	Background and Methodology

In this report, we use the term “mission fragmentation” to refer to those circumstances in which more than one federal agency (or more than one bureau within an agency) is involved in the same broad area of national need. Mission Fragmentation Is Widespread

Whether approached from a governmentwide perspective or on the basis of individual programs, our work has documented mission fragmentation and program overlap. With its emphasis on defining agency missions, goals and objectives, and strategies to achieve those goals and objectives—and its requirement for involvement of the Congress and other agency and external stakeholders—the Results Act provides a statute-based environment to begin such an assessment. Results Act Holds Potential to Address Mission Fragmentation

The Results Act will present the Congress and the administration with a new opportunity to address mission fragmentation and program overlap. As we noted in our recent assessment of the status of Results Act implementation, the act’s emphasis on results implies that federal programs contributing to the same or similar outcomes should be closely coordinated, consolidated, or streamlined, as appropriate, to ensure that goals are consistent and that program efforts are mutually reinforcing.To implement the act, agencies will need to undertake three key steps: define mission and desired outcomes, measure performance, and use performance information. For example, as missions and desired outcomes are determined, instances of fragmentation and overlap can be identified and appropriate responses can be defined; as performance measures are developed, the extent to which agency goals are complementary and the need for common performance measures to allow for cross-agency evaluations can be considered; and as continued budget pressures prompt decisionmakers to weigh trade-offs inherent in resource allocation and restructuring decisions, the Results Act can provide the framework to integrate and compare performance of related programs to better inform choices among competing budgetary claims. However, the persistent theme from this body of work is that although results-based performance information would help federal managers improve their programs, little information is collected. Moreover, this consultation will also reinforce earlier strategic planning consultations intended to clarify and harmonize missions. Building a Sustained Focus on Fragmentation and Overlap

Past efforts to deal with crosscutting federal activities suggest that even within the statutory framework of the Results Act, success will take time and will require sustained attention in both the executive branch and the Congress. These developments serve to emphasize a fundamental issue: the need for specific institutions and processes to sustain and nurture a focus on mission fragmentation and program overlap. 6, 1997)
The Department of Labor has taken some action to address fragmentation issues described by GAO, but these actions have not been enough to solve the problems. Insufficient information exists on the accomplishments of the federal programs. 1, 1988)
GAO provided an overview of the drug problem and the federal response. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO described the challenge of multiple and overlapping federal programs within the framework of the Government Performance and Results Act, focusing on specific ways in which the Results Act can focus attention on these management challenges and help to develop strategies to harmonize federal responses.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) GAO's work has documented the widespread existence of fragmentation and overlap from both the broad perspective of federal missions and from the more specific viewpoint of individual federal programs; (2) GAO's work has shown that as the federal government has responded over time to new needs and problems, many federal agencies have been given responsibilities for addressing the same or similar national issues; but GAO's work also suggests that some issues will necessarily involve more than one federal agency or more than one approach; (3) taken as a whole, this body of work indicates that fragmentation and overlap will present a particular and persistent challenge to the successful implementation of the Results Act; (4) but at the same time, the Results Act should offer a new and structured framework to address crosscutting issues; (5) each of its key stages--defining missions and desired outcomes, measuring performance, and using performance information--offers a new opportunity to address fragmentation and overlap; (6) for example, the Results Act is intended to foster a dialogue on strategic goals involving the Congress as well as agency and external stakeholders; (7) this dialogue should help to identify agencies and programs addressing similar missions and associated performance implications; (8) the act's emphasis on results-based performance measures should lead to more explicit discussions of contributions and accomplishments within crosscutting programs and encourage related programs to develop common performance measures; (9) if the Results Act is successfully implemented, performance information should become available to clarify the consequences of fragmentation and the implications of alternative policy and service delivery options, which, in turn, can affect future decisions concerning department and agency missions and the allocation of resources among those missions; (10) emphasizing missions, goals, and objectives, as envisioned by the Results Act, should facilitate a broader recognition of the nature and extent of fragmentation and overlap; and (11) however, past efforts to deal with crosscutting federal activities and recent developments in both the executive branch and the Congress underscore the need for specific institutions and processes to sustain and nurture a focus on these issues.