This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-531T 
entitled 'Human Services Programs: Opportunities to Reduce 
Inefficiencies' which was released on April 5, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and 
Means, House of Representatives: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:
Tuesday, April 5, 2011: 

Human Services Programs: 

Opportunities to Reduce Inefficiencies: 

Statement of Kay E. Brown, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security: 

GAO-11-531T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-531T, a testimony to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The federal government, often in concert with states, provides 
assistance to millions of individuals and families each year through a 
multiplicity of programs. These programs play a key role in supporting 
workers who have lost their jobs, families with low-incomes, and 
vulnerable children who have experienced abuse and neglect. However, 
given the fiscal pressures facing the federal government and the 
continued demands placed on assistance programs, it is critical that 
programs designed to serve those most in need provide benefits and 
services as effectively and efficiently as possible. In light of 
concerns about fragmentation, duplication, and overlap in government 
programs, this testimony addresses: (1) the key characteristics of 
some programs and tax expenditures that provide assistance to 
individuals and families; (2) problems in administering and providing 
services through multiple programs; and (3) actions that may help 
address these problems. We focused on programs under the jurisdiction 
of the Subcommittee of Human Resources and some related programs and 
tax expenditures for children and working-age adults; we developed an 
illustrative but not all-inclusive list of these programs. We relied 
on work conducted between 2001 and 2011, which employed an array of 
methodologies. These included surveys of federal and state officials; 
site visits to states and local areas; interviews with local, state, 
and federal officials; and analysis of agency data and documents. 

What GAO Found: 

Various federal programs and tax expenditures exist to assist 
individuals and families by providing income support, child care, and 
child welfare services. Other programs help meet these households’ 
needs in other areas, such as health and nutrition. Overall, several 
congressional committees as well as six federal agencies oversee these 
programs at the federal level, while federal agencies, state and local 
agencies, as well as for-profit and nonprofit agencies directly 
provide services at the local level. Families can receive benefits 
from one or more of these programs. For example, a low-income family 
may be eligible for and receive income support through Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Earned Income Tax Credit 
(EITC), and Child Support Enforcement, as well as subsidized child 
care assistance. 

This array of programs plays a key role in supporting those in need, 
but our work has shown it to be too fragmented and overly complex—for 
clients to navigate, for program operators to administer efficiently, 
and for program managers and policymakers to assess program 
performance. Individuals often must visit multiple offices to apply 
for aid and provide the same information and documentation each time—a 
process that is cumbersome and inefficient. The complexity and 
variation in eligibility rules and other requirements among programs 
contribute to time-consuming and duplicative administrative processes 
that add to overall costs. Some programs provide similar services 
through separate programs, resulting in additional inefficiencies. For 
example, we recently reported that TANF, Workforce Investment Act 
Adult (WIA Adult), and Employment Service (ES) programs often maintain 
separate administrative structures to provide some of the same 
services and activities, such as job search assistance, to low-income 
individuals. In addition, gaps in information can hamper program 
oversight. 

Approaches such as simplifying policies, improving technology, and 
fostering innovation and evaluation can improve services and reduce 
costs. Simplifying policies can improve productivity and help staff 
focus more time on activities such as ensuring the accuracy of 
benefits. Facilitating technology enhancements can streamline 
eligibility processes and improve program integrity. In addition, 
fostering state innovation and evaluation can help the federal 
government and policymakers determine which approaches are the most 
cost-effective and limit investment in unproven strategies. 
Because federal programs have evolved over time to meet various needs, 
it is not surprising to see multiple programs with some fragmentation 
of administration, some overlap in populations served, and some 
duplication of services offered. These features may be warranted, for 
example, to ensure quality services are provided and certain 
populations are served. However, our work indicates that further 
exploration of the extent of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication 
could help better identify ways to streamline and improve programs and 
to reduce inefficiencies. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-531T] or key 
components. For more information, contact Kay E. Brown at (202) 512-
7215 or brownke@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Doggett, and Members of the 
Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work related to some of 
the nation's most essential programs--under the jurisdiction of this 
Subcommittee--designed to aid American households. The federal 
government, often in concert with states, provides assistance to those 
who have lost their jobs, families with low-incomes, and vulnerable 
children who have experienced abuse and neglect at the hands of their 
parents. As important as these programs are at all times, several of 
them have played key roles as the number of households in need has 
risen to record levels and program expenditures increased to meet this 
heightened need. At the same time, the federal government is facing a 
structural imbalance in its budget, causing policymakers to carefully 
consider the effectiveness and efficiency of all federal programs. In 
particular, concerns have been raised about the multiplicity of 
programs that may show signs of fragmentation, overlap, and 
duplication that could introduce inefficiencies and increase costs. I 
am pleased to be here today to help shed light on how these concerns 
pertain to this array of programs. My statement draws on our previous 
work that identified inefficiencies among several programs that, taken 
together, serve as the nation's safety net for children and working-
age adults in need of temporary or longer-term aid. In this testimony, 
I will refer to these as human services programs. 

My testimony today addresses three questions: 

1. What are the key characteristics of some programs and tax 
expenditures that provide assistance to individuals and families in 
need? 

2. What is known about problems in administering and providing 
services through multiple programs? 

3. What actions may help address these problems? 

For this testimony, we focused on several of the programs under the 
jurisdiction of the Subcommittee that provide assistance to 
individuals and families with low incomes, in need of child welfare 
services, and experiencing a job loss. We generally did not include 
programs targeted to the elderly. We also refer to a few related tax 
expenditures under the jurisdiction of the full committee.[Footnote 1] 
In addition, we refer to some programs under the jurisdiction of other 
committees that often provide assistance to these types of households 
also. We had not previously developed a comprehensive list of 
programs, including outlay programs and tax expenditures, that is 
aligned with the Subcommittee's interests. For purposes of this 
hearing we have drawn upon prior work and our subject matter knowledge 
to develop an illustrative but not all-inclusive list of such 
programs. We generally sought to illustrate the wide variety of such 
programs that can help address the needs of this population. We did 
not conduct any legal analysis in order to identify the programs or to 
determine their administration, objectives, funding, requirements, or 
goals. 

To address the objectives, we drew upon reports we issued between 2001 
and 2011. In this work, we have employed an array of methodologies, 
including surveys of federal and state officials; site visits to 
states and local areas; interviews with local, state, and federal 
officials; and analysis of agency data and documents. We conducted our 
work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those 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 we obtained provides a reasonable basis 
for our findings and conclusions. 

We issued a report on March 1, 2011,[Footnote 2] outlining 
opportunities to reduce duplication across a wide range of federal 
programs, raising attention to these issues. That report was prepared 
in response to a new statutory requirement that GAO identify and 
report annually on federal programs, agencies, offices, and 
initiatives--either within departments or governmentwide--that have 
duplicative goals and activities.[Footnote 3] In that work, we also 
considered fragmentation and overlap among government programs or 
activities as these can be harbingers of unnecessary duplication. 
Fragmentation of programs exists when programs serve the same broad 
area of need but are administered across different federal agencies or 
offices. Program overlap exists when multiple agencies or programs 
have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to 
achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. Unnecessary duplication 
of program services can occur when two or more programs are engaged in 
the same activities or provide the same services to the same 
beneficiaries, and this can in turn result in inefficient service 
delivery and unnecessary program costs. 

A Multiplicity of Programs Exist to Meet the Needs of Individuals and 
families: 

A range of programs and tax expenditures assist individuals and 
families. Programs under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Human 
Resources can roughly be grouped under three missions for children and 
working-age adults: providing income support, providing child care, 
and providing child welfare services. Other key programs address other 
needs of these households, such as Medicaid, housing, nutrition 
assistance, and Workforce Investment Act (WIA) employment and training 
programs. These programs fall under the jurisdiction of four other 
House committees. In addition, a wide array of tax expenditures assist 
individuals and families in these areas. Figure 1 shows an 
illustrative set of programs and tax expenditures. 

Figure 1: Illustrative Human Services Programs and Tax Expenditures: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

For individuals and families: 

Income support: 
* Unemployment Insurance (UI); 
* Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); 
* Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC); 
* Supplemental Security Income (SSI); 
* Child Support Enforcement. 

Child welfare: 
Foster Care; 
* Adoption Assistance; 
* Kinship Guardian Assistance; 
* Child Welfare Services Program; 
* Child Protective Services; 
* Adoption Tax Credit; 
* Promoting Safe and Stable Families; 
* Subsidized Child Care. 

Child care: 
* Dependent Care Tax Credit; 
* Social Services Block Grant. 

Other supports: 
* Workforce Investment Act programs (WIA); 
* Nutrition Assistance programs; 
* Housing programs; 
* Medicaid. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency documents. 

Note: This does not represent an exhaustive list of all relevant 
programs in these areas. In addition, while the figure includes a few 
of the related tax expenditures in the areas of income support, child 
welfare, and child care, it is not an exhaustive list of tax 
expenditures in these areas or of those related to other supports, 
such as health and housing. While TANF and the Social Services Block 
Grant funds may be spent in categories in which they appear, their 
funds may also be used to meet a variety of needs. 

[End of figure] 

Various federal agencies are responsible for the oversight of these 
programs and tax expenditures, as shown in figure 2. In addition, 
while the federal government is involved in some aspects of the design 
and funding of each of these supports, state governments are sometimes 
responsible for directly administering the benefits and services. For 
example, while SSI is directly administered by federal employees 
within the Social Security Administration, UI, TANF, subsidized child 
care, and various other programs are overseen by state governments and 
directly administered by state and, in some cases, local government 
employees as well as by nonprofit and for-profit entities. 

Figure 2: Roles of Federal and State Agencies in Oversight and 
Administration of an Illustrative Set of Human Services Programs and 
Tax Expenditures: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Department of Agriculture: 
* State agencies: 
- Nutrition Assistance programs. 

Department of Health & Human Services: 
* State agencies: 
- TANF; 
- Subsidized Child Care; 
- Foster Care; 
- Adoption Assistance; 
- Kinship Guardian Assistance; 
- Child Welfare Services Program; 
- Child Protective Services; 
- Child Support Enforcement; 
- Medicaid; 
- Social Services Block Grant; 
- Promoting Safe and Stable Families. 

Department of Housing & Urban Development: 
* Housing programs. 

Department of Labor: 
* State agencies: 
- UI; 
- WIA. 

Social Security Administration: 
* SSI. 

Department of the Treasury: 
* EITC; 
* Dependent Care Tax Credit; 
* Adoption Tax Credit. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency documents. 

Note: This does not represent an exhaustive list of all human services 
programs or related tax expenditures. 

[End of figure] 

Across some of the programs and tax expenditures under the 
jurisdiction of the Subcommittee and Committee, key characteristics 
such as the population eligible for each and funding design vary. (See 
table 1.) For example, individuals and families are sometimes eligible 
for specific federal tax expenditures based on their employment or 
family-related circumstances, such as with an adoption. Further, SSI 
and TANF both provide monthly cash benefits to low-income people, but 
for SSI, individuals must be aged, blind, or disabled, and for TANF, a 
family must include dependent children. In terms of funding design, 
SSI benefits and the tax expenditures are provided to all who apply 
and meet eligibility requirements. So too is the case with the EITC, 
which has a refundable portion for those without enough income to owe 
income taxes. Similarly, federal funding for monthly payments to 
support children in foster care, adoption, and kinship guardianship 
placements is also not capped and is dependent on the number of 
children eligible for such assistance. On the other hand, the federal 
funding level is fixed for programs such as TANF and subsidized child 
care and does not increase with the numbers of eligible people who 
apply. 

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Several Programs under the 
Jurisdiction of the Human Resources Subcommittee and a Few Related Tax 
Expenditures under the Jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee: 

Income Support: 

Program or tax expenditure: UI; 
Population eligible[A]: Workers who become unemployed through no fault 
of their own; 
Funding: Federal funds and payroll taxes. 

Program or tax expenditure: EITC; 
Population eligible[A]: Individuals and families with low levels of 
earned income; 
Funding: Federal tax expenditure and outlays. 

Program or tax expenditure: TANF; 
Population eligible[A]: Low-income families with dependent children 
may receive cash assistance and other services; 
Funding: Capped federal funds matched by state funds. 

Program or tax expenditure: Child Support Enforcement; 
Population eligible[A]: Children with non-custodial parents; 
Funding: Open-ended federal funds match state spending. 

Program or tax expenditure: SSI; 
Population eligible[A]: Aged, blind, and disabled individuals; 
Funding: Open-ended federal funds. 

Child Care: 

Program or tax expenditure: Subsidized Child Care; 
Population eligible[A]: Low-income families with dependent children in 
which the parents are engaged in work or education and training; 
Funding: Capped federal funds, with matching state funds required to 
draw the maximum amount of federal funds. 

Program or tax expenditure: Dependent Care Tax Credit; 
Population eligible[A]: Individuals and families with employment-
related dependent care expenses; 
Funding: Federal tax expenditure. 

Child Welfare: 

Program or tax expenditure: Foster Care; 
Population eligible[A]: Children from low income families who are 
placed in licensed foster homes; 
Funding: Open-ended federal funds match state spending. 

Program or tax expenditure: Adoption Assistance; 
Population eligible[A]: Families who provide adoptive homes to 
children from low income families identified as having special needs 
that make placement difficult; 
Funding: Open-ended federal funds match state spending. 

Program or tax expenditure: Kinship Guardianship Assistance; 
Population eligible[A]: Relatives who assume legal guardianship of 
certain children for whom they have cared while foster parents; 
Funding: Open-ended federal funds match state spending. 

Program or tax expenditure: Child Welfare Services Program; 
Population eligible[A]: Funding can be used for broad child welfare 
purposes, including keeping families together; 
Funding: Capped federal funds to states with state match requirement. 

Program or tax expenditure: Promoting Safe and Stable Families; 
Population eligible[A]: Funding can be used for family support, family 
preservation, time-limited family reunification, and adoption 
promotion and support; 
Funding: Capped federal funds to states. 

Program or tax expenditure: Child Protective Services; 
Population eligible[A]: Funding provided to help states improve child 
protective service systems; 
Funding: Capped federal funds to states. 

Program or tax expenditure: Social Services Block Grant; 
Population eligible[A]: Funding can be used for a range of services to 
individuals and families, such as foster care and child protective 
services; 
Funding: Capped federal funds to states. 

Program or tax expenditure: Adoption Tax Credit; 
Population eligible[A]: Individuals and families who have adopted 
children; 
Funding: Federal tax expenditure and outlays. 

Source: GAO review of agency documents. 

Note: We did not conduct any legal analysis in order to identify the 
programs and tax expenditures or determine their eligibility 
requirements or funding mechanisms. This does not represent an 
exhaustive list of all relevant programs and tax expenditures in these 
areas. 

[A] This column generally describes the population eligible for each 
program and tax credit. However, these groups must meet additional 
eligibility criteria that are specific to each program and credit to 
fully qualify. 

[End of table] 

With this array of human services programs, a family and its members 
may receive benefits or services from one or more of these programs. 
Interactions between the programs vary, and in some cases, the 
programs are specifically designed to provide multiple sources of 
support for individuals and families. For example, a low-income family 
may be eligible for and receive income support through TANF, EITC, and 
Child Support Enforcement, as well as subsidized child care 
assistance. However, at the same time, another family may be eligible 
for only one of those supports, such as EITC, due to income or other 
eligibility requirements. Also due to varying eligibility criteria, a 
family may have several members who are receiving income support 
through TANF while another member receives such support through SSI. 

Existing Array of Programs Leads to Cumbersome Service and Inefficient 
Administration: 

While these programs provide important supports and services to 
millions of households each year, they comprise a patchwork of support 
developed over time and under different circumstances. Some programs 
were begun under the original Social Security Act passed in 1935 and 
have evolved over time. Congress has added other programs to meet 
emerging needs. For example, to encourage more low-income women to 
move into the workforce, Congress created child care subsidy programs 
designed to support parents' work efforts.[Footnote 4] Today, our work 
has shown this patchwork of programs to be too fragmented and overly 
complex--for clients to navigate, for program operators to administer 
efficiently, and for program managers and policymakers to assess 
program performance. 

People Face Difficulties in Accessing Aid: 

People seeking aid often must visit multiple offices and provide the 
same information numerous times. The routes by which people access 
services varies by program, state, and sometimes locality, and can be 
cumbersome for those seeking aid from more than one program. Low-
income individuals and families often receive aid from multiple 
programs to meet their income support, health, nutrition, employment 
and training, and housing needs. Typically, clients may access several 
programs through one office that administers TANF, the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Medicaid. However, clients 
may need visits to other offices to apply for housing assistance and 
SSI, while they must file a tax return with the Internal Revenue 
Service (IRS) for the EITC. Typically, clients have to provide the 
same basic information and required documentation multiple times if 
they are trying to access more than one program. Some states and 
localities have moved toward more use of call centers and online 
applications, though this varies among the programs and states. 

Myriad Program Rules Foster Duplicate Administrative Processes and 
Inefficiencies: 

The complexity and variation in eligibility and other rules and 
requirements among the programs have contributed to time-consuming and 
duplicative administrative processes that are inefficient and add to 
overall costs. Separate eligibility processes for some programs result 
in considerable duplication of administrative activities because 
caseworkers in different offices collect and document much of the same 
personal and financial information. Even when programs are 
administered jointly, each has its own eligibility rules and reporting 
requirements, limiting the extent to which joint administration 
reduces administration costs. In our previous work, state and local 
officials reported that this complicated the work required of 
caseworkers to determine eligibility and also contributed to errors. 
[Footnote 5] Excessive time spent working through complex procedures 
can consume resources and diminish staffs' ability to focus on other 
activities that might improve service quality or improve program 
integrity. In addition, other complex processes occur to meet federal 
cost allocation requirements. For example, we heard from some local 
staff that they track the amount of time they spend working on 
different programs and report this information to financial managers. 
Local financial managers then determine what portion of staffs' time 
is defined as administrative costs in each of the programs and charge 
the programs appropriately. 

Providing similar services through separate programs can lead to 
additional inefficiencies. We recently reported on the potential 
overlap and duplication in employment and training programs.[Footnote 
6] Specifically, we found that TANF, Workforce Investment Act Adult 
(WIA Adult), and Employment Service (ES) programs often maintain 
separate administrative structures to provide some of the same 
services, such as job search assistance, to low-income individuals. 
Some individuals may be receiving similar services from each program, 
although the extent to which this is occurring is not known. We 
recommended that Labor and HHS disseminate information on state 
efforts to consolidate administrative structures and colocate 
services. Both agencies agreed with our recommendation and we will 
follow up on their efforts in the future. 

Information Gaps Hamper Program Oversight: 

While we have not reviewed all of the accountability measures for the 
relevant programs, we have identified some information gaps that 
hinder oversight of some programs. For example, our work on the TANF 
program has shown that work participation rates--a key performance 
measure for TANF, as currently measured and reported, do not appear to 
be achieving the intended purpose of encouraging states to engage 
specified proportions of TANF adult recipients in work activities. In 
addition, although states have shifted a large share of their TANF 
funds from cash assistance to other programs, supports, and services 
such as child care subsidies and child welfare, existing oversight 
mechanisms continue to focus on cash assistance. As a result, there 
are gaps in the information available at the federal level on how many 
families received TANF services and on how states have used funds to 
meet TANF goals. While a key feature of the TANF program is 
flexibility in the use of federal funds, this flexibility must be 
balanced with mechanisms to ensure state programs are held accountable 
for meeting program goals. Information gaps hinder decision makers in 
considering the success of TANF and what trade-offs might be involved 
in making any possible changes to TANF through the reauthorization 
process. In addition, in our work on potential duplication of TANF and 
WIA, we noted that lack of data hindered our ability to assess the 
extent to which individuals may have received services from both 
programs. 

We also identified information gaps that make it difficult to assess 
fully the federal role in supporting child care assistance for 
families. Such an assessment is also complicated by the use of tax 
expenditures in supporting families' child care needs. With the 
flexibility allowed under TANF, states have used a significant portion 
of their TANF funds to augment their child care subsidy programs. 
However, states do not need to report on the numbers or types of 
families provided TANF-funded child care, leaving an incomplete 
picture of the numbers of children receiving federally-funded child 
care subsidies, which would be useful information for policymakers. In 
addition, because tax expenditures do not compete overtly with other 
priorities in the annual budget process, policymakers do not typically 
consider tax expenditures along with other programs when making 
budgetary and programmatic decisions. Nevertheless, considerable 
resources are provided to families through the Dependent Care Tax 
Credit for their child care and other dependent care needs. A more 
complete picture of the federal role in child care subsidies and who 
benefits would include tax expenditure information. We identified the 
importance of paying more attention to tax expenditures in our recent 
work on opportunities to reduce duplication in federal government 
programs.[Footnote 7] 

Simpler Policies, Better Technology, and More Innovation and 
Evaluation Could Reduce Inefficiencies: 

The need for improving the administration of these programs has been 
voiced recurrently for the past several decades. Stretching as far 
back as the 1960s, studies and reports have called for changes to 
human service programs, and we issued several reports during the 1980s 
that focused on welfare simplification. Over the years, Congress has 
taken many steps to simplify programs and procedures. For example, in 
1996 Congress replaced the previous welfare program with the TANF 
block grant and consolidated several child care programs into one 
program, which our previous work has shown provided states with 
additional flexibility to design and operate programs.[Footnote 8] In 
addition, numerous pilot and demonstration projects have given 
particular states and localities flexibility to test approaches to 
integrating and coordinating services across a range of human service 
programs. Some states have taken advantage of recent changes and 
additional flexibility granted by the federal government to simplify 
eligibility determination processes across programs. For example, 
states may automatically extend eligibility to SNAP applicants based 
on their participation in the TANF cash assistance program--a 
provision referred to as "categorical eligibility."[Footnote 9] 

While the need for simplification of program policies and other 
improvements has been widely acknowledged, there has also been a 
general recognition that achieving substantial improvements in this 
area is exceptionally difficult. Many of these efforts have had 
limited success due, in part, to the considerable challenges that 
streamlining program processes entail, given the involvement of 
numerous congressional committees and federal agencies involved in 
shaping human service program policies. An additional challenge to 
systematic policy simplification efforts is the lack of information on 
the costs and effects of these efforts. Streamlining policies could 
expand client access and increase caseloads and program costs, but it 
could also limit access for particular populations, depending on which 
policies were adopted. In addition, no definitive information exists 
to demonstrate the type and extent of changes that might result in 
reduced administrative costs or to demonstrate how strategies might 
work differently in different communities. To help address these 
issues, in 2001 and 2006, we recommended that Congress consider 
authorizing demonstration projects designed to streamline eligibility 
determination and other processes across federal human services 
programs.[Footnote 10] In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, 
Congress appropriated funds for pilot projects that, in part, 
demonstrate the potential to streamline administration or strengthen 
program integrity.[Footnote 11] Using the funds appropriated by 
Congress, the Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation funds 
pilot projects that test and evaluate ideas for improving federal 
assistance programs through the following measures: reducing improper 
payments, improving administrative efficiency, improving service 
delivery, and protecting and improving program access for eligible 
beneficiaries.[Footnote 12] 

The current environment calls for continued and increased attention to 
this set of programs and opportunities to reduce inefficiencies. At 
both the federal and state levels of government, short-term and longer-
term budgetary conditions require review of all federal programs and 
activities and efforts to make government more efficient and 
effective. Based on our review of our past and recent work, we have 
identified three approaches that warrant increased attention in this 
environment. 

1. Simplifying policies and processes: 

Simplifying policies and processes--especially those related to 
eligibility determination processes and various federal funding 
sources--could potentially save resources, improve productivity, and 
help staff focus more time on performing essential program activities, 
such as providing quality services and accurate benefits to 
recipients. In our 2006 report, we noted that many believe that being 
able to draw funds from more than one federal assistance program while 
simplifying the administrative requirements for managing those funds 
would ease states' administrative workload and reduce administrative 
spending.[Footnote 13] This would also serve to help service providers 
better meet the complex needs of at-risk families. Such efforts are in 
keeping with the February 28, 2011, Presidential Memorandum issued for 
the heads of executive departments and agencies on the subject of 
administrative flexibility, lower costs, and better results for state, 
local, and tribal governments.[Footnote 14] Another way to streamline 
programs is consolidation. Consolidation has been a useful approach in 
the past to easing the burdens of federal rules and requirements, 
though care must be taken to ensure intended target groups still have 
their needs meet. In addition, adequate accountability measures can be 
challenging to design. 

2. Facilitating technology enhancements: 

Facilitating technology enhancements across programs may save 
administrative and benefit costs by creating more efficient processes 
and improving program integrity. Our previous work indicates that the 
federal government can help simplify processes and potentially reduce 
long-term costs by facilitating technology enhancements across 
programs and in states.[Footnote 15] Technology plays a central role 
in the management of human service programs and keeping up with 
technological advancements offers opportunities for streamlining 
eligibility processes, providing timely services, and improving 
program integrity. Along with technology enhancements, data-sharing 
arrangements, where permitted,[Footnote 16] allow programs to share 
client information that they otherwise would each collect and verify 
separately, thus reducing duplicative effort, saving money, and 
improving integrity. For example, by receiving verified electronic 
data from SSA, state human service offices are able to determine SSI 
recipients' eligibility for Food Stamp benefits without having to 
separately collect and verify applicant information. According to 
officials we spoke with, this arrangement saves administrative dollars 
and reduces duplicative effort across programs. We also recently 
reported that more data matching of applicant information with 
existing databases could help prevent fraud in state CCDF programs. 
[Footnote 17] 

Progress on technology improvements could be further facilitated 
through greater collaboration across program agencies and levels of 
government as well as additional sharing of technology strategies 
among the states. For example, call centers and scanning of required 
documentation have been strategies used by some states to meet 
increasing workloads attributed to the weakened economy at the same 
time the states faced tightened budgets. 

3. Fostering state innovation and evaluation for evidence-based 
decisionmaking: 

In our complex, decentralized intergovernmental system, states and 
localities have frequently served as laboratories that foster 
innovation and test approaches that can benefit the nation. Providing 
states and localities with additional demonstration opportunities 
would allow them to challenge the current stovepipes and open the door 
to new cost-efficient approaches for administering human service 
programs. Demonstration projects would allow for testing and 
evaluating new approaches that aim to balance cost savings with 
ensuring program effectiveness and integrity. The information from 
these evaluations would help the federal government determine which 
strategies are most effective without investing time and resources in 
unproven strategies. Congress can allow for such approaches to thrive 
by not only giving states opportunities to test these approaches but 
by following up to identify and implement successful strategies. While 
it may be difficult to fully determine the extent to which observed 
changes are the result of the demonstration projects, such projects 
would be useful to identify lessons learned and help identify possible 
unintended consequences. 

Essential to all of these approaches is collaboration among many 
entities. We recently identified collaboration as a governmentwide 
management challenge. Achieving meaningful results in many policy and 
program areas requires some combination of coordinated efforts among 
various actors across federal agencies, with other governments at 
state and local levels, nongovernmental organizations, for-profit and 
not-for-profit contractors, and the private sector. Congress will 
increasingly need to rely on integrated approaches to help its 
decision making on the many issues requiring effective collaboration 
across federal agencies, levels of government, and sectors.[Footnote 
18] 

In addition to collaboration, caution is urged in addressing any 
duplication and resulting inefficiencies in these programs that many 
individuals and families rely on. Because of the array of services 
provided to meet households' various needs, it is not surprising to 
see various entities involved, with some fragmentation of 
administration, some overlap in populations served, and some 
duplication of services offered. These features may be warranted, for 
example, to ensure quality services are provided and certain 
populations are served. However, our work indicates that further 
exploration of the extent of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication 
is warranted to better identify ways to streamline and improve 
programs. We are happy to work with the Subcommittee to meets its 
needs in this area. 

We provided a draft of the reports we drew on for this testimony to 
the relevant agencies for their review and copies of the agency's 
written responses can be found in the appendices of the relevant 
reports. 

Chairman Davis, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to 
respond to any questions you, Ranking Member Doggett, or other Members 
of the Subcommittee may have. 

GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments: 

For questions about this statement, please contact me at (202) 512-
7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this statement. Individuals who made key contributions to this 
testimony include Rachel Frisk, Gale Harris, Kathryn Larin, and 
Yunsian Tai. Additional staff who contributed to this testimony 
include James Bennett, Susan Bernstein, Alexander Galuten, and Carla 
Rojas. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, 
Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP], Washington, D.C.: March 1, 
2011. 

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on 
Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could 
Promote Efficiencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92], Washington, D.C.: January 13, 
2011. 

Child Care and Development Fund: Undercover Tests Show Five State 
Programs Are Vulnerable to Fraud and Abuse, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-1062], Washington, D.C.: September 
22, 2010. 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Recent 
Legislative and Economic Changes for State Programs and Work 
Participation Rates, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-525], Washington, D.C.: May 28, 
2010. 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment Errors and 
Trafficking Have Declined, but Challenges Remain, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-956T], Washington, D.C.: July 28, 
2010. 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Recent 
Legislative and Economic Changes for State Programs and Work 
Participation Rates, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-525], Washington, D.C.: May 28, 
2010. 

Child Care: Multiple Factors Could Have Contributed to the Recent 
Decline in the Number of Children Whose Families Receive Subsidies, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-344], Washington, D.C.: 
May 5, 2010. 

Domestic Food Assistance: Complex System Benefits Millions, but 
Additional Efforts Could Address Potential Inefficiency and Overlap 
among Smaller Programs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-346], Washington, D.C.: April 15, 
2010. 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible Families Have 
Received Cash Assistance Since the 1990s, and the Recession's Impact 
on Caseloads Varies by State, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-164], Washington, D.C.: February 
23, 2010. 

Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families: A Review of Recent 
GAO Work, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-342R], 
Washington, D.C.: February 22, 2010. 

Highlights of a Forum: Ensuring Opportunities for Disadvantaged 
Children and Families, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-18SP], Washington, D.C.: November 
13, 2008. 

Human Services Programs: Demonstration Projects Could Identify Ways to 
Simplify Policies and Facilitate Technology Enhancements to Reduce 
Administrative Costs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-942] Washington, D.C.: September 
19, 2006. 

Child Care: Additional Information Is Needed on Working Families 
Receiving Subsidies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-667], Washington, D.C.: June 29, 
2005. 

Means-Tested Programs: Information on Program Access Can Be an 
Important Management Tool, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-221], Washington, D.C.: March 11, 
2005. 

Welfare Reform: Information on Changing Labor Market and State Fiscal 
Conditions, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-977], 
Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003. 

Means-Tested Programs: Determining Financial Eligibility Is Cumbersome 
and Can Be Simplified, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-58], Washington, D.C.: November 2, 
2001. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Numerous federal programs, policies, and activities are supported 
through the tax code. Tax expenditures are reductions in tax 
liabilities that result from preferential provisions, such as tax 
exclusions, credits, and deductions. They result in revenue forgone. 
For more information, see GAO, Government Performance and 
Accountability: Tax Expenditures Represent a Substantial Federal 
Commitment and Need to Be Reexamined, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-690] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 
2005). 

[2] GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government 
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 
2011). 

[3] Pub. L. No. 111-139, § 21, 124 Stat. 8, 29 (2010), 31 U.S.C. § 712 
Note. 

[4] GAO, Welfare Reform: States' Efforts to Expand Child Care 
Programs, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-98-27] 
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13, 1998). 

[5] GAO, Human Services Programs: Demonstration Projects Could 
Identify Ways to Simplify Policies and Facilitate Technology 
Enhancements to Reduce Administrative Costs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-942] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 
2006). 

[6] In 2011, we updated our prior reports that focused on programs 
whose primary purpose was employment and training. For fiscal year 
2009, we identified 47 employment and training programs administered 
across nine agencies that spent approximately $18 billion on 
employment and training services. Forty-four of these programs, which 
include broad multipurpose block grants, overlap with at least one 
other program, in that they provide at least one similar service to a 
similar population. GAO, Multiple Employment and Training Programs: 
Providing Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating 
Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies, GAO-11-92 
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13, 2011). 

[7] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP]. 

[8] GAO, Welfare Reform: States Are Restructuring Programs to Reduce 
Welfare Dependence, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-98-109] (Washington, D.C.: June 
17, 1998). 

[9] GAO, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment Errors and 
Trafficking Have Declined, but Challenges Remain, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-956T] (Washington, D.C.: July 28, 
2010). 

[10] GAO, Means-Tested Benefits: Determining Financial Eligibility Is 
Cumbersome and Can Be Simplified, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-58] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2, 
2001) and [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-942]. 

[11] Pub. L. No. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034, 3171. 

[12] See [hyperlink, http://partner4solutions.gov] for more 
information. 

[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-942]. 

[14] The memorandum instructs "agencies to work closely with state, 
local and tribal governments to identify administrative, regulatory, 
and legislative barriers in Federally funded programs that currently 
prevent states, localities, and tribes, from efficiently using tax 
dollars to achieve the best results for their constituents." 
[hyperlink, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2011/02/28/presidential-memorandum-administrative-flexibility]. 

[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-942]. 

[16] The ability to share data across programs may be limited by laws 
that have been established to protect individuals' privacy, an 
important consideration. 

[17] GAO, Child Care and Development Fund: Undercover Tests Show Five 
State Programs Are Vulnerable to Fraud and Abuse, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-1062] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 
2010). 

[18] For more information on this topic, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/challenges/collaboration.php]. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: