![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.941666666666666in"
height="9.268055555555556in"}

# Contents {#contents .unnumbered}

[Abbreviations v](#abbreviations)

[Chapter 1 Introduction 1](#introduction)

[Chapter 2 Life-Cycle Status of Core Financial Systems
3](#life-cycle-status-of-core-financial-systems)

[Chapter 3 Characteristics of Feeder Systems that Interface with the
Core 5](#characteristics-of-feeder-systems-that-interface-with-the-core)

[Chapter 4 Status of Agency-Wide Accounting Classification
Standardization
9](#status-of-agency-wide-accounting-classification-standardization)

[Chapter 5 Characteristics of Each Component of the Accounting
Classification Structure
11](#characteristics-of-each-component-of-the-accounting-classification-structure)

[Fund 11](#fund)

[Organization 13](#organization)

[Program 14](#program)

[Strategic Goal 17](#strategic-goal)

[Object Class 19](#object-class)

[Revenue Source Code 20](#revenue-source-code)

[USSGL Account Code 20](#ussgl-account-code)

[Appendix---Document Change History
21](#appendix-document-change-history)

Figures

[Figure 1. Life-Cycle Stage for Agency Core Financial Management Systems
3](#__RefHeading___Toc151463983)

[Figure 2. Core Interfaces by System Type
5](#__RefHeading___Toc151463984)

[Figure 3. Feeder System Classification Structure
6](#__RefHeading___Toc151463985)

[Figure 4. Payroll SSPs by Number of Agencies Supported
6](#__RefHeading___Toc151463986)

[Figure 5. Travel SSPs by Number of Agencies Supported
7](#__RefHeading___Toc151463987)

[Figure 6. Current Degree of Standardization
9](#__RefHeading___Toc151463988)

[Figure 7. Agency Plans for Further Standardization
10](#__RefHeading___Toc151463989)

[Figure 8. Agency Fund Codes 11](#__RefHeading___Toc151463990)

[Figure 9. Agency Organization Field Lengths
14](#__RefHeading___Toc151463991)

[Figure 10. Agency Organization Codes 14](#__RefHeading___Toc151463992)

[Figure 11. Agency Program Field Lengths
17](#__RefHeading___Toc151463995)

[Figure 12. Agency Program Codes 17](#__RefHeading___Toc151463996)

[Figure 13. Data Elements Used to Prepare the Statement of Net Cost
19](#__RefHeading___Toc151463998)

[Figure 14. Agency Object Class Extension Field Lengths
20](#__RefHeading___Toc151463999)

[Figure 15. Agency Use of Extensions to the USSGL Account Code
20](#__RefHeading___Toc151464000)

# Abbreviations {#abbreviations .unnumbered}

BEA Budget Enforcement Act of 1990

BFY Budget Fiscal Year

CFO Act Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990

CGAC Common Government-wide Accounting Code

COTS Commercial Off-the-Shelf

FACTS II Federal Agencies 'Centralized Trial-Balance System II

OMB Office of Management and Budget

SSP Shared Service Provider

Treasury U.S. Department of the Treasury

USSGL U.S. Standard General Ledger

# Introduction

As part of conducting the Common Government-wide Accounting
Classification (CGAC) project, the 24 CFO Act agencies were surveyed to
see how closely agencies' accounting classification structures adhere to
current standards and to determine whether there are natural
opportunities for agencies to adopt the CGAC structure once the standard
is issued. This document, a companion report to the *Common
Government-wide Accounting Classification Structure* Exposure Draft,
summarizes the survey responses.

The survey asked questions in four areas:

-   Life-cycle status of the core financial management system at the
    agency

-   Characteristics of feeder systems that interface with the core
    financial system

-   Status of any agency-wide accounting classification standardization
    efforts

-   Characteristics of each component of the existing accounting
    classification structure.

Detailed analysis of the survey results led to the following findings:

-   There are agencies at every phase of the system life cycle. Agencies
    currently planning to upgrade or replace core financial management
    systems offer prime opportunities for moving to the CGAC structure.

-   A large number of feeder systems at each agency will be affected by
    a change in classification structure. Feeder systems that are being
    standardized by a line of business initiative (such as e-travel)
    could offer good opportunities for parallel standardization that
    would result in simplified interfaces in the future.

-   Many agencies still have not adopted an enterprise-wide accounting
    classification structure. Although most agencies responded that they
    have a standard enterprise-wide structure, analysis of the detailed
    information provided revealed that some of the agencies' bureaus had
    independent classification structures.

-   There is a wide divergence in agency accounting classification
    structures. Agencies that have similar fields may call them by
    different names, use different field lengths, or use different logic
    to drive similar business rules. The existing standards have not
    been detailed enough to drive meaningful standardization.

In some cases, survey responses included details about systems and
accounting classification structures at the bureau level. Responses were
simplified so that results shown here consistently report 24 agencies.
Each finding is further described in the following sections.

# Life-Cycle Status of Core Financial Systems

For many agencies, the software used for the core financial management
system is a key factor in how the accounting classification structure is
designed. It is not unusual to change the accounting classification
structure when a system is upgraded or replaced. Thus, one good
opportunity for implementing the CGAC structure would be when an agency
is planning to upgrade or replace its core financial management system.

The survey found that agencies are at widely varying stages of the
system life cycle. Figure 1 summarizes the responses to the question,
"Which best describes where you are in the system life cycle?"

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc151463983 .anchor}Figure 1. Life-Cycle Stage for
Agency Core Financial Management Systems

![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.035416666666666in" height="2.66875in"}

Agencies that anticipate upcoming system changes could be prime
candidates to adopt CGAC as part of the system upgrade or replacement.
There are six of these agencies; two have multiple bureaus.

Another nine agencies are in the process of implementing or upgrading
their core financial management system now. For them, timing of CGAC
adoption will depend on how far along the implementation is when CGAC is
finalized.

The three agencies that have recently implemented a new system may find
that the modern COTS products they are using can adopt the CGAC
structure relatively easily. The vendor may be able to develop
conversion strategies that can be used by several agencies to move to
the new structure.

# Characteristics of Feeder Systems that Interface with the Core

Many agencies rely on feeder systems that interface with their core
financial system to process transactions. Adoption of the CGAC structure
will require modification to these system interfaces.

The survey found that most agencies' core financial management systems
interface with travel, payroll, purchase card, and acquisition systems.
Over half interface with a grants system.

Figure 2 illustrates the responses to the question, "Which feeder
systems interface with your agency's core financial management system?"

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc151463984 .anchor}Figure 2. Core Interfaces by
System Type

![](media/image3.wmf){width="7.129166666666666in"
height="2.7020833333333334in"}

All 24 agencies reported using payroll systems, but one agency reported
not having an interface with the core financial management system
because its interface is under development.

While many feeder systems interface with the core financial management
system, responses to "does the feeder system use the same classification
structure as your agency core financial management system" vary. While
most interfaces do use the same classification structure, there is
considerable variation. Figure 3 demonstrates the number of systems that
carry the agencies' common accounting classification code and those that
use a cross-walk.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc151463985 .anchor}Figure 3. Feeder System
Classification Structure

![](media/image4.wmf){width="7.018055555555556in" height="2.875in"}

The CGAC survey also identified the number of approved e-payroll and
e-travel systems being used by agencies.

Approved payroll systems are offered through the following shared
service providers:

-   [Department of Agriculture, National Finance Center
    (NFC)](http://www.nfc.usda.gov/)

-   [Department of Defense, Defense Finance and Accounting Service
    (DFAS)](http://www.dod.mil/dfas/)

-   [Department of the Interior, National Business Center
    (NBC)](http://www.nbc.gov/)

-   [General Services Administration, Heartland Finance Center
    (HFC)](http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_OVERVIEW&contentId=9806&noc=T).

Figure 4 shows the breakdown of payroll SSPs by the number of agencies
supported.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc151463986 .anchor}Figure 4. Payroll SSPs by Number
of Agencies Supported

![](media/image5.wmf){width="5.198611111111111in"
height="2.370138888888889in"}

Approved travel systems are offered through the following shared service
providers:

-   Carlson Wagonlit Government Travel's [E2
    Solutions](http://www.cwgt.com/)

-   EDS's [FedTraveler](http://www.fedtraveler.com/)

-   Northrop Grumman Mission System's
    [GovTrip](http://www.govtrip.com/).

Figure 5 shows the breakdown of travel SSPs by the number of agencies
supported.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc151463987 .anchor}Figure 5. Travel SSPs by Number
of Agencies Supported

![](media/image6.wmf){width="3.9993055555555554in"
height="1.9152777777777779in"}

# Status of Agency-Wide Accounting Classification Standardization

OMB Circular A-127, *Financial Management Systems*, requires that each
agency use an agency-wide financial information classification
structure.[^1] Figure 6 provides the responses to question 6 of the
survey, "Have you adopted an agency-wide accounting classification
structure?" While many agencies responded in the affirmative, analysis
of the detailed accounting classification information they provided in
other parts of the survey revealed that some of their bureaus had
independent structures. As illustrated in the figure, the resulting
determination was that not all agencies have agency-wide structures.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc151463988 .anchor}Figure 6. Current Degree of
Standardization

![](media/image7.wmf){width="5.6in" height="3.1881944444444446in"}

Since all agencies are required to use an agency-wide structure,
availability of the CGAC structure provides a common ground for the
bureaus within an agency to move toward.

Another question asked was whether there were any plans to change the
accounting classification structure. Figure 7 shows these results.

Some agencies see a need for changing their existing accounting
classification structure. Three agencies with bureaus indicated that
their existing structure does not meet their needs. These agencies are
excellent candidates to adopt CGAC. Four more agencies expect to
standardize as part of a system replacement and thus may be in a good
position to adopt the CGAC structure.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc151463989 .anchor}Figure 7. Agency Plans for
Further Standardization

![](media/image8.wmf){width="6.118055555555555in"
height="3.5694444444444446in"}

# Characteristics of Each Component of the Accounting Classification Structure

The survey showed a wide variation in agency accounting classification
structures. Each of the following classification areas is discussed
below:

-   Fund

-   Organization

-   Program

-   Strategic Goal

-   Object Class

-   Revenue Source Code

-   USSGL Account Code.

## Fund

Most agencies reported using an internal fund code that derived the full
Treasury Account Symbol and other classification elements needed for
external reporting. However, unlike the internal fund code in the CGAC
structure, some agency's fund codes use considerably longer fields. In
fact, the field length of fund codes varies from 1 character to 18. In
general, those agencies using a fund code longer than 6 characters have
built "intelligence" into the code. For example, these codes might
include characters that identify the bureau within the agency or
attributes needed for FACTS II reporting, such as the apportionment
category or BEA category associated with the fund. Rather than building
this type of intelligence into the code, the CGAC structure uses a
separate element to identify the bureau and derives fund attributes
through logical associations built into the structure.

Figure 8 shows the various fund codes used by agencies.

*Figure 8. Agency Fund Codes*

![](media/image9.png){width="6.622916666666667in"
height="1.198611111111111in"}

Figure 8. Agency Fund Codes (Continued)

![](media/image10.png){width="6.597916666666666in"
height="8.775694444444444in"}

Figure 8. Agency Fund Codes (Continued)

![](media/image11.png){width="6.618055555555555in"
height="7.277083333333334in"}

## Organization

While all agencies have an organization structure, the number of levels
and number of characters vary widely. The smallest organization field
was reported as 1 position long while the largest was 20 positions (see
Figure 9). Organization definitions also varied; some agencies use
levels while other agencies define the actual type of organization
represented by each field (region, directorate, division, branch, etc.).
Four agencies reported having two separate fields that represent an
organization or group of organizations. One agency reported 4 separate
fields that capture organizations. Figure 10 shows the various
organization codes used by agencies.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc151463991 .anchor}Figure 9. Agency Organization
Field Lengths

![](media/image12.wmf){width="6.6in" height="2.0909722222222222in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc151463992 .anchor}Figure 10. Agency Organization
Codes

![](media/image13.png){width="6.624305555555556in" height="4.175in"}

Figure 10 Agency Organization Codes (Continued)

![](media/image14.png){width="6.651388888888889in"
height="8.529166666666667in"}

Figure 10. Agency Organization Codes (Continued)

## ![](media/image15.png){width="6.626388888888889in" height="5.069444444444445in"}

## Program

Agencies have developed program structures to accommodate unique needs
related to how their funds are appropriated and to meet unstructured
reporting requirements. The number of positions available for program
codes in agency systems range from 2 to 20 positions long (see Figure
11). Some agencies have hierarchical structures, while others have
cross-cutting elements. Three agencies use two separate fields to
identify programs. Figure 12 shows the variation in agency program
codes.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc151463995 .anchor}Figure 11. Agency Program Field
Lengths

![](media/image16.wmf){width="6.595833333333333in"
height="1.4895833333333333in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc151463996 .anchor}Figure 12. Agency Program Codes

![](media/image17.png){width="6.604861111111111in"
height="6.777777777777778in"}

Figure 12. Agency Program Codes (Continued)

## ![](media/image18.png){width="6.544444444444444in" height="8.665277777777778in"}

## Strategic Goal

The CGAC survey identified how agencies have adopted OMB guidance on the
form and content of the Statement of Net Cost. OMB Circular A-136,
*Financial Reporting Requirements*, provides the following guidance on
preparing this financial statement:

Preparers of the Statement of Net Cost should present responsibility
segments that align directly with the major goals and outputs described
in the entity's strategic and performance plans, required by the
Government Performance and Results Act.

In most cases, agencies reported preparing the Statement of Net Cost by
strategic goal. In some cases, they reported on programs that aligned
with strategic goals. In a few cases, they reported on bureaus or funds.
Figure 13 illustrates which data elements are used by agencies to
prepare the Statement of Net Cost. (The strategic goal code element is
included in the CGAC structure to support the need of agencies that
prepare the Statement of Net Cost by strategic goal.)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc151463998 .anchor}Figure 13. Data Elements Used to
Prepare the Statement of Net Cost

![](media/image19.wmf){width="4.497222222222222in"
height="3.290277777777778in"}

## Object Class

Most agencies use the standard OMB object classes. Some use extensions
to provide additional detail about how money is spent. The object class
extension varied in size from 1 character long to 5 characters long (see
Figure 14). The object class size was either 3 or 4 characters long for
each agency. One agency uses a shortcut key to point back to the object
class code.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc151463999 .anchor}Figure 14. Agency Object Class
Extension Field Lengths

![](media/image20.wmf){width="6.197222222222222in"
height="2.0791666666666666in"}

## Revenue Source Code

A little over half of the agencies (13) reported using a revenue source
code to track categories of revenue, collections, and fees. These
categories are used primarily for management information and may
facilitate external reporting. While revenue source codes varied in size
from 2 to 8 characters, most of the agencies use a 4-character code.

## USSGL Account Code

Agencies have made a lot of progress in adopting the USSGL account code
at the transaction level. The majority of agencies use extensions to
provide additional detail about the nature of the transaction. Agencies
not using extensions reported that they modify the 4-character USSGL
account code to accommodate agency-specific needs and summarize to the
standard account code when reporting externally to Treasury. Reasons for
using extensions or for modifying the basic 4-digit code vary from
agency to agency, but in general, they relate to the nature of their
business. Figure 15 illustrates agency use of extensions to the USSGL
account code.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc151464000 .anchor}Figure 15. Agency Use of
Extensions to the USSGL Account Code

![](media/image21.wmf){width="6.298611111111111in" height="1.78125in"}

# Appendix Document Change History {#appendix-document-change-history .unnumbered}

Table A-1 provides a history of the changes made to this document.

Table A-1. Document Change History

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Version   Description of change               Name of      Date published
                                                author       
  --------- ----------------------------------- ------------ ---------------
  0.5       Initial draft as a separate         FSIO         November 17,
            document. Previously this was an                 2006
            appendix in the CGAC Structure                   
            report.                                          

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------

[^1]: The relevant language in A-127 is "Agency-wide Financial
    Information Classification Structure. The design of the financial
    management systems shall reflect an agency-wide financial
    information classification structure that is consistent with the
    U.S. Government Standard General Ledger, provides for tracking of
    specific program expenditures, and covers financial and financially
    related information."