. For each new area in this report, specific information on data reliability is located in the related products. We provided drafts of our new area summaries to the relevant agencies for their review and incorporated these comments as appropriate. Assessing the Status of Previously Identified Actions To examine the extent to which Congress and executive branch agencies have made progress in implementing the 908 actions in the approximately 325 areas we have reported on in previous annual reports on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, we reviewed relevant legislation and agency documents such as budgets, policies, strategic and implementation plans, guidance, and other information between April 2019 and March 2020. We also analyzed, to the extent possible, whether financial or other benefits have been attained, and included this information as appropriate (see discussion below on the methodology we used to estimate financial benefits.) In addition, we discussed the implementation status of the actions with officials at the relevant agencies. Throughout this report, we present our counts as of March 2020 because that is when we received our last updates. The progress statements and updates are published on GAO’s Action Tracker. We used the following criteria in assessing the status of actions: 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 during the current congressional session, 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. Actions suggested for Congress may also move to “addressed” or “partially addressed” with or without relevant legislation if an executive branch agency takes steps that address all or part of the action needed. At the beginning of a new congressional session, we reapply the criteria. As a result, the status of an action may move from partially addressed to not addressed if relevant legislation is not reintroduced from the prior congressional session. 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. Since 2011, we have categorized 80 actions as “other” and are no longer assessing these actions. We categorized 48 “other” actions as “consolidated or other.” In most cases, “consolidated or other” actions were replaced or subsumed by new actions based on additional audit work or other relevant information. We also categorized 32 of the “other” actions as “closed-not addressed.” Actions are generally “closed-not addressed” when the action is no longer relevant because of changing circumstances. Methodology for Generating Total Financial Benefits Estimates To calculate the total financial benefits resulting from actions already taken (addressed or partially addressed) and potential financial benefits from actions that are not fully addressed, we compiled available estimates for all of the actions from GAO’s Action Tracker, from 2011 through 2019, and from reports identified for inclusion in the 2020 annual report, and linked supporting documentation to those estimates. Each estimate was reviewed by one of our technical specialists to ensure that estimates were based on reasonably sound methodologies. The financial benefits estimates came from a variety of sources, including our analysis, Congressional Budget Office estimates, individual agencies, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and others. Because of differences in time frames, underlying assumptions, quality of data and methodologies among these individual estimates, any attempt to generate a total will be associated with uncertainty that limits the precision of this calculation. As a result, our totals represent a rough estimate of financial benefits, rather than an exact total. For actions that have already been taken, individual estimates of realized financial benefits covered a range of time periods stretching from 2010 through 2029. To calculate the total amount of realized financial benefits that have already accrued and those that are expected to accrue, we separated those that accrued from 2010 through 2019 and those expected to accrue between 2020 and 2029. For individual estimates that span both periods, we assumed that financial benefits were distributed evenly over the period of the estimate. For each category, we summed the individual estimates to generate a total. To account for uncertainty and imprecision resulting from the differences in individual estimates, we present these realized savings to the nearest billion dollars, rounded down. There is a higher level of uncertainty for estimates of potential financial benefits that could accrue from actions not yet taken because these estimates are dependent on whether, how, and when agencies and Congress take our recommended actions, or due to lack of sufficiently detailed data to make reliable forecasts. As a result, many estimates of potential savings are notionally stated using terms like millions, tens of millions, or billions, to demonstrate a rough magnitude without providing a more precise estimate. Further, many of these estimates are not tied to specific time frames for the same reason. To calculate a total for potential savings, with a conservative approach, we used the minimum number associated with each term. To account for the increased uncertainty of potential estimates and the imprecision resulting from differences among individual estimates, we calculated potential financial benefits to the nearest $10 billion, rounded down, and presented our results using a notional term. This report is based upon work we previously conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Generally accepted government auditing standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix II: New Areas in Which GAO Has Identified Fragmentation, Overlap, or Duplication This appendix presents 18 new areas in which we found evidence of fragmentation, overlap, or duplication among federal government programs. 1. Army Small Business Engagement Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to DOD for review and comment. In its response, DOD officials stated that Army Futures Command is taking the steps necessary to implement GAO’s recommendations, as reflected above. Related GAO Product Army Modernization: Army Futures Command Should Take Steps to Improve Small Business Engagement for Research and Development. GAO-19-511. Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2019. 2. DOD Privatization of Utility Services Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided DOD with a draft of this report section for comment. DOD provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. Related GAO Product DOD Utilities Privatization: Improved Data Collection and Lessons Learned Archive Could Help Reduce Time to Award Contracts. GAO-20- 104. Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2020. 3. SBA’s Microloan Program Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to SBA for review and comment. SBA stated it plans to continue to explore opportunities for collaboration with USDA and Treasury. SBA also provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. Related GAO Product SBA Microloan Program: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Program Performance Measurement, Collaboration, and Reporting. GAO-20-49. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2019. 4. Bank Secrecy Act Implementation Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to FinCEN for review and comment. In its comments, FinCEN continued to disagree with the recommendations and stated that no futures industry association had applied for BSA advisory group membership and that it advised CFTC staff on the areas that the National Futures Association should include as part of a request for direct BSA data access. GAO maintains that the recommendations are both valid, believes that FinCEN advising CFTC is a good first step, and will continue to monitor the implementation of these recommendations. Related GAO Product Bank Secrecy Act: Agencies and Financial Institutions Share Information but Metrics and Feedback Not Regularly Provided. GAO-19-582. Washington, D.C.: August 27, 2019. 5. DATA Act Data Governance Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to OMB for review and comment. OMB did not provide comments on this report section. Related GAO Products DATA Act: Quality of Data Submissions Has Improved but Further Action Is Needed to Disclose Known Data Limitations. GAO-20-75. Washington, D.C.: November 8, 2019. DATA Act: Data Standards Established, but More Complete and Timely Guidance Is Needed to Ensure Effective Implementation. GAO-16-261. Washington, D.C.: January 29, 2016. DATA Act: Progress Made in Initial Implementation but Challenges Must be Addressed as Efforts Proceed. GAO-15-752T. Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2015. 6. Federal Agencies’ Evidence-Building Activities Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), CNCS, Education, HHS, DOL, and USAID for review and comment. In its response, HHS provided documentation in February 2020 about the actions it plans to take—as part of its implementation of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act—to address the two recommendations directed to it. GAO will monitor HHS’s actions, which GAO believes would likely address its recommendations, if effectively implemented. CNCS and DOL informed GAO they had no comments on this report section. USAID provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated, as appropriate. OMB and Education did not provide comments. Related GAO Product Evidence-Based Policymaking: Selected Agencies Coordinate Activities, but Could Enhance Collaboration. GAO-20-119. Washington, D.C.: December 4, 2019. 7. Individual Retirement Accounts Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to IRS and DOL for review and comment. In their March 2020 responses, IRS and DOL stated that they agreed to formalize collaboration on IRA prohibited transactions. The new information sharing process will be documented in forthcoming DOL procedures. In addition, IRS provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. Related GAO Products Individual Retirement Accounts: IRS Could Better Inform Taxpayers About and Detect Noncompliance Related to Unconventional Assets, GAO-20-210. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2020. Individual Retirement Accounts: Formalizing Labor’s and IRS’s Collaborative Efforts Could Strengthen Oversight of Prohibited Transactions, GAO-19-495. Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2019. 8. IRS Third Party Cybersecurity Practices Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to IRS for review and comment. IRS did not provide comments on this report section. Related GAO Product Taxpayer Information: IRS Needs to Improve Oversight of Third Party Cybersecurity Practices. GAO-19-340. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2019. 9. Tax-Exempt Entities Compliance Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to IRS for review and comment. In February 2020, IRS sent GAO a response saying the agency is working to eliminate conditions that inhibit the agency’s ability to identify abusive tax schemes by evaluating existing database project codes to link data across audit divisions and improve the analysis of data monitoring and mining. Related GAO Product Tax-Law Enforcement: IRS Could Better Leverage Existing Data to Identify Abusive Schemes Involving Tax-Exempt Entities. GAO-19-491. Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2019. 10. Public Health and Medical Emergency Response Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for review and comment. HHS commented that ASPR will explore funding opportunities to support an exercise of its federal patient movement framework with its support agencies. In addition, HHS officials stated that ASPR would continue to support interagency liaison officers to provide updates on available resources. While GAO agrees that HHS should continue this practice, the misalignment GAO identified underscores that this was not adequate during the response to Hurricanes Irma and Maria in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Moreover, ASPR officials acknowledged that more needs to be done to better understand the resources available. Finally, HHS commented that ASPR has implemented air transportation contracts to begin decreasing its reliance on DOD. GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of these recommendations. Related GAO Product Disaster Response: HHS Should Address Deficiencies Highlighted by Recent Hurricanes in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. GAO-19- 592. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2019. 11. VA Long-Term Care Fragmentation Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to VA for review and comment. VA provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. Related GAO Product VA Health Care: Veterans’ Use of Long-Term Care Is Increasing, and VA Faces Challenges in Meeting the Demand. GAO-20-284. Washington, D.C.: February. 19, 2020. 12. Coast Guard Specialized Forces Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to Coast Guard, through DHS, for review and comment. The Coast Guard, through DHS, provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. The Coast Guard did not agree with the recommendation in its November 2019 response to GAO’s draft report. At that time, DHS further stated that GAO’s conclusions illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the corresponding missions of Specialized Forces units. GAO continues to maintain that overlapping capabilities among units could indicate inefficiencies in how units are used as well as missed opportunities for use in others. In its technical comments provided in March 2020, the Coast Guard indicated that as of February 2020 it had not conducted the analysis necessary to fully identify potential overlap among the units. The Coast Guard stated that it is planning to begin analyzing the units this fiscal year. In line with GAO’s recommendation to analyze potential overlap in capabilities, the Coast Guard should include the cost savings of shutting down a unit from each Specialized Force type and explain the impacts. Related GAO Product Coast Guard: Assessing Deployable Specialized Forces’ Workforce Needs Could Improve Efficiency and Reduce Potential Overlap or Gaps in Capabilities. GAO-20-33. Washington, D.C.: November 21, 2019. 13. DHS’s Processes for Apprehended Families Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to DHS for review and comment. DHS provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. Related GAO Product Southwest Border: Actions Needed to Address Fragmentation in DHS’s Processes for Apprehended Family Members. GAO-20-274. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 19, 2020. 14. National Strategy for Transportation Security Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to DHS for review and comment. TSA provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. Related GAO Product Transportation Security: DHS Should Communicate the National Strategy’s Alignment with Related Strategies to Guide Federal Efforts. GAO-20-88. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2019. 15. Surface Transportation Security Training Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to DHS for review and comment. DHS officials said DHS has taken initial actions to address GAO’s recommendation, including updating the related Standard Operating Procedure. GAO believes this is a good first step and will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation. Related GAO Product Surface Transportation: TSA Should Improve Coordination Procedures for Its Security Training Program. GAO-20-185. Washington, D.C.: November 20, 2019. 16. U.S. Assistance to Central America Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to State for review and comment. In its February 2020 response, State did not comment specifically on whether it agreed with GAO’s revised recommendation. However, it reiterated its disagreement with aspects of the underlying GAO report’s objectives, scope, and methodology. GAO addressed this disagreement in detail in its report and maintains that GAO’s approach provided a reliable and reasonably comprehensive review of the results of U.S. assistance to the Northern Triangle toward achieving key U.S. objectives set forth in the Strategy. Related GAO Product U.S. Assistance to Central America: Department of State Should Establish a Comprehensive Plan to Assess Progress toward Prosperity, Governance, and Security. GAO-19-590. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2019. 17. Public Access to Federally Funded Research Results Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to Defense, Energy, and the Departments of Commerce (for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and Health and Human Services (for the National Institutes of Health), as well as the National Science Foundation and OSTP for review and comment. The National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. OSTP said it had no further comments, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Defense, and Energy did not provide comments. Related GAO Product Federal Research: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Public Access to Research Results. GAO-20-81. Washington, D.C.: November 21, 2019. 18. USDA’s Nutrition Education Efforts Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to USDA for review and comment. USDA officials took issue with the characterization of their nutrition education efforts as fragmented, stating that coordination must consider the legislative authority each program has to deliver nutrition education to meet the needs of program target populations and audiences. GAO agrees that a consideration of each program’s legislative authority is important. However, GAO believes that USDA could address the fragmentation GAO identified, which refers to the involvement of multiple USDA agencies and programs in administering the department’s nutrition education efforts, consistent with a consideration of program authority. USDA officials continue to agree that the department needs to improve coordination of its nutrition education efforts. USDA officials described initial actions the department has taken to address GAO’s recommendation, including establishing a nutrition education working group that represents agencies across the department and planning an intradepartmental workshop that will include a focus on nutrition education. In addition, USDA issued the USDA Science Blueprint to outline the department’s nutrition science implementation strategies and nutrition and health promotion objectives. GAO will continue to monitor implementation of this recommendation. Further, GAO will monitor the role of the nutrition education working group going forward and consider the extent to which it provides cross- department leadership for USDA’s nutrition education efforts. Related GAO Product Nutrition Education: USDA Actions Needed to Assess Effectiveness, Coordinate Programs, and Leverage Expertise. GAO-19-572. Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2019. Appendix III: New Areas in Which GAO Has Identified Other Cost Savings or Revenue Enhancement Opportunities This appendix summarizes 11 new areas for Congress or executive branch agencies to consider taking action that could either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collections for the Treasury. This page is intentionally left blank. 19. Defense Agencies and DOD Field Activities Reform Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to DOD for review and comment. DOD commented that the department will continue to work on improving its monitoring and evaluation of its efficiency and reform initiatives. Related GAO Product DOD Needs to Address Inefficiencies and Implement Reform across Its Defense Agencies and DOD Field Activities. GAO-18-592. Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2018. 20. DOD Maintenance Depot Funding Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this section to the DOD for review and comment. DOD did not provide comments on this report section. Related GAO Product Depot Maintenance: DOD Should Adopt a Metric That Provides Quality Information on Funded Unfinished Work. GAO-19-452. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2019. 21. Ginnie Mae’s Mortgage-Backed Securities Program Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to Ginnie Mae for review and comment. Ginnie Mae did not have any comments on the draft but noted that it is working diligently on the recommendations. Related GAO Product Ginnie Mae: Risk Management and Staffing-Related Challenges Need to Be Addressed. GAO-19-191. Washington, D.C.: April 3, 2019. 22. IRS Tax Debt Collection Contracts Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation Related GAO Product GAO provided a draft of this report section to IRS for review and comment. IRS’s technical comments were incorporated above. Tax Debt Collection Contracts: IRS Analysis Could Help Improve Program Results and Better Protect Taxpayers. GAO-19-193. Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2019. 23. Virtual Currency Tax Information Reporting Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to IRS for review and comment. In its response, IRS stated that it is working with Treasury on guidance to address third-party reporting on certain taxable transactions involving virtual currency. GAO will review this guidance when it is available. Related GAO Product Virtual Currencies: Additional Information Reporting and Clarified Guidance Could Improve Tax Compliance. GAO-20-188. Washington, D.C: February 12, 2020. 24. Medicaid Provider Enrollment Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to CMS for review and comment. In its written comments, CMS provided an update on its actions to address the first recommendation, which GAO incorporated. CMS did not provide information on the second recommendation. GAO will continue to monitor CMS’s implementation of these recommendations. Related GAO Product Medicaid Providers: CMS Oversight Should Ensure State Implementation of Screening and Enrollment Requirements. GAO-20-8. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2019. 25. VA Allocation of Health Care Funding Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to VA for review and comment. VA did not provide comments on this report section. Related GAO Product Veterans Health Care: VA Needs to Improve Its Allocation and Monitoring of Funding. GAO-19-670. Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2019. 26. Open Source Software Program Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to DOD for review and comment. DOD explained that current policy allows and encourages the use of open source software where it meets agency needs. In addition, DOD stated that GAO’s recommendations focus on DOD's role as a producer, rather than as a consumer, of open source software. A DOD official explained that it is not reasonable to conclude that the projected savings will result from the implementation of GAO’s recommendations. However, DOD entities can consume open source software that other DOD entities produce. GAO maintains that this very consumption of open source software developed elsewhere in DOD could reduce development costs and potentially produce overall cost savings. Related GAO Product Information Technology: DOD Needs to Fully Implement Program for Piloting Open Source Software. GAO-19-457. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2019. 27. DOD Oversight of Foreign Reimbursements Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to DOD for review and comment. DOD did not provide comments on this report section. Related GAO Product Defense Logistics Agreement: DOD Should Improve Oversight and Seek Payment from Foreign Partners for Thousands of Orders It Identifies as Overdue. GAO-20-309. Washington, D.C.: March 4, 2020. 28. Drawback Program Modernization Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation GAO provided a draft of this report section to CBP for review and comment. CBP provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated, as appropriate. Related GAO Product Customs and Border Protection: Risk Management for Tariff Refunds Should Be Improved. GAO-20-182. Washington, D.C.: December 17, 2019. 29. Student Loan Income-Driven Repayment Plans Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation Related GAO Product GAO provided a draft of this report section to Education for review and comment. Education provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated. Federal Student Loans: Education Needs to Verify Borrowers’ Information for Income-Driven Repayment Plans. GAO-19-347. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2019. Appendix IV: New Actions Added to Existing Areas We are adding 88 new actions based on GAO reports that fall within the scope of 10 existing areas identified in prior annual reports. Navy Shipbuilding In March 2020, GAO identified 12 actions for the Navy to improve its acquisition practices and ensure ships can be efficiently sustained, potentially saving billions of dollars. addressed, one action has been partially addressed, and one action has not been addressed. See the Action Tracker for more information. GAO reported in March 2020 on challenges identifying, evaluating, and mitigating ship sustainment risks during the acquisition process for every new warship class—such as aircraft carriers and submarines—that, if fixed, could save billions of dollars. GAO found 150 examples of systemic maintenance problems, such as failed engines and non-functional plumbing. To correct just 30 percent of these problems, GAO found that it would cost the Navy $4.2 billion. Many of these problems could have been prevented with some attention to future maintenance concerns when designing and building the ships. GAO also found that the Navy underestimated the costs to maintain some ships by $130 billion. GAO made 11 recommendations to help the Navy focus on maintenance earlier and one suggestion to Congress to enhance oversight. New Actions: GAO recommended in March 2020 that the Department of Defense (DOD) improve its policy for setting sustainment requirements and the Navy then revisit its requirements to comply with the new policy. GAO also recommended that DOD and the Navy take steps to improve sustainment in the acquisition process. GAO also asked Congress to consider developing an oversight mechanism for evaluating shipbuilding programs sustainment cost estimate growth during the acquisition process. While GAO cannot precisely estimate the financial benefits from these actions, if the Navy could eliminate some of the sustainment problems and even 1 percent of the maintenance cost growth GAO identified, it could amount to billions of dollars in savings. Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation: DOD agreed with eight and partially agreed with three recommendations. GAO provided a draft of this report section to DOD for comment. DOD provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. In September 2019, GAO identified two new actions to improve the Department of the Interior’s valuations of offshore oil and gas resources, each of which could increase the amount of revenue collected by tens of millions of dollars annually. partially addressed, and two actions have not been addressed. See the Action Tracker for more information. Production of oil and gas in federal waters generated about $90 billion in revenue from 2006 through 2018 including from industry bids for leasing rights. However, GAO found that the Department of the Interior’s (Interior) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) undervalues federal offshore oil and gas resources, leading it to collect less bid revenue than it otherwise would. Specifically, the bureau (1) forecast unreasonably high levels of depreciation on lease value between lease sales, which lowered bid revenue by about $873 million from March 2000 through June 2018; and (2) adjusted some valuations downward to justify accepting bids, which lowered bid revenue by about $567 million over the same time period. New Actions: The bureau Director should (1) enlist an independent third party to examine the extent to which the bureau's depreciation forecasts assure the receipt of fair market value, and make changes as appropriate; and (2) take steps to ensure that the bureau’s bid valuation process is not biased toward adjusting valuations downward. In its comments on the report, Interior disagreed with the first recommendation and partially agreed with the second, disagreeing with GAO’s characterization of BOEM’s delayed valuations and valuation process, respectively. GAO maintains that taking each of the recommended actions would better ensure a fair return on the sale of offshore oil and gas leases by better ensuring BOEM’s thresholds for accepting bids are sound and unbiased. Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation: GAO provided a draft of this report section to Interior for review and comment. In its March 2020 response, Interior indicated that (1) although it disagrees with the first recommendation, it will conduct an in-house review and have it peer-reviewed; and (2) it now agrees with the second recommendation. In April 2019, GAO identified two actions the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Coast Guard can take to improve fragmented interagency coordination of lessons learned following disasters. and two actions have been partially addressed. See the Action Tracker for more information. GAO found that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) had fragmented approaches to identifying interagency challenges and lessons learned related to disaster contracting, resulting in these findings not being communicated to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Emergency Support Function Leadership Group—the group tasked with identifying interagency lessons learned following disasters. FEMA officials stated that it is up to each agency to elevate issues to the group; however, GAO found that neither USACE nor USCG had formal processes for doing so. Identifying and communicating lessons learned would help better manage fragmentation and enhance agencies’ abilities to address weaknesses in disaster response. New Actions: To help address fragmentation and ensure that challenges are communicated across departments, GAO recommended in April 2019 that the Secretary of the Army should direct the Commanding General of USACE to, and that the Commandant of USCG should, establish formal processes to solicit input from officials directly involved in the agencies' response and recovery following a disaster and to share that input with the Emergency Support Function Leadership Group. Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation: USACE and USCG concurred with GAO’s recommendations and planned to implement them this year. GAO provided a draft of this report section to USACE and USCG for review and comment. USCG said it is reviewing lessons learned and the after-action reporting process to update its policy. USACE indicated it updated its guidance to incorporate specific steps to communicate lessons learned with FEMA’s Emergency Support Function Leadership Group and that the guidance would be finalized spring 2020. GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of these recommendations. In March 2020, GAO identified a new action to improve the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s working capital fund and better position it to achieve over $1 million in previously identified potential annual savings. Three actions have not been addressed, and one action has been partially addressed. See the Action Tracker for more information. Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Working Capital Fund (WCF) provides a mechanism to centralize and fund federal shared services used across offices and agencies within HUD. One of the WCF’s goals is to support the efficient delivery of goods and services. GAO found that HUD does not assess the results of the WCF’s business process analyses, which are used to identify opportunities for efficiencies. For example, these analyses identified actionable ways to reduce high volumes of transactions for certain services, such as calls to help desks to manually reset passwords, which contribute to increased costs. Assessing the results of these analyses would help HUD better understand how the WCF’s efforts contribute to its goal. New Action: GAO recommended that the Secretary of HUD, in conjunction with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, should ensure that the results of the business process analyses are assessed to better determine how these analyses contribute to its goal of efficient delivery of goods and services. While GAO cannot estimate the potential savings that would result, taking this action could help the WCF achieve over $1 million in potential annual savings already identified by WCF recommendations and to identify additional potential savings. Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation: GAO provided a draft of this report section to HUD for review and comment. HUD agreed and said it would address this recommendation in 2020, including adding the results of the business process analyses to its performance measures. In June 2019, GAO identified a new action that could improve oversight of disaster relief funds and long- standing problems of improper payments, which could result in significant cost savings. consolidated, one action has been partially addressed, and two actions have not been addressed. See the Action Tracker for more information. Agencies must distribute disaster relief aid quickly following hurricanes, wildfires, or other natural disasters, but quickly spending billions of dollars can increase the risk of improper payments. In June 2019, GAO reported that one of six selected agencies did not submit required internal control plans to Congress for funds appropriated following the 2017 disasters. Of the five agencies that did submit the required plans, four were not timely and all lacked necessary information, such as how they met Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance and federal internal control standards. These issues were caused, in part, because OMB lacked an effective strategy for helping agencies develop internal control plans for overseeing these funds. New Action: GAO recommended in June 2019 that the Director of OMB, after consulting with key stakeholders, should develop a strategy for ensuring that agencies communicate sufficient and timely internal control plans for effective oversight of disaster relief funds. Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation: OMB disagreed with this recommendation and stated that it does not believe timeliness and sufficiency of internal control plans present material issues that warranted OMB action; however, GAO continues to believe that future internal control plans could serve as a critical transparency tool for controls over disaster funds. GAO provided a draft of this report section to OMB for review and comment. In its response, OMB continued to disagree that this recommendation is needed. GAO believes this action is needed for oversight of disaster funds. In January 2020, GAO identified three new actions to help the Internal Revenue Service prevent refund fraud associated with identity theft. If implemented, these actions could potentially save millions of dollars. more information. Business identity theft refund fraud (business IDT) occurs when thieves create, use, or try to use a business’ identifying information to claim a tax refund. Between January 2017 and August 2019, the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) fraud detection tools helped prevent $384 million from being paid to fraudsters. However, GAO found IRS could do more to combat business IDT. In January 2020, GAO found that, inconsistent with leading practices, IRS had not designated an entity to design and oversee business IDT fraud risk management efforts, conducted a fraud risk assessment, or developed a fraud risk profile to document the results of its risk assessment. Addressing these issues could help IRS identify and implement more effective controls to detect and prevent business IDT. While GAO cannot precisely estimate the financial benefits associated with this action, even a 1 percent increase in fraud prevention could amount to millions in financial benefits. New Actions: In January 2020, GAO recommended that consistent with leading practices, IRS (1) designate a dedicated entity to oversee agency-wide business IDT efforts; (2) develop a fraud risk profile for business IDT; and (3) document and implement a strategy for addressing fraud risks identified in its fraud risk profile. Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation: GAO provided a draft of the January 2020 report to IRS for review and comment. IRS generally agreed, but did not provide details on the actions it plans to take to address these recommendations. IRS also did not provide comments on this report section. In January 2020, GAO identified a new action to help the Department of Veterans Affairs assess duplication in its medical supply program. partially addressed. See the Action Tracker for more information. In January 2020, GAO found that the Medical Surgical Prime Vendor program duplicates parts of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Federal Supply Schedule program. VA spends billions of dollars annually on procurement of medical supplies to support care for veterans at its 170 medical centers but has not assessed whether its efforts are duplicative. VA procures medical supplies through both its own Medical Surgical Prime Vendor program and through the Federal Supply Schedule program—a government-wide program, parts of which the General Services Administration has long delegated to VA. However, VA has not assessed whether duplication across these programs is necessary or if efficiencies could be gained. GAO cannot estimate the savings that might be associated with this action because such savings will be dependent on whether, when, and how VA takes action. New Action: GAO recommended that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should take steps to assess duplication between VA’s Medical- Surgical Prime Vendor and Federal Supply Schedule programs to determine if this duplication is necessary or if efficiencies can be gained. Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation: VA agreed with this recommendation. GAO provided a draft of this report section to VA for review and comment. VA provided technical comments which GAO incorporated as appropriate. In November 2019, GAO identified two new actions to help reduce the risk of duplicate funding in emergency relief assistance for transit agencies. addressed, two actions have been partially addressed, and one action has not been addressed. See the Action Tracker for more information. In 2017, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to U.S. public transit facilities. Both the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have the authority to provide disaster assistance funding to transit agencies, but FTA has primary responsibility if it receives an appropriation from Congress for its Public Transportation Emergency Relief program. FTA did not receive an appropriation until roughly 6 months after the first hurricane’s landfall, thus transit agencies could initially apply to FEMA for assistance. In November 2019, GAO found that although FTA and FEMA coordinated efforts, both agencies still approved about $35,000 to one applicant for the same expenses in 2019. While the amount of funding in question was relatively small, without addressing the challenge of identifying transit expenses in FEMA applications, FTA and FEMA will continue to face the risk that both agencies will approve funding for the same expense in the future. New Actions: GAO recommended in November 2019 that FTA and FEMA identify and develop controls, such as methods to more easily identify transit expenses within applications FEMA receives, to address the risk of duplicate funding. Agency Comments and GAO’s Evaluation: The Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agreed with this recommendation and outlined steps they plan to take to address it. GAO provided a draft of this report section to DOT and DHS for review and comment. DOT said it did not have comments on this report section. DHS provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. In April 2019, GAO identified 28 new actions to help agencies save millions of dollars through better planning and implementation of cloud-based computing solutions. Two actions have been addressed. See the Action Tracker for more information including applicable agencies. Beginning in 2012, federal agencies were required to assess all IT investments for cloud computing services, and from 2014 to 2018, agencies reported $291 million in cloud-related savings. For example, agencies reported saving as much as $15 million migrating email systems to cloud services. However, GAO reported that 12 of the 16 agencies reviewed had not completed their assessments and that savings data were unavailable for 84 percent of the 488 cloud investments reviewed. Improving the assessment of investments for cloud services and tracking related savings can help agencies make better decisions regarding cloud acquisitions and potentially save millions of dollars from implementing cloud services. New actions: GAO made 28 recommendations in April 2019 to all 16 agencies, including that (1) 12 agencies should complete an assessment of all of their IT investments for suitability for migration to a cloud computing service, in accordance with OMB guidance; and (2) 16 agencies should ensure that their respective Chief Information Officers establish a consistent and repeatable mechanism to track savings and cost avoidances from the migration and deployment of cloud services. Fourteen agencies agreed with all recommendations, the Department of the Treasury neither agreed nor disagreed, and the Department of Defense agreed with the recommendation on completing assessments, but not with the recommendation on tracking savings. Agency comments and GAO’s evaluation: GAO provided a draft of this report section to the 16 agencies for review and comment. One agency agreed, 13 agencies had no comments, and two neither agreed nor disagreed. Additionally, seven of the 16 agencies are taking actions to address GAO’s recommendations. In April 2019, GAO identified 36 new actions to help federal agencies meet the Office of Management and Budget’s data center consolidation and optimization goals, resulting potentially in hundreds of millions of dollars in savings. original two actions in this area. See the Action Tracker for more information. Federal agencies operate thousands of data centers and, since 2010, have been required to close unneeded facilities and improve the performance of the remaining centers. This effort is currently known as the Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI). Since 2010, agencies have closed 6,250 centers and reported $4.2 billion in savings. However, only two of 24 agencies in GAO’s review planned to fully meet the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) September 2018 government-wide optimization goals, such as determining how much time data servers sit unused and how effectively data centers use power. New actions: GAO made 36 recommendations in April 2019 to 22 of the 24 agencies in its review, including that (1) 11 agencies should meet DCOI’s data center closure targets; (2) four agencies should meet DCOI’s data center-related cost savings targets and one should identify additional cost savings opportunities; and (3) 20 agencies should meet DCOI’s data center optimization metric targets. While GAO cannot precisely estimate the potential savings of taking these actions, combined estimates from agencies for similar prior actions exceeded $100 million per year, suggesting potential for hundreds of millions of dollars in additional savings over time. In June 2019, OMB significantly revised DCOI’s goals and performance measures and GAO continues to monitor agencies’ progress against these new targets. Agency comments and GAO’s evaluation: GAO provided a draft of this report section to 22 agencies for review and comment. Two agencies agreed, seven neither agreed nor disagreed, and 13 agencies had no comments. Additionally, two agencies have taken action to fully address the recommendations and the remaining 20 agencies are taking actions to address GAO’s recommendations. In our 2011 to 2020 annual reports, we directed 110 actions to Congress, of which 58 remain open. Thirty-five have been addressed and 17 were closed as not addressed or consolidated. Of the 58 open congressional actions, 15 are partially addressed and 43 are not addressed, as of March 2020 (see figure 10). The tables below have more information on the 58 open congressional actions. Our Action Tracker downloadable spreadsheet (available in XLSX or CSV formats) has information on all actions. Appendix VI: Additional Information on Programs Identified This appendix provides additional information on the federal programs or other activities related to the new areas of fragmentation, overlap, duplication, cost savings, or revenue enhancement discussed in this report, including budgetary information when available. “Programs” may include grants, initiatives, centers, loans, and other types of assistance or projects. This information can provide useful context for the issues we identified, but limitations should be noted. It is not always possible to report budgetary information at the specific program or activity level because agency budgets are not organized by programs, but rather by appropriations accounts. In those instances, we reported the most reliable and available data for the most recent fiscal year or we did not report budgetary information. Further, because this report discusses various programs or activities, each table may report different types of budgetary information, such as obligations, collections, or outlays. Because of the limitations described above, the budgetary information reported in this appendix should not be totaled and does not represent potential cost savings for all programs.