This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-824T
entitled 'Geospatial Information: Better Coordination and Oversight
Could Help Reduce Duplicative Investments' which was released on June
23, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, House Committee on
Government Reform:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:
Wednesday, June 23, 2004:
Geospatial Information:
Better Coordination and Oversight Could Help Reduce Duplicative
Investments:
Statement of Linda D. Koontz:
Director, Information Management Issues:
GAO-04-824T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-824T, testimony before the Subcommittee on
Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the
Census, House Committee on Government Reform
Why GAO Did This Study:
The collection, maintenance, and use of location-based (geospatial)
information are essential to federal agencies carrying out their
missions. Geographic information systems (GIS) are critical elements
used in the areas of homeland security, healthcare, natural resources
conservation, and countless other applications.
GAO was asked to review the extent to which the federal government is
coordinating the efficient sharing of geospatial assets, including
through Office of Management and Budget (OMB) oversight. GAOs report
on this matter, Geospatial Information: Better Coordination Needed to
Identify and Reduce Duplicative Investments (GAO-04-703), is being
released today. GAOs testimony focuses on the extent to which the
federal government is coordinating the sharing of geospatial assets,
including through oversight measures in place at the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), in order to identify and reduce
redundancies in geospatial data and systems.
What GAO Found:
OMB, cross-government committees, and individual federal agencies have
taken actions to coordinate geospatial investments across agencies and
with state and local governments. However, these efforts have not been
fully successful for several reasons:
* A complete and up-to-date strategic plan is missing. The existing
strategic plan for coordinating national geospatial resources and
activities is out of date and lacks specific measures for identifying
and reducing redundancies.
* Federal agencies are not consistently complying with OMB direction
to coordinate their investments.
* OMBs oversight methods have not been effective in identifying or
eliminating instances of duplication. This has resulted from OMB not
collecting consistent, key investment information from all agencies.
Consequently, agencies continue to independently acquire and maintain
potentially duplicative systems. This costly practice is likely to
continue unless coordination is significantly improved.
Conceptual Diagram of Multiple Geospatial Data Collections and
Processing Associated with a Single Geographic Location:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
In its report, GAO recommends that the OMB Director and the Secretary
of the Interior develop a current, comprehensive strategic plan for
coordinating federal geospatial assets; and makes other recommendations
to OMB. In their comments on a draft of the report, OMB and Interior
agreed with GAOs recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-824T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Linda D. Koontz at (202)
512-6240 or koontzl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to participate in the Subcommittee's hearing on the
federal government's use and coordination of geospatial information.
The federal government collects, maintains, and uses geospatial
information--information linked to specific geographic locations--to
help in decision making and to support many essential functions,
including national security, law enforcement, health care, the
environment, and natural resources conservation. States, counties,
cities, tribal governments, and the private sector also use geospatial
information to support critical functions. Federal agencies, states,
and local governments may each provide services at the same geographic
locations and may independently collect similar geospatial information
about those locations, thus raising the question of how well the
nation's geospatial assets[Footnote 1] are coordinated.
To encourage greater coordination, in 1990, OMB established the Federal
Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) within the Department of the Interior
to be the lead federal executive body responsible for promoting and
guiding coordination among federal, state, tribal, and local government
entities, academia, and the private sector. One of the committee's
responsibilities is to establish a National Geospatial Data
Clearinghouse to provide Web-based access to descriptions of available
geospatial data, allowing governments at all levels, academia, and the
private sector to make their data widely available.[Footnote 2] In
addition to the clearinghouse, more recently, in 2002, OMB established
the Geospatial One-Stop initiative to develop an Internet portal to
provide easier, faster, and less expensive access to geospatial
information for all levels of government and the public.[Footnote 3]
Both the clearinghouse and Geospatial One-Stop, along with many other
coordination activities, contribute to the development of the National
Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI).[Footnote 4]
My testimony today follows up on testimony provided to the Subcommittee
in June 2003.[Footnote 5] In my previous testimony, I noted that
realizing the vision of a nationwide network of geospatial information
systems is a formidable challenge and achieving full participation
across governments in its development has been difficult. Today's
testimony will highlight the extent to which the federal government is
coordinating the sharing of geospatial assets, including through
oversight measures in place at the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), in order to identify and reduce redundancies in geospatial data
and systems.
My testimony today summarizes a report, prepared at your request, on
federal coordination of geospatial investments.[Footnote 6] This report
is being released to you today. Our work in preparing the report was
conducted from October 2003 through May 2004 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
OMB, individual federal agencies, and cross-government committees have
each taken action to coordinate the government's geospatial investments
across agencies and with state and local governments. Such coordination
could result in reducing redundancies in geospatial activities and
investments, with concomitant reductions in the costs associated with
these activities. However, these efforts have not been fully successful
in reducing redundancies in geospatial investments for several reasons.
First, while the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse and Geospatial
One-Stop have been established to support the development of the NSDI
and to address redundant and incompatible geospatial information, a
complete and up-to-date strategic plan is not in place to help guide
and effectively manage these activities. The government's existing
strategic plan for the NSDI is out of date and does not include
specific measures for identifying and reducing redundancies.
Second, while in certain cases federal agencies have taken steps to
coordinate their specific geospatial activities, federal agencies have
not always fully complied with OMB direction to coordinate their
investments. Specifically, many agency geospatial data holdings are not
compliant with established standards or are not published through the
clearinghouse, although both are required by OMB in order to help
coordinate national geospatial activities and investments.
Finally, although OMB has processes in place that could help identify
potentially redundant geospatial investments, these oversight methods
have not identified or eliminated specific instances of duplication.
The processes used by OMB to identify potentially redundant geospatial
investments have not been effective because OMB has not been able to
collect key investment information from all agencies in a consistent
way so that it could be used to identify redundancies. As a result of
these shortcomings, federal agencies are independently acquiring and
maintaining potentially duplicative and costly data sets and systems.
Without better coordination, such duplication is likely to continue.
Our report includes recommendations to the Director of OMB and to the
Secretary of the Interior to direct the development of an improved
strategic plan for coordinating federal geospatial assets. It also
makes recommendations to the Director of OMB to encourage better agency
compliance with Circular A-16 by developing and implementing criteria
for assessing the extent of interagency coordination on planned
geospatial investments and to strengthen OMB's oversight actions to
better ensure that agencies do not invest in potentially redundant
geospatial systems or data gathering efforts. In their comments on a
draft of the report, representatives of OMB's Offices of Information
and Regulatory Affairs and Resource Management and the Assistant
Secretary of the Interior--Policy, Management, and Budget generally
agreed with these recommendations.
Background:
Geospatial information describes entities or phenomena that can be
referenced to specific locations relative to the Earth's surface. For
example, entities such as houses, rivers, road intersections, power
plants, and national parks can all be identified by their locations. In
addition, phenomena such as wildfires, the spread of the West Nile
virus, and the thinning of trees due to acid rain can also be
identified by their geographic locations.
A geographic information system (GIS) is a system of computer software,
hardware, and data used to capture, store, manipulate, analyze, and
graphically present a potentially wide array of geospatial information.
The primary function of a GIS is to link multiple sets of geospatial
data and display the combined information as maps with many different
layers of information.
Each layer of a GIS map represents a particular "theme" or feature, and
one layer could be derived from a data source completely different from
the others. Typical geospatial data layers (themes) include cadastral-
-describing location, ownership, and other information about real
property; digital orthoimagery--containing images of the Earth's
surface that have the geometric characteristics of a map and image
qualities of a photograph; and hydrography--describing water features
such as lakes, ponds, streams and rivers, canals, oceans, and
coastlines. As long as standard processes and formats have been used to
facilitate integration, each of these themes could be based on data
originally collected and maintained by a separate organization.
Analyzing this layered information as an integrated whole can
significantly aid decision makers in considering complex choices, such
as where to locate a new department of motor vehicles building to best
serve the greatest number of citizens. Figure 1 portrays the concept of
data themes in a GIS.
Figure 1: GIS Layers or Themes:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Geographic Information Systems and Data Are Used and Produced by
Federal, State, and Local Governments, and the Private Sector:
Federal, state, and local governments and the private sector rely on
geographic information systems to provide vital services to their
customers. These various entities independently provide information and
services, including maintaining land records for federal and nonfederal
lands, property taxation, local planning, subdivision control and
zoning, and direct delivery of many other public services. These
entities also use geographic information and geographic information
systems to facilitate and support delivery of these services.
Many federal departments and agencies use GIS technology to help carry
out their primary missions. For example, the Department of Health and
Human Services uses GIS technology for a variety of public health
functions, such as reporting the results of national health surveys;
the Census Bureau maintains the Topologically Integrated Geographic
Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) database to support its mission to
conduct the decennial census and other censuses and surveys; and the
Environmental Protection Agency maintains a variety of databases with
information about the quality of air, water, and land in the United
States.
State governments also rely on geospatial information to provide
information and services to their citizens. For example, the state of
New York hosts a Web site to provide citizens with a gateway to state
government services at http://www.nysegov.com/map-NY.cfm. Using this
Web site, citizens can access information about state agencies and
their services, locate county boundaries and services, and locate major
state highways. Many other states, such as Oregon
(http://www.gis.state.or.us/), Virginia
(http://www.vgin.virginia.gov/index.html), and Alaska
(http://www.asgdc.state.ak.us/), provide similar Web sites and
services.
Local governments use GISs for a variety of activities. For example,
local fire departments can use geographic information systems to
determine the quickest and most efficient route from a firehouse to a
specific location, taking into account changing traffic patterns that
occur at various times of day. Additionally, according to a March 2002
Gartner report,[Footnote 7] New York City's GIS was pivotal in the
rescue, response, and recovery efforts after the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks. The city's GIS provided real-time data on the area
around the World Trade Center so that the mayor, governor, federal
officials, and emergency response agencies could implement critical
rescue, response, and recovery activities. Local governments often
possess more recent and higher resolution geospatial data than the
federal government, and in many cases private-sector companies collect
these data under contract to local government agencies.
The private sector plays an important role in support of government GIS
activities because it captures and maintains a wealth of geospatial
data and develops GIS software. Private companies provide services such
as aerial photography, digital topographic mapping, digital
orthophotography, and digital elevation modeling to produce geospatial
data sets that are designed to meet the needs of governmental
organizations.
Figure 2 provides a conceptual summary of the many entities--including
federal, state, and local governments and the private sector--that may
be involved in geospatial data collection and processing relative to a
single geographic location or event. Figure 3 shows the multiple data
sets that have been collected by different agencies at federal, state,
and local levels to capture the location of a segment of roadway in
Texas.
Figure 2: Conceptual Diagram of Multiple Geospatial Data Collections
and Processing Associated with a Single Geographic Location:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 3: Multiple Street Centerline Data Sets Covering the Same
Location in Texas:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Coordination of Federal Geospatial Activities:
As we testified last year, the federal government has for many years
taken steps to coordinate geospatial activities, both within and
outside of the federal government.[Footnote 8] These include the
issuance of OMB Circular A-16 and Executive Order 12906, and the E-
Government Act of 2002. In addition to its responsibilities for
geospatial information under the E-Government Act, OMB has specific
oversight responsibilities regarding federal information technology
(IT) systems and acquisition activities--including GIS--to help ensure
their efficient and effective use. These responsibilities are outlined
in the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996,[Footnote 9] the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995,[Footnote 10] and OMB Circular A-11. Table 1 provides a
brief summary of federal guidance related to information technology and
geospatial information.
Table 1: Federal Guidance Related to Information Technology and
Geospatial Information:
Guidance: OMB Circular A-11;
Description: The circular establishes policy for planning, budgeting,
acquisition, and management of federal capital assets. Specifically, it
requires agencies to submit business cases to OMB for planned or
ongoing major IT investments.[A].
Guidance: OMB Circular A-16;
Description: Originally issued in 1953, and last revised in 2002, this
circular, among other things, establishes FGDC within the Department of
the Interior to promote the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination
of geospatial data nationwide.
Guidance: Executive Order 12906;
Description: Issued in 1994, this order assigns to FGDC the
responsibility to coordinate the development of the National Spatial
Data Infrastructure (NSDI).
Guidance: Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;
Description: Includes a general requirement that the Director of OMB
oversee the use of information resources to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of governmental operations to serve agency missions.
Guidance: Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996;
Description: Requires the Director of OMB to promote and be responsible
for improving the acquisition, use, and disposal of information
technology by the federal government to improve the productivity,
efficiency, and effectiveness of federal programs.
Guidance: E-Government Act of 2002;
Description: Requires OMB to oversee coordination with state, local,
and tribal governments as well as public-private partnerships and
other interested persons on the development of standard protocols for
sharing geographic information to reduce redundant data collection and
promote collaboration and the use of standards.[B].
Source: GAO.
[A] According to OMB Circular A-11, a major IT investment means a
system or investment that requires special management attention because
of its importance to an agency's mission; the investment was a major
investment in the fiscal year 2004 submission and is continuing; the
investment is for financial management and spends more than $500,000;
the investment is directly tied to the top two layers of the Federal
Enterprise Architecture; the investment is an integral part of the
agency's modernization blueprint (EA); the investment has significant
program or policy implications; the investment has high executive
visibility; or the investment is defined as major by the agency's
capital planning and investment control process. Investments that are
e-government in nature or use e-business technologies must be
identified as major investments regardless of their costs.
[B] P.L. 107-347, Section 216.
[End of table]
In addition to activities associated with federal legislation and
guidance, OMB's Administrator, Office of Electronic Government and
Information Technology, testified before the Subcommittee last June
that the strategic management of geospatial assets would be
accomplished, in part, through development of a robust and mature
federal enterprise architecture. In 2001, the lack of a federal
enterprise architecture was cited by OMB's E-Government Task Force as a
barrier to the success of the administration's e-government
initiatives.[Footnote 11] In response, OMB began developing the Federal
Enterprise Architecture (FEA), and over the last 2 years it has
released various versions of all but one of the five FEA reference
models.[Footnote 12] According to OMB, the purpose of the FEA, among
other things, is to provide a common frame of reference or taxonomy for
agencies' individual enterprise architecture efforts and their planned
and ongoing investment activities.[Footnote 13]
Costs Associated with Gathering, Maintaining, and Using Geospatial Data
Are Significant:
Costs associated with collecting and maintaining geographically
referenced data and systems for the federal government are significant.
Specific examples[Footnote 14] of the costs of collecting and
maintaining federal geospatial data and information systems include:
* FEMA's Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization Program--estimated to
cost $1 billion over the next 5 years;
* Census's TIGER database--modernization is estimated to have cost over
$170 million between 2001 and 2004;
* Agriculture's Geospatial Database--acquisition and development
reportedly cost over $130 million;
* Interior's National Map--development is estimated to cost about $88
million through 2008;[Footnote 15]
* The Department of the Navy's Primary Oceanographic Prediction, and
Oceanographic Information systems--development, modernization, and
operation were estimated to cost about $32 million in fiscal year 2003;
and:
* NOAA's Coastal Survey--expenditures for geospatial data are estimated
to cost about $30 million annually.
In addition to the costs for individual agency GISs and data, the
aggregated annual cost of collecting and maintaining geospatial data
for all NSDI-related data themes and systems is estimated to be
substantial. According to a recent estimate by the National States
Geographic Information Council (NSGIC), the cost to collect detailed
data for five key data layers of the NSDI--parcel, critical
infrastructure, orthoimagery, elevation, and roads--is about $6.6
billion. The estimate assumes that the data development will be
coordinated among federal, state, and local government agencies, and
the council cautions that without effective coordination, the costs
could be far higher.
FGDC and Others Have Taken Steps to Coordinate GIS Activities, but Lack
a Complete and Up-to-Date Strategic Plan to Guide Them:
Both Executive Order 12906 and OMB Circular A-16 charge FGDC with
responsibilities that support coordination of federal GIS investments.
Specifically, the committee is designated the lead federal executive
body with responsibilities including (1) promoting and guiding
coordination among federal, state, tribal, and local government
agencies, academia, and the private sector in the collection,
production, sharing, and use of spatial information and the
implementation of the NSDI; and (2) preparing and maintaining a
strategic plan for developing and implementing the NSDI.
Regarding coordination with federal and other entities and development
of the NSDI, FGDC has taken a variety of actions. It established a
committee structure with participation from federal agencies and key
nonfederal organizations such as NSGIC, and the National Association of
Counties, and established several programs to help ensure greater
participation from federal agencies as well as other government
entities. In addition, key actions taken by FGDC to develop the NSDI
include implementing the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse and
establishing a framework of data themes.[Footnote 16] In addition to
FGDC's programs, two other efforts are under way that aim to coordinate
and consolidate geospatial information and resources across the federal
government--the Geospatial One-Stop initiative and The National Map
project.
* Geospatial One-Stop is intended to accelerate the development and
implementation of the NSDI to provide federal and state agencies with a
single point of access to map-related data, which in turn will enable
consolidation of redundant geospatial data. OMB selected Geospatial
One-Stop as one of its e-government initiatives, in part to support
development of an inventory of national geospatial assets, and also to
support reducing redundancies in federal geospatial assets. In
addition, the portal includes a "marketplace" that provides information
on planned and ongoing geospatial acquisitions for use by agencies that
are considering acquiring new data to facilitate coordination of
existing and planned acquisitions.
* The National Map is being developed and implemented by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) as a database to provide core geospatial data
about the United States and its territories, similar to the data
traditionally provided on USGS paper topographic maps. USGS relies
heavily on partnerships with other federal agencies as well as states,
localities, and the private sector to maintain the accuracy and
currency of the national core geospatial data set as represented in The
National Map.
According to Interior's Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management, and
Budget, FGDC, Geospatial One-Stop, and The National Map are
coordinating their activities in several areas, including developing
standards and framework data layers for the NSDI, increasing the
effectiveness of the clearinghouse, and making information about
existing and planned data acquisitions available through the Geospatial
One-Stop Web site.
Regarding preparing and maintaining a strategic plan for developing and
implementing the NSDI, in 1994, FGDC issued a strategic plan that
described actions federal agencies and others could take to develop the
NSDI, such as establishing data themes and standards, training
programs, and partnerships to promote coordination and data sharing. In
April 1997, FGDC published an updated plan--with input from many
organizations and individuals having a stake in developing the NSDI--
that defined strategic goals and objectives to support the vision of
the NSDI as defined in the 1994 plan. No further updates have been
made.
As the current national geospatial strategy document, FGDC's 1997 plan
is out of date. First, it does not reflect the recent broadened use of
geospatial data and systems by many government agencies. Second, it
does not take into account the increased importance that has been
placed on homeland security in the wake of the September 11, 2001,
attacks. Geospatial data and systems have an essential role to play in
supporting decision makers and emergency responders in protecting
critical infrastructure and responding to threats. Finally, significant
governmentwide geospatial efforts--including the Geospatial One-Stop
and National Map projects--did not exist in 1997, and are therefore not
reflected in the strategic plan.
In addition to being out of date, the 1997 document lacks important
elements that should be included in an effective strategic plan.
According to the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993,[Footnote 17] such plans should include a set of outcome-related
strategic goals, a description of how those goals are to be achieved,
and an identification of risk factors that could significantly affect
their achievement. The plans should also include performance goals and
measures, with resources needed to achieve them, as well as a
description of the processes to be used to measure progress.
While the 1997 NSDI plan contains a vision statement and goals and
objectives, it does not include other essential elements. These missing
elements include (1) a set of outcome-related goals, with actions to
achieve those goals, that would bring together the various actions
being taken to coordinate geospatial assets and achieve the vision of
the NSDI; (2) key risk factors that could significantly affect the
achievement of the goals and objectives; and (3) performance goals and
measures to help ensure that the steps being taken result in the
development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.
FGDC officials, in consultation with the executive director of
Geospatial One-Stop, USGS, and participating FGDC member agencies, have
initiated a "future directions" effort to begin the process of updating
their existing plan. However, this activity is just beginning, and
there is no time frame as to when a new strategy will be in place.
Until a comprehensive national strategy is in place, the current state
of ineffective coordination is likely to remain, and the vision of the
NSDI will likely not be fully realized.
Individual Agencies Have Coordinated Specific Geospatial Investments,
but Have Not Fully Complied with OMB Guidance:
OMB Circular A-16 directs federal agencies to coordinate their
investments to facilitate building the NSDI. The circular lists 11
specific responsibilities for federal agencies, including (1)
preparing, maintaining, publishing, and implementing a strategy for
advancing geographic information and related spatial data activities
appropriate to their mission, in support of the NSDI; (2) using FGDC
standards, including metadata[Footnote 18] and other appropriate
standards, documenting spatial data with relevant metadata; and (3)
making metadata available online through a registered NSDI-compatible
clearinghouse site.
In certain cases, federal agencies have taken steps to coordinate their
specific geospatial activities. For example, the Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management collaborated to develop the National
Integrated Land System (NILS), which is intended to provide land
managers with software tools for the collection, management, and
sharing of survey data, cadastral data, and land records information.
At an estimated cost of about $34 million, a single GIS--NILS--was
developed that can accommodate the shared geospatial needs of both
agencies, eliminating the need for each agency to develop a separate
system.
However, despite specific examples of coordination such as this,
agencies have not consistently complied with OMB's broader geospatial
coordination requirements. For example, only 10 of 17 agencies that
provided reports to FGDC reported having published geospatial
strategies as required by Circular A-16. In addition, agencies' spatial
data holdings are generally not compliant with FGDC standards.
Specifically, the annual report shows that, of the 17 agencies that
provided reports to FGDC, only 4 reported that their spatial data
holdings were compliant with FGDC standards. Ten agencies reported
being partially compliant, and 3 agencies provided answers that were
unclear as to whether they were compliant. Finally, regarding the
requirement for agencies to post their data to the National Geospatial
Data Clearinghouse,[Footnote 19] only 6 of the 17 agencies indicated
that their data or metadata were published through the clearinghouse,
10 indicated that their data were not published, 1 indicated that some
data were available through the clearinghouse.
According to comments provided by agencies to FGDC in the annual report
submissions, there are several reasons why agencies have not complied
with their responsibilities under Circular A-16, including the lack of
performance measures that link funding to coordination efforts.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, few incentives
exist for cross-agency cooperation because budget allocations are
linked to individual agency performance rather than to cooperative
efforts. In addition, according to USGS, agencies' activities and
funding are driven primarily by individual agency missions and do not
address interagency geospatial coordination. In addition to the
information provided in the annual report, Department of Agriculture
officials said that no clear performance measures exist linking funding
to interagency coordination.
OMB's Oversight of Federal Geospatial Assets and Activities Has Not Yet
Identified Redundancies:
OMB has recognized that potentially redundant geospatial assets need to
be identified and that federal geospatial systems and information
activities need to be coordinated. To help identify potential
redundancies, OMB's Administrator of E-Government and Information
Technology testified in June 2003 that the agency uses three key
sources of information: (1) business cases for planned or ongoing IT
investments, submitted by agencies as part of the annual budget
process; (2) comparisons of agency lines of business with the Federal
Enterprise Architecture (FEA); and (3) annual reports compiled by FGDC
and submitted to OMB. However, none of these major oversight processes
have been effective tools to help OMB identify major redundancies in
federal GIS investments.
Agency IT Business Cases Do Not Completely Describe Geospatial Data
Assets:
In their IT business cases, agencies must report the types of data that
will be used, including geospatial data. According to OMB's branch
chief for information policy and technology, OMB reviews these business
cases to determine whether any redundant geospatial investments are
being funded. Specifically, the process for reviewing a business case
includes comparing proposed investments, IT management and strategic
plans, and other business cases, in an attempt to determine whether a
proposed investment duplicates another agency's existing or already-
approved investment.
However, business cases submitted to OMB under Circular A-11 do not
always include enough information to effectively identify potential
geospatial data and systems redundancies because OMB does not require
such information in agency business cases. For example, OMB does not
require that agencies clearly link information about their proposed or
existing geospatial investments to the spatial data categories (themes)
established by Circular A-16. Geospatial systems and data are
ubiquitous throughout federal agencies and are frequently integrated
into agencies' mission-related systems and business processes. Business
cases that focus on mission-related aspects of agency systems and data
may not provide the information necessary to compare specific
geospatial investments with other, potentially similar investments
unless the data identified in the business cases are categorized to
allow OMB to more readily compare data sets and identify potential
redundancies.
For example, FEMA's fiscal year 2004 business case for its Multi-Hazard
Flood Map Modernization project indicates that topographic and base
data are used to perform engineering analyses for estimating flood
discharge, developing floodplain mapping, and locating areas of
interest related to hazards. However, FEMA does not categorize these
data according to standardized spatial data themes specified in
Circular A-16, such as elevation (bathymetric or terrestrial),
transportation, and hydrography. As a result, it is difficult to
determine whether the data overlap with other federal data sets.
Without categorizing the data using the standard data themes as an
important step toward coordinating that data, information about
agencies' planned or ongoing use of geospatial data in their business
cases cannot be effectively assessed to determine whether it could be
integrated with other existing or planned federal geospatial assets.
The Federal Enterprise Architecture Has Not Yet Effectively Identified
Potentially Redundant Geospatial Investments:
An FEA is being constructed that, once it is further developed, may
help identify potentially redundant geospatial investments. According
to OMB, the FEA will comprise a collection of five interrelated
reference models designed to facilitate cross-agency analysis and the
identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities for
collaboration within and across federal agencies. According to recent
GAO testimony on the status of the FEA, although OMB has made progress
on the FEA, it remains a work in process and is still maturing[Footnote
20].:
OMB has identified multiple purposes for the FEA. One purpose cited is
to inform agencies' individual enterprise architectures and to
facilitate their development by providing a common classification
structure and vocabulary. Another stated purpose is to provide a
governmentwide framework that can increase agencies' awareness of IT
capabilities that other agencies have or plan to acquire, so that
agencies can explore opportunities for reuse. Still another stated
purpose is to help OMB decision makers identify opportunities for
collaboration among agencies through the implementation of common,
reusable, and interoperable solutions. We support the FEA as a
framework for achieving these ends.
According to OMB's branch chief for information policy and technology,
OMB reviews all new investment proposals against the federal
government's lines of business in its Business Reference Model to
identify those investments that appear to have some commonality. Many
of the model's lines of business include areas in which geospatial
information is of critical importance, including disaster management
(the cleanup and restoration activities that take place after a
disaster); environmental management (functions required to monitor the
environment and weather, determine proper environmental standards, and
address environmental hazards and contamination); and transportation
(federally supported activities related to the safe passage,
conveyance, or transportation of goods and people).
The Service Component Reference Model includes specific references to
geospatial data and systems. It is intended to identify and classify IT
service components (i.e., applications) that support federal agencies
and promote the reuse of components across agencies. The model includes
29 types of services--including customer relationship management and
the visualization service, which defines capabilities that support the
conversion of data into graphical or picture form. One component of the
visualization service is associated with mapping, geospatial,
elevation, and global positioning system services. Identification of
redundant investments under the visualization service could provide OMB
with information that would be useful in identifying redundant
geospatial systems investments.
Finally, the Data and Information Reference Model would likely be the
most critical FEA element in identifying potentially redundant
geospatial investments. According to OMB, this model will categorize
the government's information along general content areas and describe
data components that are common to many business processes or
activities.
Although the FEA includes elements that could be used to help identify
redundant investments, it is not yet sufficiently developed to be
useful in identifying redundant geospatial investments. While the
Business and Service Component reference models have aspects related to
geospatial investments, the Data and Information Reference Model may be
the critical element for identifying agency use of geospatial data
because it is planned to provide standard categories of data that could
support comparing data sets among federal agencies. However, this model
has not yet been completed and thus is not in use. Until the FEA is
completed and OMB develops effective analytical processes to use it, it
will not be able to contribute to identifying potentially redundant
geospatial investments.
FGDC-Administered Agency Reports Are Not Sufficient for Identifying
Redundant Geospatial Investments:
OMB Circular A-16 requires agencies to report annually to OMB on their
achievements in advancing geographic information and related spatial
data activities appropriate to their missions and in support of the
NSDI. To support this requirement, FGDC has developed a structure for
agencies to use to report such information in a consistent format and
for aggregating individual agencies' information. Using the agency
reports, the committee prepares an annual report to OMB purportedly
identifying the scope and depth of spatial data activities across
agencies.
For the fiscal year 2003 report, agencies were asked to respond to
several specific questions about their geospatial activities, including
(1) whether a detailed strategy had been developed for integrating
geographic information and spatial data into their business processes,
(2) how they ensure that data are not already available prior to
collecting new geospatial data, and (3) whether geospatial data are a
component of the agency's enterprise architecture. However, additional
information that is critical to identifying redundancies was not
required. For example, agencies were not requested to provide
information on their specific GIS investments or the geospatial data
sets they collected and maintained. According to the FGDC staff
director, the annual reports are not meant to provide an inventory of
federal geospatial assets. As a result, they cannot provide OMB with
sufficient information to identify redundancies in federal geospatial
investments.
Further, because not all agencies provide reports to FGDC, the
information that OMB has available to identify redundancies is
incomplete. According to OMB's program examiner for the Department of
the Interior, OMB does not know how well agencies are complying with
the reporting requirements in Circular A-16. Until the information
reported by agencies is consistent and complete, OMB will not be able
to effectively use it to identify potential geospatial redundancies.
According to OMB officials responsible for oversight of geospatial
activities, the agency's methods have not yet led to the identification
of redundant investments that could be targeted for consolidation or
elimination. The OMB officials said they believe that, with further
refinement, these tools will be effective in the future in helping them
identify redundancies. In addition, OMB representatives told us that
they are planning to institute a new process to collect more complete
information on agencies' geospatial investments by requiring agencies
to report all such investments through the Geospatial One-Stop Web
portal. OMB representatives told us that reporting requirements for
agencies would be detailed in a new directive that OMB expects to issue
by the end of summer 2004.
Federal Agencies Continue to Collect and Maintain Duplicative Data and
Systems:
Without a complete and up-to-date strategy for coordination or
effective investment oversight by OMB, federal agencies continue to
acquire and maintain duplicative data and systems. According to the
initial business case for the Geospatial One-Stop initiative, about 50
percent of the federal government's geospatial data investment is
duplicative. Such duplication is widely recognized. Officials from
federal and state agencies and OMB have all stated that unnecessarily
redundant geospatial data and systems exist throughout the federal
government. The Staff Director of FGDC agreed that redundancies
continue to exist throughout the federal government and that more work
needs to be done to specifically identify them. DHS's Geospatial
Information Officer also acknowledged redundancies in geospatial data
acquisitions at his agency, and said that DHS is working to create an
enterprisewide approach to managing geospatial data in order to reduce
redundancies. Similarly, state representatives to the National States
Geographic Information Council have identified cases in which they have
observed multiple federal agencies funding the acquisition of similar
data to meet individual agency needs.
For example, USGS, FEMA, and the Department of Defense (DOD) each
maintain separate elevation data sets: USGS's National Elevation
Dataset, FEMA's flood hazard mapping elevation data program, and DOD's
elevation data regarding Defense installations. FEMA officials
indicated that they obtained much of their data from state and local
partners or purchased them from the private sector because data from
those sources better fit their accuracy and resolution requirements
than elevation data available from USGS. Similarly, according to one
Army official, available USGS elevation data sets generally do not
include military installations, and even when such data are available
for specific installations, they are typically not accurate enough for
DOD's purposes. As a result, DOD collects its own elevation data for
its installations. In this example, if USGS elevation data-collection
projects were coordinated with FEMA and DOD to help ensure that the
needs of as many federal agencies as possible were met through the
project, potentially costly and redundant data-collection activities
could be avoided. According to the USGS Associate Director for
Geography, USGS is currently working to develop relationships with FEMA
and DOD, along with other federal agencies, to determine where these
agencies' data-collection activities overlap.
In another example, officials at the Department of Agriculture and the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) both said they have
purchased data sets containing street-centerline data from commercial
sources, even though the Census Bureau maintains such data in its TIGER
database. According to these officials, they purchased the data
commercially because they had concerns about the accuracy of the TIGER
data. The Census Bureau is currently working to enhance its TIGER data
in preparation for the 2010 census, and a major objective of the
project is to improve the accuracy of its street location data.
However, despite Agriculture and NGA's use of street location data,
Census did not include either agency in the TIGER enhancement project
plan's list of agencies that will be affected by the initiative.
Without better coordination, agencies such as Agriculture and NGA are
likely to continue to need to purchase redundant commercial data sets
in the future.
In summary, although various cross-government committees and
initiatives, individual federal agencies, and OMB have each taken
actions to coordinate the government's geospatial investments across
agencies and with state and local governments, agencies continue to
purchase and maintain uncoordinated and duplicative geospatial
investments. Without better coordination, such duplication is likely to
continue. In order to improve the coordination of federal geospatial
investments, our report recommends that the Director of OMB and the
Secretary of the Interior direct the development of a national
geospatial data strategy with outcome-related goals and objectives; a
plan for how the goals and objectives are to be achieved;
identification of key risk factors; and performance measures. Our
report also recommends that the Director of OMB develop criteria for
assessing the extent of interagency coordination on proposals for
potential geospatial investments. Based on these criteria, funding for
potential geospatial investments should be delayed or denied when
coordination is not adequately addressed in agencies' proposals.
Finally, our report provides specific recommendations to the Director
of OMB in order to strengthen the agency's oversight actions to more
effectively coordinate federal geospatial data and systems acquisitions
and thereby reduce potentially redundant investments.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have at this time.
Contact and Acknowledgments:
For further information regarding this statement, please contact me at
(202) 512-6240 or by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov. Other key contributors
to this testimony included Neil Doherty, John de Ferrari, Michael P.
Fruitman, Michael Holland, Steven Law, and Elizabeth Roach.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Geospatial assets include geographic information systems (GIS),
data, technology, and standards.
[2] The National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse is a decentralized
system of Internet-based servers that contain descriptions of available
geospatial data. It allows individual agencies, consortia, or others to
promote their available geospatial data.
[3] Geospatial One-Stop is an e-Government initiative sponsored by OMB
to enhance government efficiency and improve citizen service.
[4] The NSDI includes the technologies, policies, and people necessary
to promote sharing of geospatial data throughout all levels of
government, the private and non profit sectors, and the academic
community.
[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Geographic Information Systems:
Challenges to Effective Data Sharing, GAO-03-874T (Washington, D.C.:
June 10, 2003).
[6] U.S. General Accounting Office, Geospatial Information: Better
Coordination Needed to Identify and Reduce Duplicative Investments,
GAO-04-703 (Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2004).
[7] B. Keller and G. Kreizman, To The Rescue: GIS in New York City on
Sept. 11 (Gartner Inc., March 2002), http://www.gartner.com (downloaded
March 10, 2004).
[8] GAO-03-874T.
[9] 40 U.S.C.  11302(b).
[10] 44 U.S.C.  3504(a)(1).
[11] OMB's E-Government Task Force identified 23 initiatives (two
additional initiatives were subsequently added) aimed at improving
service to individuals, service to businesses, intergovernmental
affairs, and federal agency-to-agency efficiency and effectiveness.
[12] These reference models include the Business Reference Model, the
Service Component Reference Model, the Technical Reference Model, the
Performance Reference Model, and the Data and Information Reference
Model.
[13] An enterprise architecture is a blueprint, defined largely by
interrelated models, that describes (in both business and technology
terms) an entity's "as is" or current environment, its "to be" or
future environment, and its investment plan for transitioning from the
current to the future environment.
[14] The scope of these cost estimates varies and may include
development, operation, or both. The examples are for illustrative
purposes and are not intended to be compared.
[15] This figure does not include costs for data acquisition. Some
National Map data are acquired from Landsat satellites, which are
estimated to cost about $95 million to operate through 2008.
[16] The framework of data themes is a collaborative effort in which
commonly used data "layers" are developed, maintained, and integrated
by public and private organizations within a geographic area. Local,
regional, state, and federal organizations and private companies can
use the framework as a way to share resources, improve communications,
and increase efficiency.
[17] P.L. 103-62, section 3.
[18] Metadata refers to data that contain or define other data. For
geospatial information, metadata provides information about, among
other things, sources used, collection methods, and the date the data
were collected.
[19] According to Circular A-16, agencies are required to publish only
data that they are able to share with the public.
[20] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: The
Federal Enterprise Architecture and Agencies' Enterprise Architectures
Are Still Maturing, GAO-04-798T (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2004).
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: