1. Assessing Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication at the Center of Government: Implications for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
International Seminar on Strategic Development Goals and External Control
Sponsored by
The Comptroller General of the Republic of Chile and Executive Secretary of OLACEFS
J. Christopher Mihm
Managing Director, Strategic Issues
United States Government Accountability Office
15 December 2016

2. International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAI)
Performance auditing is a way for taxpayers, financiers, legislatures, executives, ordinary citizens and the media to ‘execute control’ and to obtain insight into the running and outcomes of different government activities.
Performance auditing provides answers to questions such as: Do we get value for money or is it possible to spend the money better or more wisely?
Performance auditing is an independent examination of the efficiency and effectiveness of government undertakings, programs or organizations, with due regard to economy, and the aim of leading to improvements.

3. Using “Logic Models” to Inform Performance Auditing
inputs
Staff
Funds
Facilities
outputs
Products
Services delivered
Clients served
(Activities)
outcomes
Results
Impact on citizen well-being

4. Performance Auditing and the Global Public Management Revolution
The growing complexity of the types of problems and demands that confront government, along with the expanding range of approaches being used to respond to those issues, are among the central drivers of a global public sector management revolution.
Citizen demands are forcing governments to be more transparent and customer focused.
The global financial crisis put an added premium on government efficiency and cost cutting.
The bottom lines: New new ways of thinking, new management approaches, and new organizational and personnel capabilities are essential to better serve our citizens in the 21st century.
Therefore, we need to ensure that the practice of performance auditing evolves in tandem with the complexity of the governance approaches and structures being used to address national needs, including national sustainable development goals and the implementation of A2030.

5. Using Results Mapping to Inform the Performance Auditing of Complexity
Program
Program
Outcomes such as national sustainable development goals
Program
Program

6. The Sustainable Development Goals

7. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Integrated and indivisible
Universal
Strong focus on effective governance and the means of implementation (MIA)
Commitment to global, regional, national, and thematic follow- up and review

8. Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
16.1 Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements 16.a Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime 16.b Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development

9. INTOSAI Strategic Plan 2017-2022

10. Four Broad Categories Where SAIs Can Expect to Make Valuable Contributions (INTOSAI SP 2017-2022)
Assessing the preparedness of national governments to implement, monitor, and report on progress of the SDGs, and subsequently to audit their operation and the reliability of the data they produce;
Undertaking performance audits that examine the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of key government programs that contribute to specific aspects of the SDGs;
Assessing and supporting, as appropriate, the implementation of SDG 16 which relates in part to transparent, efficient, and accountable institutions; and SDG 17, which concerns partnerships and means for implementation; and
Being models of transparency and accountability in their own operations, including auditing and reporting.

11. Illustrative Areas Where SAIs Could Contribute to the Follow-up and Review of the SDGs (INTOSAI SP )
Advocate improvements in public financial management systems through, for example, improved governmental accounting and auditing practices.
Review national transparency, risk management, anti-fraud protections, and internal control processes to contribute to corruption prevention efforts consistent with the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.
Audit the capacity of national statistical and vital records systems to produce the data needed to ensure that no individual or social issue is “invisible” from a data standpoint and assess national preparations to report progress on implementation of the national sustainable development goals.
Assess the validity of the chosen national targets and performance measures, the availability of baseline performance data, and the sufficiency of the overall performance measurement system.
Evaluate the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the key government programs for addressing a national sustainable development goal in a specific topical area (e.g., education, infrastructure, public health, etc.) and what needs to be done to better meet the goal.
Review and engage in the “data revolution” by assessing government’s ability to harness large complex datasets for decision-making and use data analytics to pinpoint improvement opportunities.
Examine national Open Data and civic engagement strategies as they relate to the achievement of the SDGs.
Report on the nation’s overall progress in meeting the SDGs and/or providing data and insight for the country report to be developed as part of the global follow-up and review processes.

12. Core Center of Government Capacities Needed to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals
Focus performance on the results that government seeks to achieve rather than on the operations of any single program or agency. This entails adopting a whole of government orientation (or even whole of society), and looking at policy coherence.
Manage systemic risk management in addition to the operational and enterprise risk confronting any single agency.
Adopt collaborative mechanisms and network management across levels of government, sectors, and with the public.
Use date and evidence to drive decisions.
Build government capacity in new and different ways. Specifically, strengthen the capabilities the Center of Government in strategic management and guiding effective implementation.
Employ strategies for civic engagement, open government, and transparency.

13. Assessing Coherence: GAO’s Reporting Mandate
In 2010, GAO was mandated to report annually on “duplication in the federal government and recommend ways to reduce or eliminate it.”
In response, GAO reports on federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives—either within departments or government-wide—that have duplicative, overlapping, or fragmented goals or activities. GAO also identifies opportunities to achieve cost savings and enhanced revenue collection.

14. Definitions of Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication
These are all CONDITION (not criteria).
Fragmentation, overlap, and duplication are a reflection of complex policy, and their existence can be good or bad.

15. Fragmentation and the U.S. Food Safety System
Food safety is a major public health issue. Each year in the US:
about 48 million people become sick;
128,000 are hospitalized;
and 3,000 die from foodborne disease.
Recent examples: Listeria and cantaloupes. A 2010 nationwide recall of more than 500 million eggs due to Salmonella contamination.
A complex governance structure is responsible for food safety. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) have the primary oversight responsibilities, a total of 15 agencies collectively administer at least 30 food-related laws
This complexity is exacerbated by globalization: 80% of fresh seafood and over 60% of fresh fruits and vegetables are imported.

16. Eggs as an Illustration of Food Safety Fragmentation
Several agencies have different roles and responsibilities throughout the egg production system. For example,
FDA is generally responsible for ensuring that eggs in their shells—referred to as shell eggs—including eggs at farms such as those where the Salmonella outbreak occurred, are safe, wholesome, and properly labeled.
FSIS, is responsible for the safety of eggs processed into egg products.
USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) sets quality and grade standards for shell eggs, such as Grade A, but does not test the eggs for bacteria such as Salmonella.
Further, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service manages the program that helps ensure laying hens are free from Salmonella at birth,
However, FDA oversees the safety of the feed the hens eat.

17. Limited Progress in Using a Whole of Government Approach to Address the Fragmented Food Safety System
The January 2011—FDA Food Safety Modernization Act—strengthens a major part of the food safety system. It shifts FDA’s focus from responding to contamination to preventing it and expands FDA’s oversight authority. The law also requires interagency collaboration on food safety oversight in areas such as inspections, seafood safety, and food imports
In March 2009, the President established the Food Safety Working Group (FSWG), co-chaired by the Secretaries of Agriculture and HHS, to coordinate federal efforts and develop goals to make food safer.
It also includes officials from FDA, FSIS, CDC, the EPA, and the Departments of Homeland Security, Commerce, and State, OMB, and others.
Through the FSWG, federal agencies have taken steps designed to increase collaboration in some areas that cross regulatory jurisdictions, e.g., improving produce safety, reducing Salmonella contamination, and developing food safety performance measures.
However, the FSWG has not developed a government wide performance plan that provides a comprehensive picture of the federal government’s food safety efforts.

18. Results to Date from GAO’s Reporting Mandate
GAO has identified over 200 areas and over 600 actions for Congress or executive branch agencies.
Since 2011:
260 actions have been addressed,
222 actions have been partially addressed, and
134 actions have not been addressed.
This has resulted in roughly $56 billion in financial benefits from fiscal years 2010 through 2015, with at least an additional $69 billion in estimated benefits projected to be accrued through 2025.

19. GAO’s High-Risk List
Areas most in need of reform or most vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement
32 areas currently on GAO’s High-Risk list
Helps focus attention of both agencies and the Congress on important issues
Began in the 1990s. Issued with each new Congress (i.e., every 2 years).
Next issuance: early 2017

20. Most High-Risk Areas Involving Working Across Boundaries
Food Safety – 15 federal agencies involved
Medicaid – Federal and state governments
Protecting Critical Technologies – DOD, DHS, Commerce, State Department
National Flood Insurance Program – FEMA, private sector insurers, and state and local governments
Terrorism-Related Information Sharing – Several federal agencies, state and local governments
Modernizing Federal Disability Programs – SSA, VA, DOD

21. Possible SAI Contributions to National Follow-up and Review of the 2030 Agenda
Incorporation of the 2030 Agenda in National Frameworks
What specific efforts have been made to integrate the SDGs into the country’s legislation, policies, plans and programs, including the existing sustainable development strategy if there is one?
What institutional framework has the country adopted to implement the 2030 Agenda?
 Coordination With Stakeholders and Delivery Partners
How is responsibility allocated and managed amongst various levels of Government (national, sub- national and local) for coherent implementation and review of the 2030 Agenda?
What major efforts have been undertaken by local authorities and non-state actors to implement the SDGs, including partnerships?
How are the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) being integrated and how sustainable development policies are being designed and implemented to reflect such integration?
Performance Measurement
Has the country established performance measures for its SDGs? If yes, what are they and if not, why not?
Are those performance measures consistent with agreed global indicators for those goals and targets and do they meet established “good practice” standards for performance measurement?

22. Possible SAI Contributions to National Follow-up and Review of the 2030 Agenda, continued
Statistical, Vital Records, and Data Collection Capacity
What statistics are collected from the national statistical and vital records systems and are there any major gaps in official data on indicators?
Do the statistical agencies have the capacity to collect and disseminate complete, credible, relevant, accurate, and timely data?
Do the country’s civil registration and vital statistics agencies have the capacity to collect and disseminate complete, credible, relevant, accurate, and timely data?
How is the country seeking to harness the tools and techniques of the “data revolution” in support of the Agenda?
Institutional Delivery Mechanisms and Means of Implementation (MIA)
What efforts have been made to mobilize institutions around the SDGs, improve their functioning, and promote change?
How have the means of implementation been mobilized and what difficulties does this process face?
Follow-up and Review
What are the country’s plans for assessing its progress including the possible dissemination of reviews and their findings?
What lessons has the country learned from any existing reviews of its sustainable development efforts (including those that we done under the MDGs)?

23. Whole of Government Collaborative Approaches and “Virtual Organizations”
Crosscutting goals
National plans
Lead agencies/officials
Interagency Task Forces
Other coordinated solutions
Consolidation/”Boxology”

24. Key Whole of Government Features of Collaborative Mechanisms
Outcomes and accountability
Bridging organizational cultures
Leadership
Clarity of roles and responsibilities
Participants
Resources
Written guidance and agreements

25. SAIs Need to Respond Internally to Governance Complexity
Just as state agencies need to change the way they do business in response to governance challenges, so too do SAIs by:
Focusing our audit work on results and the relationships between products and services and outcomes
Ensuring we have the internal capacity to review and assess complex governance structures
Being national models for “effective, accountable, and transparent institutions” (SDG 16.6)
Engaging in collaboration among SAIs on good audit practice, substantive policy and program information sharing, and on cooperative performance audits.

26. Thank you!

27. Congressional Relations
GAO on the Web
Web site:
Congressional Relations
Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, (202) , U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street, NW, Room 7125, Washington, DC 20548
Public Affairs
Chuck Young, Managing Director, (202) , U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street, NW, Room 7149, Washington, DC 20548
Copyright
This is a work 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 without further permission from GAO. However, 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.