prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: The federal government owns and leases hundreds of thousands of buildings across the country that cost billions of dollars annually to operate and maintain  In recent years, the federal government has taken steps to improve the management of federal real property and address long-standing issues by undertaking several government-wide initiatives and issuing memorandums to the CFO Act agencies  Within the executive branch, OMB and GSA provide leadership in managing federal real property  As the chief management office for the executive branch, OMB oversees how federal agencies devise, implement, manage, and evaluate programs and policies  OMB provides direction to federal agencies by, among other things, issuing policies and memorandums on real property management  In 2012, OMB issued a memorandum that required agencies to move aggressively to dispose of excess properties held by the federal government and more efficiently use real estate assets  This memorandum initially laid out the requirement to “freeze the footprint ” In 2013, OMB issued a memorandum clarifying the Freeze the Footprint policy  This memorandum required agencies going forward to maintain no more than their fiscal year 2012 total square footage of domestic office and warehouse space  The policy required agencies to specifically identify existing properties to be disposed of to offset any new property acquisitions  In March 2015, OMB transitioned from freezing the federal government’s real property footprint to reducing it  Specifically, OMB issued the National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property (National Strategy) to provide a framework to guide agencies’ real property management, increase efficient real property use, control costs, and reduce federal real property  The National Strategy outlined three key steps to improve real property management: (1) freeze growth in the inventory; (2) measure performance and use data to identify opportunities to improve the efficiency of the real property portfolio; and (3) reduce the size of the inventory by consolidating, co-locating, and disposing of properties  OMB also issued the RTF policy which clarified existing policy to dispose of excess properties and promote more efficient use of real property assets  The RTF policy requires agencies to: (1) submit annual Real Property Efficiency Plans (Plan) to GSA and OMB; (2) issue a policy that specifies a design standard for maximum useable square feet by workstation for use in domestic office space; (3) set and specify in their Plans annual reduction targets for their domestic office and warehouse space for a 5-year period; (4) set and specify in their Plans annual reduction targets for domestic owned building properties reported in the Federal Real Property Profile; and (5) continue to not increase the square footage of their domestic inventory of office and warehouse space  Additionally, agencies must identify in their Plans potential projects related to office and warehouse consolidation, co-location, disposal, as well as construction and acquisition efforts  OMB is responsible for reporting the progress of agencies’ efforts in reducing the amount of federal real property space under the RTF policy  GSA has two key leadership responsibilities related to real property management  First, GSA’s Public Buildings Service functions as the federal government’s principal landlord  In this role, GSA acquires, manages, and disposes of federally owned real property for which it has custody and control on behalf of federal agencies that occupy the space  Additionally, GSA leases commercial buildings on behalf of agencies and manages the lease agreements  In these situations, GSA executes an occupancy agreement with a customer agency for each space assignment that is similar to a sublease between GSA and the agency  The occupancy agreement outlines both the financial specifics of the agreement and the responsibilities of GSA and the customer agency  There are certain unique advantages for customer agencies when GSA leases on their behalf  For example, GSA is able to enter into longer-term leases, and agencies can release space back to GSA with 4 months’ written notice if certain conditions are met, relieving the agencies of the cost for the returned space  Second, GSA’s Office of Government-wide Policy is responsible for, among other things, identifying, evaluating, and promoting best practices to improve the efficiency of management processes  In this policy role, GSA provides guidance for federal agencies and publishes performance measures  It also maintains the Federal Real Property Profile, a real property inventory database that contains information on federal real property government-wide  Based on our review of agencies’ 2016 and 2017 Plans, we found that all 24 CFO Act agencies described strategies for reducing office and warehouse space  As previously mentioned, these annual Plans must include all potential projects related to office and warehouse consolidation, co-location, disposal, as well as construction and acquisition efforts  The agencies’ Plans cited consolidation, co-location, and disposal as the primary means to reduce their office and warehouse space, activities mentioned in the National Strategy  Agencies also cited other methods, such as utilizing telework and decreasing the space they allocate per person to achieve space reductions  The space reduction strategies included most often in the Plans we reviewed include the following  Consolidation: All 24 agencies reported planned or ongoing efforts to reduce their space by consolidating their offices or operations  For example, we spoke with officials at HUD, which is in the process of consolidating staff from four offices in the National Capital Region into its 1 12-million square foot headquarters building in Washington, D C  HUD started by remodeling one floor to create a more open floor plan and intends to apply this design throughout the building  As part of the consolidation project, HUD has reduced the size of some office cubicles from 64 square feet to 56 square feet  (See fig  1 ) HUD leases its space through GSA and estimates that it will be able to return about 175,000 square feet of unneeded space back to GSA once all four offices are closed  At that point, GSA would then bear the cost of the space and work to lease it to another agency or otherwise dispose of it  Once the project is completed, HUD estimated that its headquarters building will accommodate about 500 more personnel (for a total of 3,200) and reduce its annual lease payments by about $11 million  Fifteen of the 24 agencies identified consolidation opportunities outside of their headquarters buildings  For example, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) discussed a consolidation project involving five component agencies in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in its fiscal year 2017 Plan  According to USDA officials, four component agencies occupying nearly 44,500 square feet in one building were to be consolidated into about 34,000 square feet of space in another building already occupied by a different USDA agency  In the prior location, the multiple components spaces’ square footage per person averaged 327, but the proposed consolidation would bring the utilization rate down to 255 square feet per person  USDA estimated that the consolidation project would result in about $238,000 in annual rent cost savings for the four components  Additionally, to enable this consolidation project, the component agency already occupying the building consolidated and vacated about 20,000 square feet, a move that resulted in an annual rental savings of about $500,000  In its fiscal year 2017 Plan, Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation anticipated eliminating 87,000 square feet of office space by consolidating operations from two buildings in Denver, Colorado  Interior estimated that the consolidation will result in a 40 percent reduction in its overall utilization rate to 165 square feet per person and an annual cost savings of about $2 1 million  Co-location: Thirteen of the 24 agencies’ Plans stated that they are exploring or implementing co-location projects to reduce space by merging staff from different components or agencies into another agency’s space  For example, the Social Security Administration (SSA) recently initiated a co-location pilot program with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) within Treasury to combine SSA field offices with IRS Taxpayer Assistance Centers  Co-location of operations can reduce the overall space required by allowing agencies to share common space such as waiting rooms, an action that can reduce rent and operating costs for the co-located agencies  Since the inception of the 1-year program in January 2017, four IRS offices are participating and have moved into SSA field offices  According to SSA, IRS and SSA staff have adjusted to sharing space and the IRS presence in SSA space has not affected SSA wait times or created security or parking issues  According to an IRS official, IRS employees continue all normal operations from their co-located offices with SSA, including meeting with taxpayers in-person  The official also noted that IRS has extended the terms of its agreement with SSA for an additional year  However, SSA noted that the agencies are still working through customer access issues that could determine whether it would be possible to expand the pilot program and pursue additional co-location opportunities  In another example, according to Interior officials, the U S  Geological Survey is co-locating staff from Menlo Park, California, to a National Aeronautics and Space Administration facility in the nearby city of Mountain View, California  About 40 percent of the staff will move early in fiscal year 2019, and the U S  Geological Survey expects the remaining staff to be co- located by the end of 2021  Interior officials estimate that the co- location will result in an overall reduction of 165,000 square feet (about 50 percent of its space) and expects to save about $12 to $14 million in annual rent costs  To help agencies identify potential co-location opportunities and work with other agencies to meet their space requirements, GSA developed and provided agencies access to its Asset Consolidation Tool in fiscal year 2015  This database tool provides agencies with information about federal spaces in their area, including the buildings’ vacancy and utilization rates  Disposal of unneeded space: Thirteen of the 24 agencies reported that they plan to reduce their real property footprint by disposing of unneeded space, including selling or demolishing federal buildings or terminating leases, among other actions  For example, IRS has five tax submission-processing centers that receive all mailed income-tax returns and have warehouses that store the physical tax records  Each of these five processing centers, which include both office and warehouse spaces in multiple buildings, is approximately 500,000 square feet  According to IRS officials, 87 percent of all 2016 individual income-tax returns were filed electronically  As a result, the IRS plans to dispose of three of the five centers by 2024 to align with its reduced need for income-tax return processing and storage space  GSA has the statutory authority to dispose of property for all federal agencies and generally does so on their behalf  In addition, some federal agencies, such as Energy, or departmental components have statutory authority to dispose of buildings and other types of property and are not required to notify or use the services of GSA to complete the disposal  Better utilization of existing space: In their Plans, agencies also reported using tactical tools, such as incorporating space utilization rates into their capital-planning process, to identify opportunities to reduce space  For example, 22 of the 24 agencies reported incorporating office space design standards and agency utilization rates into their processes to identify space reduction opportunities  Agencies set their own space design standards and space utilization rates, which may vary based on agency mission requirements across their components  The RTF policy requires agencies to establish a design standard for the maximum workstation size, which should, at a minimum, be applied to all space renovations and new acquisitions  In addition, GSA has a recommended office space-utilization rate range of 150 to 200 square feet per person  Officials from our case study agencies noted several practices they said were helpful to identify opportunities to better utilize and ultimately reduce their space  For example, Commerce officials described developing a process for identifying and prioritizing space reduction opportunities using a two-factor matrix  Through this process, Commerce plans to target office space with a large number of employees and poor utilization rates (compared to its 170 square foot utilization rate)  According to Commerce officials, these situations may offer the most opportunity for space reductions and achieving significant rent and operating cost savings, particularly in high-cost real estate markets  Using this process, Commerce identified the potential for reducing as much as 1 6-million square feet (16 percent) of its total office space within 52 high priority facilities  According to IRS, retirements, hiring freezes, budget reductions, and increased telework have resulted in excess space throughout its portfolio  In fiscal year 2016, IRS started using a Strategic Facility Plan model to help identify space reduction projects  IRS’s objectives include consolidating multiple offices within a metropolitan area, closing outlying buildings, and leveraging telework, mobility, and its attrition rates  This model utilizes a template form to provide a consistent decision-making framework for assessing various options, articulating the rationale for selecting the preferred option, and documenting decisions and concurrence  According to IRS officials, this model has helped IRS to reduce a lot of its space  In 2014, GSA developed and provided agencies with access to the Real Property Management Tool, which can aid agencies that want to more effectively utilize their space  The database tool provides agencies with the capability to comprehensively view their real property portfolio by consolidating data from the assets that agencies directly manage with the assets that GSA manages on their behalf  As such, regardless of whether an agency initiated the action or GSA did so on its behalf, the tool gives an agency the ability to see all of its data, such as on expiring leases, in one place  The tool enables agencies to create individualized analytic reports allowing them to analyze the data in various ways  Teleworking and hoteling: Fifteen of the 24 agencies also described alternate workplace arrangements enabled by information technology, such as telework and hoteling, to help reduce office space  Telework is a work flexibility arrangement under which an employee performs their work responsibilities at an approved alternative worksite (e g , home)  Executive agencies are required to establish policies that authorize eligible employees to telework, determine the eligibility of all employees to participate in telework, and notify all employees of their eligibility  Federal law also requires that agencies consider whether space needs can be met using alternative workspace arrangements when deciding whether to acquire new space  As such, some agencies are eliminating designated offices for staff who primarily telework, a step that can improve space utilization  In a hoteling arrangement, employees use non-dedicated, non-permanent workspaces assigned for use by reservation and on an as needed basis  For example, the Office of Personnel Management implemented a workspace sharing initiative at one of its program offices  Staff who are not physically present in the office 4 or more days per week are required to share cubicles and offices  The Office of Personnel Management estimated that the initiative resulted in a 47 percent office space reduction for the program office  As part of their fiscal year 2016 and 2017 Plans, the 24 CFO Act agencies also described the major challenges they anticipated facing in their efforts to meet their space reduction targets  The agencies most frequently cited the following challenges: Space reduction costs: Twenty of 24 agencies stated that the costs of space reduction projects pose a challenge  Agencies are generally responsible for the up-front costs associated with relocations and tenant improvements, such as acquiring new furniture and renovating existing areas to reduce space or to accommodate more personnel in a smaller area  For example, the Department of Labor (Labor) reported in its fiscal year 2017 Plan that it did not have sufficient funding to implement a space reduction project that would have reduced commercially leased office space by 4,000 square feet  Similarly, the Department of Veterans Affairs’ fiscal year 2017 Plan noted that assuming a limited budget, large scale consolidations would be difficult to achieve  Some agencies have used or report that they intend to use funding from GSA’s Consolidation Activities program to help fund their space reduction projects  According to GSA, from fiscal years 2014 to 2017, GSA’s Consolidation Activities program funded projects that will eliminate 1 4-million rentable square feet from the GSA inventory and reduce agencies’ annual rent payments by $54 million  According to the IRS, GSA’s Consolidation funds have helped the agency reduce about 500,000 square feet of space  IRS officials noted that these funds helped the agency implement larger and more expensive space reduction projects than it would have been able to do otherwise  However, according to officials from several agencies, to use this program, agencies must also contribute funds to the projects  HUD officials stated that they considered applying for project funding through GSA but did not do so because HUD did not have sufficient funds for the agency’s share of project costs  Three of the 24 agencies specifically noted that the cost to clean up environmentally contaminated buildings is a challenge to disposing of excess office and warehouse space  Agencies are required to consider the environmental impact of property disposals  We have previously found that assessments and remediation of contaminated properties can be expensive and complicate the disposal process  Also, agencies are responsible for supervising decontamination of excess and surplus real property that has been contaminated with hazardous materials of any sort  In its fiscal year 2017 Plan, Energy estimated that over 60 percent of its excess buildings require extensive decontamination prior to disposal  Overall, Energy projected that its total liability for environmental clean-up could cost more than $280 billion  Mission delivery: Thirteen of the 24 agencies reported that mission delivery requirements can also affect their ability to reduce space  Agency missions may require office locations in certain areas or require additional space to accommodate activities such as customer interactions  These requirements may preclude disposals or limit opportunities to reduce space  For example, in its fiscal year 2017 Plan, SSA stated that its efforts to reduce space are affected by its mission, which requires offices widely dispersed throughout the country to administer and support its benefit programs, among other things  SSA has about 1,500 office spaces nationwide, most of which require space to accommodate the public  SSA had an overall office space utilization rate of 301 square feet per person, which exceeded GSA’s recommended office space utilization rate range of 150 to 200 square feet per person  USDA’s fiscal year 2017 Plan stated that its missions require office space in rural areas to, among other things, provide program assistance and leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues  In its fiscal year 2017 Plan, USDA also observed that the real estate market in rural areas is less competitive than in urban areas because there are fewer rental options, a situation that can also drive up rent costs  As such, USDA noted that these factors may contribute to difficulties identifying disposal opportunities and finding alternate spaces that could allow for more effective space utilization  Employee organization concerns: Ten of the 24 agencies reported that considering employee organizations’ concerns and addressing collective bargaining requirements when reconfiguring space can add time and affect the extent of their space reductions  For example, in its fiscal year 2017 Plan, SSA noted that the agency must meet with three employee unions when revising office space policies or design standards and collaborating with these organizations adds to the project’s implementation timeline  In July 2017, we reported that SSA officials met with employee union groups about the impact of potential changes to its space configuration or usage  Officials said that while the interactions with the union groups were positive—including gaining input on issues such as ergonomics, the security of field offices, and overall implementation—at times, these negotiations caused delays to individual projects and complicated reduction efforts by requiring union buy-in  In addition, Labor reported in its fiscal year 2017 Plan that its collective bargaining agreement and agency mission requirements for offices and work stations do not always enable it to take advantage of the previously discussed GSA Consolidation Funding program as well as GSA’s Total Workplace Furniture & Information Technology program  For example, the Total Workplace Furniture & Information Technology program requires that cubicles and offices must not exceed a specified square footage  However, according to Labor officials, Labor’s Departmental Space Management Regulation requires a certain utilization rate per person which may make it challenging to also stay within the program’s square footage requirements  Workload growth: Eight of the 24 agencies noted that increases in their workload limited their ability to achieve overall agency space reductions  For example, according to the Department of Justice’s fiscal year 2017 Plan, the agency anticipated having to provide additional court rooms to support an increased volume of immigration cases and accommodate the additional immigration judges needed to handle that volume  The Department of Justice estimated that the space needed to accommodate the new judges and additional public areas could add about 155,000 square feet to its portfolio  Also, according to the Department of Health and Human Services’ fiscal years 2016 and 2017 Plans, the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals experienced a 30 percent growth in cases and expected 1 2- million new cases annually after 2017  The Department of Health and Human Services projected that the growth in cases and additional staff needed to process the cases required additional field offices, which would increase its total office space square footage  As previously mentioned, agencies are required to set annual square foot reduction targets for domestic office and warehouse space in their annual Plans  According to an OMB official, to help ensure the targets are realistic, agencies are also required to identify the specific projects that will help them to achieve their space reduction targets  According to GSA and OMB officials, agencies submit their Plans, including their reduction targets, and their Plans are reviewed by both GSA and OMB  But each individual agency ultimately establishes its targets based on what it determines to be cost-effective and feasible  Through its Real Property Efficiency Plan template, GSA provides guidance to agencies on what is expected in their annual submissions  Each agency is required to document its internal controls, such as the process for identifying and prioritizing reductions to office and warehouse space and disposal of properties based on return on investment and mission requirements  The identified internal controls should help ensure that an agency’s proposed space reduction projects reflect an efficient use of space and are cost effective  A review of our five case study agencies illustrated some of the different approaches agencies used to determine their reduction targets  For example, several agencies’ targets were based on the total estimated feasible reductions identified by each agency component  In contrast, one agency centrally established a reduction target percentage and then asked its components to develop projects to meet that target  According to case-study agency officials, the agencies considered many factors, including their missions, priorities, component needs, and available budgets, when determining their targets  We found that the number and magnitude of the space reduction projects agencies identified in their fiscal year 2017 Plans varied greatly and were generally proportional to the size of the agency’s real property portfolio  The number of projects identified in agency Plans ranged from as few as 3 projects (the minimum required in the Plans) to nearly 400 projects  The estimated space reductions per project across agencies ranged from about 1,400 to over 94,000 square feet  For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs has a relatively large office and warehouse portfolio of over 28-million square feet  As part of its fiscal year 2017 Plan, the agency reported 320 planned or ongoing projects with an average space reduction of about 1,800 square feet per project  Conversely, the Office of Personnel Management has a relatively small office space portfolio of about 1-million square feet; its fiscal year 2017 Plan identified 4 ongoing or potential projects with an average space reduction of about 6,000 square feet  In fiscal year 2016—the first and only year RTF data were available at the time of our review—the majority (71 percent or 17 of the 24 agencies) reported they achieved reductions in their office and warehouse space even though the agencies had varying success in achieving the individual targets they set for themselves  For example, as shown in figure 2, of the 17 agencies that reduced space, 9 exceeded their targets (i e , reduced more space than planned); 7 reduced space but missed their target (by anywhere between 2 8 and 96 7 percent); and 1 agency expected to increase in square footage, but reduced space  Whether an agency met its target is not the only indicator of an agency’s success in reducing space  For example, although some agencies missed their targets, they reduced their office and warehouse space by a larger percentage than some agencies that exceeded their targets  Also, the fact that some agencies missed their targets can in part be attributed to setting more aggressive targets than other agencies  Agencies’ fiscal year 2016 targets ranged from a 0 8 percent increase to an 8 4 percent decrease in office and warehouse space  Of the 9 agencies that exceeded their reduction targets, 4 more than tripled their target  As mentioned, agency targets are set by the agency and are a reflection of their unique situation including mission needs and priorities and therefore cannot be generalized across agencies  For example, Energy exceeded its fiscal year 2016 reduction target and reduced 292,140 square feet of space (0 8 percent of its total square footage)  However, the Environmental Protection Agency missed its target, which was the second most aggressive target across all the agencies at 7 2 percent of its total square footage; but the agency reduced 174,003 square feet (3 24 percent of its total square footage)  Of the three agencies with the most aggressive target reductions—those that ranged between 6 7 and 8 4 percent of their total square footage—only one met its target  Figure 3 shows the extent to which each of the CFO Act agencies met its fiscal year 2016 targets  See appendix II for more detailed information on each agencies’ square footage of space, reduction targets and fiscal year 2016 reductions  Officials from our case study agencies cited a number of factors that influenced whether or not they met their fiscal year 2016 targets, and may also affect their target achievement in subsequent years  Of our five case study agencies, three exceeded their fiscal year 2016 reduction target and two missed their target  Timing and funding: Officials from two case study agencies cited timing as a factor, noting that there is fluidity to the project’s planning, implementation, and disposal process that may not always be within an agency’s control  As a result, space reductions anticipated in one fiscal year may not be realized until a subsequent fiscal year; conversely, some space reduction opportunities may present themselves unexpectedly  For example, according to officials at HUD, which missed its fiscal year 2016 reduction target, some projects take longer than anticipated to start or complete  HUD officials said that their fiscal year 2016 target may have been too ambitious and planned projects were delayed because they were unable to secure sufficient funding  As such, the officials said the agency must carefully select which projects to move forward with in a given fiscal year, but expected to move forward with their delayed, planned projects in the next fiscal year  Energy on the other hand, exceeded its fiscal year 2016 reduction target  Energy officials said that they tend to be conservative in listing potential RTF projects in their Plans  They noted that it takes a long time to dispose of a building and the timing was dependent on the building’s level of contamination, location, size, agency budget, and other factors  As a result, even though the agency may have planned to dispose of a building in a given fiscal year, there were numerous reasons why the project may get delayed  Further, RTF is a long-term effort and should not be judged based on agencies’ progress in their first year  According to an OMB official, it is understood that there may be circumstances in a given year that may hinder agencies from reaching their RTF targets, such as budget constraints or the timing of leases; however, the expectation is that agencies will continue to work toward accomplishing their target in the next year  Accordingly, under RTF, agencies set annual space reduction targets for a 5-year period  Officials from our case study agencies emphasized that the 5-year targets are not static, but rather are subject to annual updates  The RTF policy also acknowledged that changes to mission requirements and the availability of budgetary resources may require modifications to an agency’s targets, particularly in each of the subsequent years  Lastly, given that the RTF policy is still relatively recent, an OMB official noted that agencies are still in the process of learning how to set appropriate targets  Previous space reductions: Officials from three of our case study agencies noted that prior space reductions made during the Freeze the Footprint policy limited their ability to reduce space more aggressively  Though the thrust of Freeze the Footprint was to maintain the fiscal year 2012 size of an agency’s portfolio, agencies started to look more strategically for opportunities to dispose of excess space in their portfolios  The majority of agencies (18 of 24) have been decreasing the square footage of their domestic office and warehouse space since the Freeze the Footprint policy was implemented in 2013  OMB reported that under Freeze the Footprint, agencies achieved a 24 7-million square foot reduction between fiscal years 2012 and 2015  Officials from the IRS, which accounts for 70 percent of Treasury’s real property inventory, noted it has released 2 7-million square feet (approximately 10 percent) in the past 5 years, bringing its total square footage down to 25 3 million  According to officials from three of our case study agencies, a certain amount of space is required to effectively fulfill their missions  As such, the closer agencies get to attaining their optimum footprint, their ability to achieve further space reductions may be limited  In November 2016, GSA put into effect a new standard operating procedure to, among other things, standardize and streamline the process of receiving, reviewing, and documenting agencies’ space release actions  As previously mentioned, GSA’s occupancy agreements for space it leases on behalf of its customer agencies generally allow the agencies to release space back to GSA with as little as 4 months’ notice, if certain conditions are met  This can enable agencies to reduce their space and related rent costs relatively quickly without penalty  As a result of this new process, GSA established a centralized e-mail for agencies to submit their space release requests  The e-mail is maintained at GSA headquarters before it is forwarded to the respective GSA region  GSA also developed a centralized space release tracking spreadsheet to help ensure that all GSA regions were (1) notifying the customer agency of GSA’s determination on whether the space release request was within GSA’s policy, and (2) processing the space release and ceasing rent billings in a timely manner  According to GSA headquarters officials, this new process was implemented to rectify past concerns that space release requests were not centrally tracked, GSA regions may not have been making consistent determinations, and some requests either were missed or were not processed within the appropriate time frames  GSA officials noted that GSA similarly manages all vacant space in federally owned property under its custody and control and in commercial space it leases, and the agency seeks to utilize the space as quickly as possible  GSA has 11 regional offices throughout the country that generally conduct the day-to-day real property management activities for its customer agencies  These responsibilities include acquiring, managing, and disposing of real property, as well as executing, renewing, and terminating leases on behalf of its customer agencies in exchange for a monthly fee for GSA’s services  GSA headquarters officials told us that GSA regional offices track all the occupancy agreements and proactively work with customer agencies to help manage their space needs well before the agreements expire to understand ongoing space requirements  For example, according to GSA headquarters officials, this process includes working with agencies at a strategic level and helping them think about how they can accomplish their space needs and meet their targets 4 to 5 years in advance  GSA headquarters and regional officials noted that the advance planning helps the GSA regional officials integrate agencies’ potential space needs into the work they are already doing in the region as GSA manages the regional inventory as a whole, including managing the amount of vacant space  GSA regional officials told us that they work closely with the agencies in their space consolidation and reduction efforts to minimize the likelihood that GSA would be caught off guard by a release of space  This work enables GSA to develop options for either filling vacant space based on the known needs in the region or developing an alternative plan to effectively utilize the unneeded space  One of GSA’s strategic objectives is to improve the federal utilization of space in order to lower the government’s operational costs  To assess progress, GSA has an agency-wide vacant space performance goal of 3 2 percent for its federally-owned and leased inventory (with a 5 percent goal for federally owned and 1 5 percent goal for leased space)  Based on GSA data, the agency has steadily lowered its percentage of vacant space under its custody and control from 3 8 percent in fiscal year 2013 to 3 percent in fiscal year 2016, exceeding its performance goal of 3 2 percent for the first time in 4 years  The vacant space performance goal’s data help GSA evaluate its real property assets and plan for and make investment decisions while meeting its customer’s needs  According to GSA officials, the lower vacant space percentage is a reflection of the agency’s continued focus on working with its customer agencies to: (1) move into federally owned space, when possible; (2) decrease the size of commercially leased space to reduce agency rental costs and overall government reliance on leased space; and (3) dispose of unneeded federally owned assets  However, GSA officials noted that a certain level of vacant space is necessary to meet the space needs of new customers and customers with changing space requirements  According to GSA officials, GSA also tracks and reports annual cost avoidance data for all office and warehouse space reductions  These data include space covered under RTF in federally owned buildings under GSA’s custody and control and commercial space that GSA leases  Cost avoidance is defined as the results of an action taken in the immediate timeframe that will decrease future costs  The government-wide cost avoidance for fiscal year 2016 was $104 million based upon a net 10 7 million square foot reduction to all office and warehouse space  Of the government-wide figure, according to GSA, the total cost avoidance associated with office and warehouse space reductions in federally- owned space under GSA’s custody and control and commercial space GSA leased in fiscal year 2016 was over $75 8 million and 3 1 million square feet  In its cost avoidance calculation, GSA accounts for space returned to it by customer agencies only if there is a net square footage reduction in GSA’s total square footage across all the space that it manages  Similarly, the space returned to GSA does not reduce the federal government’s overall office and warehouse square footage unless GSA disposes of it  However, space that is returned to GSA is reflected as a square footage reduction for the customer agency and contributes toward that agency’s RTF target reduction  According to GSA regional officials, agencies’ requests to return space prior to the end of their occupancy agreements appear to have increased since the implementation of the RTF policy  Thus far, GSA has processes to manage agencies’ space release requests and keep its vacant space to a minimum  However, it is too early to determine how the recent increase in space release requests, in combination with agencies’ continued focus on occupying a smaller footprint and reducing their square footage, will affect: (1) the size of GSA’s inventory of vacant space in the long term, (2) GSA’s regional office workload to manage the requests, and (3) the cost savings for the federal government  We provided a draft of this report to GSA, OMB, Commerce, Energy, HUD, Interior, and Treasury for review and comment  We received technical comments from Energy, which we incorporated, where appropriate  GSA, OMB, Commerce, HUD, Interior, and Treasury did not have comments on our draft report  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Administrator of GSA; the Director of the OMB; the Secretaries of the Departments of Commerce, Energy, HUD, the Interior, and the Treasury; and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or rectanusl@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III  Our objectives were to determine: (1) the approaches and any challenges the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act agencies identified to achieving their Reduce the Footprint (RTF) reduction targets for all their domestic office and warehouse space; (2) the extent to which these agencies reduced space and met their fiscal year 2016 RTF targets; and (3) how the General Services Administration (GSA) manages vacated space that it had leased to these agencies  To obtain background information for all three objectives, we reviewed relevant literature, including laws governing federal real-property management and agencies’ efforts to reduce their real property portfolios and Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) and GSA’s memorandums and guidance governing the RTF policy  We also reviewed prior GAO and GSA inspector general reports describing agencies’ real-property management and efforts to more efficiently manage their real property portfolios  To determine the approaches used and any challenges faced by the CFO Act agencies in achieving their RTF reduction targets for all their domestic office and warehouse space, we conducted a content analysis of the agencies’ 5-year Real Property Efficiency Plans (Plans) for fiscal years 2016 and 2017  These Plans were obtained directly from each of the agencies  Each Plan describes an agency’s overall strategic and tactical approach in managing its real property, provides a rationale for and justifies its optimum portfolio, and directs the identification and execution of real property disposals, efficiency improvements, general usage, and cost-savings measures  The content analysis of the Plans helped us to understand the approaches agencies used to reduce space, how space- reduction targets were set, and any challenges they experienced in reducing their space  To identify agencies’ approaches to achieving their RTF targets, we reviewed all agencies’ Plans to determine the most frequently mentioned approaches agencies reported using or planned to use to reduce their real-property footprints  As part of their plans, each agency is required to include a section detailing approaches it plans to use to reduce space  While these sections were the primary focus of the analysis, we analyzed the Plans as a whole for any additional mention of agencies’ approaches to reduce space  Based on the frequently identified approaches, codes were developed  An analyst reviewed all the agencies’ Plans and coded the approaches and another analyst reviewed the coding  If there was a disagreement, the two analysts reviewed and discussed until they reached an agreement  As a result of the analysis, five approaches were identified that agencies most frequently reported using or were planning to use to achieve their RTF targets  These five approaches are described in more detail in the report: (1) consolidation; (2) co-location; (3) disposition of unneeded space; (4) better utilization of existing space; and (5) teleworking and hoteling  For the purposes of our report, telework and hoteling were combined because these approaches are often used in combination  For example, agencies can use telework strategically to reduce space needs and increase efficiency by making hoteling (i e , desk sharing) possible  To identify any challenges agencies faced in achieving their RTF targets, we similarly conducted a content analysis of agencies’ fiscal year 2016 and 2017 Plans  As part of their Plans, each agency included a section describing challenges it faced to reducing space  While these sections were the primary focus of the analysis, we analyzed the Plans as a whole for any additional mention of agencies’ challenges  Based on the frequently identified challenges, codes were developed  An analyst went through all the agencies’ Plans to code the challenges and another analyst reviewed the coding  If there was a disagreement, the two analysts reviewed and discussed until they reached an agreement  As a result of the analysis, we identified the four challenges that agencies most frequently described in their Plans: (1) space reduction costs; (2) mission delivery; (3) employee organization concerns; and (4) workload growth  In our report, we relied specifically on agencies’ fiscal year 2016 and 2017 Plans to provide examples and context for our description of the approaches agencies use and challenges they experience in achieving their RTF targets  However, after these Plans were submitted, agencies reported that the specific details as described in their Plans may in some instances, have changed due to a variety of factors  For our case study agencies, to the extent possible, we have provided updated information from agency officials as of December 2017  We selected five agencies as case studies to inform our first two objectives  We selected the agencies using a variety of considerations such as the diversity in the size of the agency’s domestic office and warehouse portfolio, the extent to which the agency met its fiscal year 2016 RTF targets, the types of real property authorities the agency has, as well as suggestions from GSA and OMB related to agencies’ experiences  Based on these factors, we selected the: (1) Department of Commerce (Commerce); (2) Department of Energy (Energy); (3) Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); (4) Department of the Interior (Interior); and (5) Department of the Treasury (Treasury)  While our case-study agencies and their experiences reducing their space are not generalizable to all CFO Act agencies, they provide a range of examples of how agencies are implementing the RTF policy  We interviewed officials at the selected agencies as well as GSA and OMB, and reviewed relevant agency real-property management and RTF guidance, to obtain more detailed information about agencies’ RTF approaches, challenges, specific RTF projects, RTF project funding and prioritization, and experiences in meeting their RTF targets  In addition, we visited three office buildings of our case study agencies in Washington, D C , with ongoing or recently completed RTF projects that illustrated approaches the agencies used to reduce space and met with officials to discuss the projects in more detail  The spaces we visited were the headquarters buildings for Commerce, HUD, and Interior  We selected the buildings based on recommendations from officials at our case study agencies  To determine to what extent agencies reduced their space and met their fiscal year 2016 RTF targets, we analyzed the 24 CFO Act agencies’ data as submitted to GSA on their RTF targets and reported reductions for fiscal year 2016  The office and warehouse square footage reductions are calculated annually using GSA occupancy agreement data and agencies’ self-reported data in GSA’s Federal Real Property Profile  For example, for fiscal year 2016, the space reduction calculations based on these data sources at the end of the fiscal year was compared to the square footage reported in fiscal year 2015  At the time of our review, this was the first and only year of RTF data available as the policy was implemented in March 2015  We conducted a data reliability assessment of the RTF data GSA provided by interviewing GSA officials and reviewing documentation, and concluded the data were reliable for our purposes  We also interviewed officials at GSA and OMB and reviewed relevant documentation to learn more about each agency’s role and the requirements of the RTF policy  We interviewed officials from our selected case-study agencies to obtain supporting documentation and to improve our understanding of how agencies set their RTF targets, agencies’ progress toward those targets, and the approaches used and challenges faced in meeting those targets  We also asked the agency officials for examples of successful practices used to reduce their office and warehouse space  To determine how GSA manages vacated federally owned and commercially leased space that it leases to agencies, we reviewed federal requirements and GSA policies and vacancy data  We conducted a data reliability assessment of GSA’s vacancy and cost avoidance data by interviewing GSA officials and reviewing documentation, and concluded the data were reliable for our purposes  We also interviewed GSA headquarters and regional officials and obtained documentation on how GSA manages space returned by agencies  We conducted this performance audit from April 2017 to March 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  FY 2016- FY 2020 target reduction (118,127) Social Security Administration Missed target and increased in space Department of Health and Human Services (170,147) (520,987) (15,466) (47,946) (56,062) In addition to the individual named above, Maria Edelstein (Assistant Director); Lacey Coppage; Edgar Garcia; Delwen Jones; Catherine Kim (Analyst-in-Charge); Michael Mgebroff; Malika Rice; Kelly Rubin; and David Wise made key contributions to this report 


Report 2: The federal child nutrition programs provide assistance to schools and other institutions in the form of cash, commodity food, and administrative support (such as technical assistance and administrative funding) based on the provision of meals and snacks to children  In general, these programs were created (and amended over time) to both improve children's nutrition and provide support to the agriculture economy  Today, the child nutrition programs refer primarily to the following meal, snack, and milk reimbursement programs (these and other acronyms are listed in Appendix A ): National School Lunch Program (NSLP) (Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U S C  1751 et seq )); School Breakfast Program (SBP) (Child Nutrition Act, Section 4 (42 U S C  1773)); Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 17 (42 U S C  1766)); Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) (Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 13 (42 U S C  1761)); and Special Milk Program (SMP) (Child Nutrition Act, Section 3 (42 U S C  1772))  The programs provide financial support and/or foods to the institutions that prepare meals and snacks served outside of the home (unlike other food assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program) where benefits are used to purchase food for home consumption)  Though exact eligibility rules and pricing vary by program, in general the amount of federal reimbursement is greater for meals served to qualifying low-income individuals or at qualifying institutions, although most programs provide some subsidy for all food served  Participating children receive subsidized meals and snacks, which may be free or at reduced price  Forthcoming sections discuss how program-specific eligibility rules and funding operate  This report describes how each program operates under current law, focusing on eligibility rules, participation, and funding  This introductory section describes some of the background and principles that generally apply to all of the programs; subsequent sections go into further detail on the workings of each  Unless stated otherwise, participation and funding data come from USDA-FNS's "Keydata Reports " The child nutrition programs are most often dated back to the 1946 enactment of the National School Lunch Act, which created the National School Lunch Program, albeit in a different form than it operates today  Most of the child nutrition programs do not date back to 1946; they were added and amended in the decades to follow as policymakers expanded child nutrition programs' institutional settings and meals provided: The Special Milk Program was created in 1954, regularly extended, and made permanent in 1970  The School Breakfast Program was piloted in 1966, regularly extended, and eventually made permanent in 1975  A program for child care settings and summer programs was piloted in 1968, with separate programs authorized in 1975 and then made permanent in 1978  These are now the Child and Adult Care Food Program and Summer Food Service Program  The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program began as a pilot in 2002, was made permanent in 2004, and was expanded nationwide in 2008  The programs are now authorized under three major federal statutes: the Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act (originally enacted as the National School Lunch Act in 1946), the Child Nutrition Act (originally enacted in 1966), and Section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935 (7 U S C  612c)  Congressional jurisdiction over the underlying three laws has typically been exercised by the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee; the House Education and the Workforce Committee; and, to a limited extent (relating to commodity food assistance and Section 32 issues), the House Agriculture Committee  Congress periodically reviews and reauthorizes expiring authorities under these laws  The child nutrition programs were most recently reauthorized in 2010 through the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, P L  111-296 ); some of the authorities created or extended in that law expired on September 30, 2015  WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) is also typically reauthorized with the child nutrition programs  WIC is not one of the child nutrition programs and is not discussed in this report  The 114 th Congress began but did not complete a 2016 child nutrition reauthorization (see CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization: An Overview )  There was no significant legislative activity with regard to reauthorization in the 115 th Congress  The U S  Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) administers the programs at the federal level  The programs are operated by a wide variety of local public and private providers and the degree of direct state involvement differs by program and state  At the state level, education, health, social services, and agriculture departments all have roles; at a minimum, they are responsible for approving and overseeing local providers such as schools, summer program sponsors, and child care centers and day care homes, as well as making sure they receive the federal support they are due  At the local level, program benefits are provided to millions of children (e g , there were 30 0 million in the National School Lunch Program, the largest of the programs, in FY2017), through some 100,000 public and private schools and residential child care institutions, nearly 170,000 child care centers and family day care homes, and just over 50,000 summer program sites  All programs are available in the 50 states and the District of Columbia  Virtually all operate in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands (and, in differing versions, in the Northern Marianas and American Samoa)  This section summarizes the nature and extent to which the programs' funding is mandatory and discretionary, including a discussion of appropriated entitlement status  Table 3 lists child nutrition program and related expenditures  Most spending for child nutrition programs is provided in annual appropriations acts to fulfill the legal financial obligation established by the authorizing laws  That is, the level of spending for such programs, referred to as appropriated mandatory spending, is not controlled through the annual appropriations process, but instead is derived from the benefit and eligibility criteria specified in the authorizing laws  The appropriated mandatory funding is treated as mandatory spending  Further, if Congress does not appropriate the funds necessary to fund the program, eligible entities may have legal recourse  Congress typically considers the Administration's forecast for program needs in its appropriations decisions  For the majority of funding discussed in this report, the formula that controls the funding is not capped and fluctuates based on the reimbursement rates and the number of meals/snacks served in the programs  In the meal service programs, such as the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, summer programs, and assistance for child care centers and day care homes, federal aid is provided in the form of statutorily set subsidies (reimbursements) paid for each meal/snack served that meets federal nutrition guidelines  Although all (including full-price) meals/snacks served by participating providers are subsidized, those served free or at a reduced price to lower-income children are supported at higher rates  All federal meal/snack subsidy rates are indexed annually (each July) for inflation, as are the income eligibility thresholds for free and reduced-price meals/snacks  Subsequent sections discuss how a specific program's eligibility and reimbursements work  Most subsidies are cash payments to schools or other providers, but a smaller portion of aid is provided in the form of USDA-purchased commodity foods   Laws for three child nutrition programs (NSLP, CACFP, and SFSP) require the provision of commodity foods (or in some cases allow cash in lieu of commodity foods)  Meal and snack service entails nonfood costs  Federal child nutrition per-meal/snack subsidies may be used to cover local providers' administrative and operating costs  However, the separate direct federal payments for administrative/operating costs ("State Administrative Expenses," discussed in the " Related Programs, Initiatives, and Support Activities " section) are limited  In addition to the open-ended, appropriated entitlement funds summarized above, the child nutrition programs' funding also includes certain other mandatory funding and a limited amount of discretionary funding  Some of the activities discussed in " Related Programs, Initiatives, and Support Activities ," such as Team Nutrition, are provided for with discretionary funding  Aside from the annually appropriated funding, the child nutrition programs are also supported by certain permanent appropriations and transfers  Notably, funding for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program is funded by a transfer from USDA's Section 32 program, a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous year's customs receipts  Federal subsidies do not necessarily cover the full cost of the meals and snacks offered by providers  States and localities help cover program costs, as do children's families by paying charges for nonfree or reduced-price meals/snacks  There is a nonfederal cost-sharing requirement for the school meals programs (discussed below), and some states supplement school funding through additional state per-meal reimbursements or other prescribed financing arrangements  Subsequent sections of this report delve into the details of how each of the child nutrition programs support the service of meals and snacks in institutional settings; first, it is useful to take a broader perspective of primary program elements  Table 1 is a top-level look at the different programs that displays distinguishing characteristics (what meals are provided, in what settings, to what ages) and recent program spending  Other relevant CRS reports in this area include CRS In Focus IF10266, An Introduction to Child Nutrition Reauthorization CRS Report R45486, Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs CRS Report R41354, Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization: P L  111-296 (summarizes the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010) CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization: An Overview CRS Report R44588, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA's Section 32 Program Other relevant resources include USDA-FNS's website, https://www fns usda gov/school-meals/child-nutrition-programs USDA-FNS's Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act page, http://www fns usda gov/school-meals/healthy-hunger-free-kids-act The FNS page of the Federal Register , https://www federalregister gov/agencies/food-and-nutrition-service This section discusses the school meals programs: the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP)  Principles and concepts common to both programs are discussed first; subsections then discuss features and data unique to the NSLP and SBP, respectively  The federal school meals programs provide federal support in the form of cash assistance and USDA commodity foods; both are provided according to statutory formulas based on the number of reimbursable meals served in schools  The subsidized meals are served by both public and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools and residential child care institutions (RCCIs) that opt to enroll and guarantee to offer free or reduced-price meals to eligible low-income children  Both cash and commodity support to participating schools are calculated based on the number and price of meals served (e g , lunch or breakfast, free or full price), but once the aid is received by the school it is used to support the overall school meal service budget, as determined by the school  This report focuses on the federal reimbursements and funding, but it should be noted that some states have provided state financing through additional state-specific funding  Federal law does not require schools to participate in the school meals programs  However, some states have mandated that schools provide lunch and/or breakfast, and some of these states require that their schools do so through NSLP and/or SBP  The program is open to public and private schools  A reimbursable meal requires compliance with federal school nutrition standards, which have changed throughout the history of the program based on nutritional science and children's nutritional needs  Food items not served as a complete meal meeting nutrition standards (e g , a la carte offerings) are not reimbursable meals, and therefore are not eligible for federal per-meal, per-snack reimbursements  Following rulemaking to implement provisions in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 ( P L  111-296 ), USDA updated the nutrition standards for reimbursable meals in January 2012 (see " Nutrition Standards " for more information)  Schools serving meals that meet the updated nutrition standards are eligible for an increased reimbursement of 6 cents per lunch  USDA-FNS administers the school meals programs federally, and state agencies (typically state departments of education) oversee and transmit reimbursements through agreements with school food authorities (SFAs) (typically local educational agencies (LEAs); usually these are school districts)  Figure 1 provides an overview of the roles and relationships between these levels of government  There is a cost-sharing requirement for the programs, which amounts to a contribution of approximately $200 million from the states  There also are states that choose to supplement federal reimbursements with their own state reimbursements  The school meals programs and related funding do not serve only low-income children  All students can receive a meal at a NSLP- or SBP-participating school, but how much the child pays for the meal and/or how much of a federal reimbursement the state receives will depend largely on whether the child qualifies for a "free," "reduced-price," or "paid" (i e , advertised price) meal  Both NSLP and SBP use the same household income eligibility criteria and categorical eligibility rules  States and schools receive the largest reimbursements for free meals, smaller reimbursements for reduced-price meals, and the smallest (but still some federal financial support) for the full-price meals  There are three pathways through which a child can become certified to receive a free or reduced-price meal: 1  Household income eligibility for free and reduced-price meals (information typically collected via household application), 2  Categorical (or automatic) eligibility for free meals (information collected via household application or a direct certification process), and 3  School-wide free meals under the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) , an option for eligible schools that is based on the share of students identified as eligible for free meals  Each of these pathways is discussed in more detail below  The income eligibility thresholds (shown in Table 2 ) are based on multipliers of the federal poverty guidelines  As the poverty guidelines are updated every year, so are the eligibility thresholds for NSLP and SBP  Free Meals: Children receive free meals if they have household income at or below 130% of the federal poverty guidelines; these meals receive the highest subsidy rate  (Reimbursements are approximately $3 30 per lunch served, less for breakfast ) Reduced-Price Meals: Children may receive reduced-price meals (charges of no more than 40 cents for a lunch or 30 cents for a breakfast) if their household income is above 130% and less than or equal to 185% of the federal poverty guidelines; these meals receive a subsidy rate that is 40 cents (NSLP) or 30 cents (SBP) below the free meal rate  (Reimbursements are approximately $2 90 per lunch served ) Paid Meals: A comparatively small per-meal reimbursement is provided for full-price or paid meals served to children whose families do not apply for assistance or whose family income does not qualify them for free or reduced-price meals  The paid meal price is set by the school but must comply with federal regulations  (Reimbursements are approximately 30 cents per lunch served ) The above reimbursement rates are approximate; exact current-year federal reimbursement rates for NSLP and SBP are listed in Table B -1 and Table B -3 , respectively  Households complete paper or online applications that collect relevant income and household size data, so that the school district can determine if children in the household are eligible for free meals, reduced-price meals, or neither  Though these income guidelines primarily influence funding and administration of NSLP and SBP, they also affect the eligibility rules for the SFSP, CACFP, and SMP (described further in subsequent sections)  In addition to the eligibility thresholds listed above, the school meals programs also convey eligibility for free meals based on household participation in certain other need-tested programs or children's specified vulnerabilities (e g , foster children)  Per Section 12 of the National School Lunch Act, "a child shall be considered automatically eligible for a free lunch and breakfast     without further application or eligibility determination, if the child is" in a household receiving benefits through SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program); FDPIR (Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, a program that operates in lieu of SNAP on some Indian reservations) benefits; or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) cash assistance; enrolled in Head Start; in foster care; a migrant; a runaway; or homeless  For meals served to students certified in the above categories, the state/school receive a reimbursement at the free meal amount and children receive a free meal  (See Table B -1 and Table B -3 for school year 2018-2019 rates ) Some school districts collect information for these categorical eligibility rules via paper application  Others conduct a process called direct certification —a proactive process where government agencies typically cross-check their program rolls and certify a household's children for free school meals without the household having to complete a school meals application  Prior to 2004, states had the option to conduct direct certification of SNAP (then, the Food Stamp Program), TANF, and FDPIR participants  In the 2004 child nutrition reauthorization ( P L  108-265 ), states were required under federal law to conduct direct certification for SNAP participants, with nationwide implementation taking effect in school year 2008-2009  Conducting direct certification for TANF and FDPIR remains at the state's discretion  The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA; P L  111-296 ) made further policy changes to expand direct certification (discussed further in the next section)  One of those changes was the initiation of a demonstration project to look at expanding categorical eligibility and direct certification to some Medicaid households  The law also funded performance incentive grants for high-performing states and authorized correcting action planning for low-performing states in direct certification activities  Under SNAP direct certification rules generally, schools enter into agreements with SNAP agencies to certify children in SNAP households as eligible for free school meals without requiring a separate application from the family  Direct certification systems match student enrollment lists against SNAP agency records, eliminating the need for action by the child's parents or guardians  Direct certification allows schools to make use of SNAP's more in-depth eligibility certification process; this can reduce errors that may occur in school lunch application eligibility procedures that are otherwise used  From a program access perspective, direct certification also reduces the number of applications a household must complete  Figure 2 , created by GAO and published in a May 2014 report, provides an overview of how school districts certify students for free and reduced-price meals under the income-based and category-based rules, via applications and direct certification  A USDA-FNS study of school year 2014-2015 estimates that 11 1 million students receiving free meals were directly certified—68% of all categorically eligible students receiving free meals  HHFKA also authorized the school meals Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), an option in NSLP and SBP law that allows eligible schools and school districts to offer free meals to all enrolled students based on the percentage of their students who are identified as automatically eligible from nonhousehold application sources (primarily direct certification through other programs)  Based on the statutory parameters, USDA-FNS piloted CEP in various states over three school years and it expanded nationwide in school year 2014-2015  Eligible LEAs have until June 30 of each year to notify USDA-FNS if they will participate in CEP  According to a database maintained by the Food Research and Action Center, just over 20,700 schools in more than 3,500 school districts (LEAs) participated in CEP in SY2016-2017, an increase of approximately 2,500 schools compared to SY2015-2016  For a school (or school district, or group of schools within a district) to provide free meals to all children the school(s) must be eligible for CEP based on the share (40% or greater) of enrolled children that can be identified as categorically (or automatically) eligible for free meals, and the school must opt-in to CEP  Though CEP schools serve free meals to all students, they are not reimbursed at the "free meal" rate for every meal  Instead, the law provides a funding formula: the percentage of students identified as automatically eligible (the "identified student percentage" or ISP) is multiplied by a factor of 1 6 to estimate the proportion of students who would be eligible for free or reduced-price meals had they been certified via application  The result is the percentage of meals served that will be reimbursed at the free meal rate, with the remainder reimbursed at the far lower paid meal rate  For example, if a CEP school identifies that 40% of students are eligible for free meals, then 64% of the meals served will be reimbursed at the free meal rate and 36% at the paid meal rate  Schools that identify 62 5% or more students as eligible for free meals receive the free meal reimbursement for all meals served  Some of the considerations that may impact a school's decision to participate in CEP include whether the new funding formula would be beneficial for their school meal budget; an interest in reducing paperwork for families and schools; and an interest in providing more free meals, including meals to students who have not participated in the program before  The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA; P L  111-296 ) set in motion changes to the nutrition standards for school meals, requiring USDA to update the standards within a certain timeframe  The law required that the revised standards be based on recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) (now the Health and Medicine Division) at the National Academy of Sciences  The law also provided increased federal subsidies (6 cents per lunch) for schools meeting the new requirements and funding for technical assistance related to implementation  USDA published the final regulations in January 2012  The final rule sought to align school meal patterns with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and, generally consistent with IOM's recommendations, increased the amount of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat or fat-free milk in school meals  The regulations also included calorie maximums and sodium limits to phase in over time, among other requirements  The nutrition standards largely took effect in SY2012-2013 for lunches and in SY2013-2014 for breakfasts  A few other requirements were scheduled to phase in over multiple school years  Some schools experienced difficulty implementing the new guidelines, and Congress and USDA have made changes to the 2012 final rule's whole grain, sodium, and milk requirements  For SY2019-2020 and onwards, schools are operating under a final rule published December 12, 2018  The HHFKA also gave USDA the authority to regulate other foods in the school nutrition environment  Sometimes called "competitive foods," these include foods and drinks sold in a la carte lines, vending machines, snack bars and concession stands, and fundraisers  Relying on recommendations made by a 2007 IOM report, USDA-FNS promulgated a proposed rule and then an interim final rule in June 2013, which went into effect for SY2014-2015  The interim final rule created nutrition guidelines for all non-meal foods and beverages that are sold during the school day (defined as midnight until 30 minutes after dismissal)  The final rule, published on July 29, 2016, maintained the interim final rules with minor modifications  Under the final standards, these foods must meet whole-grain requirements; have certain primary ingredients; and meet calorie, sodium, and fat limits, among other requirements  Schools are limited to a list of no- and low-calorie beverages they may sell (with larger portion sizes and caffeine allowed in high schools)  There are no limits on fundraisers selling foods that meet the interim final rule's guidelines  Fundraisers outside of the school day are not subject to the guidelines  HHFKA and the interim final rule provide states with discretion to exempt infrequent fundraisers selling foods or beverages that do not meet the nutrition standards  The rule does not limit foods brought from home, only foods sold at school during the school day  The federal standards are minimum standards; states and school districts are permitted to issue more stringent policies  In FY2017, NSLP subsidized 4 9 billion lunches to children in close to 96,000 schools and 3,200 residential child care institutions (RCCIs)  Average daily participation was 30 0 million students (58% of children enrolled in participating schools and RCCIs)  Of the participating students, 66 7% (20 0 million) received free lunches and 6 5% (2 0 million) received reduced-price lunches  The remainder were served full-price meals, though schools still receive a reimbursement for these meals  Figure 3 shows FY2017 participation data  FY2017 federal school lunch costs totaled approximately $13 6 billion (see Table 3 for the various components of this total)  The vast majority of this funding is for per-meal reimbursements for free and reduced-price lunches  The HHFKA also provided an additional 6-cent per-lunch reimbursement to schools that provide meals that meet the updated nutritional guidelines requirements

ground_truth: The federal government continues to work to reduce its real property inventory and associated costs. GSA provides space for agencies in government-owned and commercially leased buildings. In 2015, the OMB issued a memorandum requiring the 24 agencies with chief financial officers to reduce their domestic office and warehouse space. These agencies are required to set annual reduction targets for a 5-year time period and update their real property plans annually. GAO was asked to review the implementation of this space reduction initiative. This report discusses: (1) the approaches and any challenges the 24 agencies identified to achieving their reduction targets for all their domestic office and warehouse space; (2) the extent these agencies reduced their space and met their fiscal year 2016 targets; and (3) how GSA manages vacated space it had leased to these agencies. GAO conducted a content analysis of the 24 agencies' real property plans for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 and analyzed agencies' data as submitted to GSA on their targets and reductions for fiscal year 2016, the only year for which data were available. GAO selected five agencies as case studies based on several factors, including size of the agencies' office and warehouse portfolio, agency reduction targets, and fiscal year 2016 reported reductions. GAO reviewed relevant documentation and interviewed officials from GSA, OMB, and GAO's case study agencies. GAO provided a draft of this product to GSA, OMB, and our case study agencies for comment. GAO incorporated technical comments, as appropriate. Most of the 24 agencies with chief financial officers reported to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Services Administration (GSA) that they planned to consolidate their office and warehouse space and allocate fewer square feet per employee as the key ways to achieve their space reduction targets. For example, the Department of Agriculture reported it will consolidate staff from five component agencies in two office buildings. When complete, the space allocated per employee will average about 250 square feet down from a high of 420 square feet per employee. In taking these actions, the agencies most often identified the cost of space reduction projects as a challenge to achieving their targets. Agencies cited costs such as for space renovations to accommodate more staff and required environmental clean-up before disposing of property as challenges to completing projects. Some agencies required to maintain offices across the country reported that their mission requirements limit their ability to reduce their space. In fiscal year 2016, 17 of the 24 agencies reported they reduced their space, but had varying success achieving their first-year targets. Of the 17 agencies, 9 exceeded their target and reduced more space than planned, 7 missed their target (by anywhere between 2.8 and 96.7 percent), and 1 reduced space, despite a targeted increase. Agency officials said that it is not unusual for projects to shift to different years and that such shifts could lead to missing targets one year and exceeding them the next. GSA has processes to manage the space vacated by agencies that is leased through GSA. For example, starting in November 2016, GSA started tracking agencies' space release requests centrally to help standardize the process and established an e-mail address to which agencies can submit requests. GSA relies on regional offices to manage real property in their regions and to identify tenants for vacant space or to remove unused space from the inventory. GSA's regional officials said regular monitoring and coordinating with agencies minimizes the likelihood GSA is caught off guard by a return of space. These processes also help them to plan ahead. GSA met its 2016 performance goal to have an annual vacant space rate of no more than 3.2 percent in its federally owned and leased buildings. However, given the recent implementation of the space reduction initiative, it is too early to determine the extent to which agencies will return space to GSA prior to the end of their leases and the effect on GSA's inventory.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.



Report 2:  This bonus is not provided for breakfast, but funds may be used to support schools' breakfast programs  NSLP lunch reimbursement rates are listed in Table B -1   In addition to federal cash subsidies, schools participating in NSLP receive USDA-acquired commodity food s   Schools are entitled to a specific, inflation-indexed value of USDA commodity foods for each lunch they serve  Also, schools may receive donations of bonus commodities acquired by USDA in support of the farm economy  In FY2017, the value of federal commodity food aid to schools totaled nearly $1 4 billion  The per-meal rate for commodity food assistance is included in Table B-4   While the vast majority of NSLP funding is for lunches served during the school day, NSLP may also be used to support snack service during the school year and to serve meals during the summer  These features are discussed in subsequent sections, " Summer Meals " and " After-School Meals and Snacks: CACFP, NSLP Options  " Reimbursement rates for snacks are listed in Table B -2   The School Breakfast Program (SBP) provides per-meal cash subsidies for breakfasts served in schools  Participating schools receive subsidies based on their status as a severe need or nonsevere need institution  Schools can qualify as a severe need school if 40% or more of their lunches are served free or at reduced prices  See Table B -3 for SBP reimbursement rates  Figure 4 displays SBP participation data for FY2017  In that year, SBP subsidized over 2 4 billion breakfasts in over 88,000 schools and nearly 3,200 RCCIs  Average daily participation was 14 7 million children (30 1% of the students enrolled in participating schools and RCCIs)  The majority of meals served through SBP are free or reduced-price  Of the participating students, 79 1% (11 6 million) received free meals and 5 7% (835,000) purchased reduced-price meals  Federal school breakfast costs for the fiscal year totaled approximately $4 3 billion (see Table 3 for the various components of this total)  Significantly fewer schools and students participate in SBP than in NSLP  Participation in SBP tends to be lower for several reasons, including the traditionally required early arrival by students in order to receive a meal and eat before school starts  Some schools offer (and anti-hunger groups have encouraged) models of breakfast service that can result in greater SBP participation, such as Breakfast in the Classroom, where meals are delivered in the classroom; "grab and go" carts, where students receive a bagged breakfast that they bring to class, or serving breakfast later in the day in middle and high schools  Unlike NSLP, commodity food assistance is not a formal part of SBP funding; however, commodities provided through NSLP may be used for school breakfasts as well  In addition to the school meals programs discussed above, other federal child nutrition programs provide federal subsidies and commodity food assistance for schools and other institutions that offer meals and snacks to children in early childhood, summer, and after-school settings  This assistance is provided to (1) schools and other governmental institutions, (2) private for-profit and nonprofit child care centers, (3) family/group day care homes, and (4) nongovernmental institutions/organizations that offer outside-of-school programs for children  (Although this report focuses on the programs that serve children, one child nutrition program (CACFP) also serves day care centers for chronically impaired adults and elderly persons under the same general per-meal/snack subsidy terms ) The programs in the sections to follow serve comparatively fewer children and spend comparatively fewer federal funds than the school meal programs  CACFP subsidizes meals and snacks served in early childhood, day care, and after-school settings  CACFP provides subsidies for meals and snacks served at participating nonresidential child care centers, family day care homes, and (to a lesser extent) adult day care centers  The program also provides assistance for meals served at after-school programs  CACFP reimbursements are available for meals and snacks served to children age 12 or under, migrant children age 15 or under, children with disabilities of any age, and, in the case of adult care centers, chronically impaired and elderly adults  Children in early childhood settings are the overwhelming majority of those served by the program  CACFP provides federal reimbursements for breakfasts, lunches, suppers, and snacks served in participating centers (facilities or institutions) or day care homes (private homes)  The eligibility and funding rules for CACFP meals and snacks depend first on whether the participating institution is a center or a day care home (the next two sections discuss the rules specific to centers and day care homes)  According to FY2017 CACFP data, child care centers have an average daily attendance of about 56 children per center, day care homes have an average daily attendance of approximately 7 children per home, and adult day care centers typically care for an average of 48 chronically ill or elderly adults per center  Providers must demonstrate that they comply with government-established standards for other child care programs  Like in school meals, federal assistance is made up overwhelmingly of cash reimbursements calculated based on the number of meals/snacks served and federal per-meal/snack reimbursements rates, but a far smaller share of federal aid (4 3% in FY2017) is in the form of federal USDA commodity foods (or cash in lieu of foods)  Federal CACFP reimbursements flow to individual providers either directly from the administering state agency (this is the case with many child/adult care centers able to handle their own CACFP administrative functions) or through "sponsors" who oversee and provide administrative support for a number of local providers (this is the case with some child/adult care centers and with all day care homes)  In FY2017, total CACFP spending was over $3 5 billion, including cash reimbursement, commodity food assistance, and costs for sponsor audits  (See Table 3 for a further breakdown of CACFP costs ) This total also includes the after-school meals and snacks provided through CACFP's "at-risk after-school" pathway; this aspect of the program is discussed later in " After-School Meals and Snacks: CACFP, NSLP Options  " As with school foods, the HHFKA required USDA to update CACFP's meal patterns  USDA's final rule revised the meal patterns for both meals served in child care centers and day care homes, as well as preschool meals served through the NSLP and SBP, effective October 1, 2017  For infants (under 12 months of age), the new meal patterns eliminated juice, supported breastfeeding, and set guidelines for the introduction of solid foods, among other changes  For children ages one and older, the new meal patterns increased whole grains, fruits and vegetables, and low-fat and fat-free milk; limited sugar in cereals and yogurts; and prohibited frying, among other requirements  Child care centers in CACFP can be (1) public or private nonprofit centers, (2) Head Start centers, (3) for-profit proprietary centers (if they meet certain requirements as to the proportion of low-income children they enroll), and (4) shelters for homeless families  Adult day care centers include public or private nonprofit centers and for-profit proprietary centers (if they meet minimum requirements related to serving low-income disabled and elderly adults)  In FY2017, over 65,000 child care centers with an average daily attendance of over 3 6 million children participated in CACFP  Over 2,700 adult care centers served nearly 132,000 adults through CACFP  Participating centers may receive daily reimbursements for up to either two meals and one snack or one meal and two snacks for each participant, so long as the meals and snacks meet federal nutrition standards  The eligibility rules for CACFP centers largely track those of NSLP: children in households at or below 130% of the current poverty line qualify for free meals/snacks while those between 130% and 185% of poverty qualify for reduced-price meals/snacks (see Table 2 )  In addition, participation in the same categorical eligibility programs as NSLP as well as foster child status convey eligibility for free meals in CACFP  Like school meals, eligibility is determined through paper applications or direct certification processes  Like school meals, all meals and snacks served in the centers are federally subsidized to some degree, even those that are paid  Different reimbursement amounts are provided for breakfasts, lunches/suppers, and snacks, and reimbursement rates are set in law and indexed for inflation annually  The largest subsidies are paid for meals and snacks served to participants with family income below 130% of the federal poverty income guidelines (the income limit for free school meals), and the smallest to those who have not met a means test  See Table B -5 for current CACFP center reimbursement rates  Unlike school meals, CACFP institutions are less likely to collect per-meal payments  Although federal assistance for day care centers differentiates by household income, centers have discretion on their pricing of meals  Centers may adjust their regular fees (tuition) to account for federal payments, but CACFP itself does not regulate these fees  In addition, centers can charge families separately for meals/snacks, so long as there are no charges for children meeting free-meal/snack income tests and limited charges for those meeting reduced-price income tests  Independent centers are those without sponsors handling administrative responsibilities  These centers must pay for administrative costs associated with CACFP out of nonfederal funds or a portion of their meal subsidy payments  For centers with sponsors, the sponsors may retain a proportion of the meal reimbursement payments they receive on behalf of their centers to cover such costs  CACFP-supported day care homes serve a smaller number of children than CACFP-supported centers , both in terms of the total number of children served and the average number of children per facility  Roughly 17% of children in CACFP (approximately 757,000 in FY2017 average daily attendance) are served through day care homes  In FY2017, approximately 103,000 homes (with just over 700 sponsors) received CACFP support  As with centers, payments to day care homes are provided for up to either two meals and one snack or one meal and two snacks a day for each child  Unlike centers, day care homes must participate under the auspices of a public or, more often, private nonprofit sponsor that typically has 100 or more homes under its supervision  CACFP day care home sponsors receive monthly administrative payments based on the number of homes for which they are responsible  Federal reimbursements for family day care homes differ by the home's status as "Tier I" or "Tier II " Unlike centers, day care homes receive cash reimbursements (but not commodity foods) that generally are not based on the child participants' household income  Instead, there are two distinct, annually indexed reimbursement rates that are based on area or operator eligibility criteria Tier I homes are located in low-income areas (defined as areas in which at least 50% of school-age and enrolled children qualify for free or reduced-price meals) or operated by low-income providers whose household income meets the free or reduced-price income standards  They receive higher subsidies for each meal/snack they serve  Tier II (lower) rates are by default those for homes that do not qualify for Tier I rates; however, Tier II providers may seek the higher Tier I subsidy rates for individual low-income children for whom financial information is collected and verified  (See Table B-6 for current Tier I and Tier II reimbursement rates ) Additionally, HHFKA introduced a number of additional ways (as compared to prior law) by which family day care homes can qualify as low-income and get Tier I rates for the entire home or for individual children  As with centers, there is no requirement that meals/snacks specifically identified as free or reduced-price be offered; however, unlike centers, federal rules prohibit any separate meal charges  Current law SFSP and the NSLP/SBP Seamless Summer Option provide meals in congregate settings nationwide; the related Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (SEBTC or Summer EBT) demonstration project is an alternative to congregate settings  SFSP supports meals for children during the summer months  The program provides assistance to local public institutions and private nonprofit service institutions running summer youth/recreation programs, summer feeding projects, and camps  Assistance is primarily in the form of cash reimbursements for each meal or snack served; however, federally donated commodity foods are also offered  Participating service institutions are often entities that provide ongoing year-round service to the community including schools, local governments, camps, colleges and universities in the National Youth Sports program, and private nonprofit organizations like churches  Similar to the CACFP model, sponsors are institutions that manage the food preparation, financial, and administrative responsibilities of SFSP  Sites are the places where food is served and eaten  At times, a sponsor may also be a site  State agencies authorize sponsors, monitor and inspect sponsors and sites, and implement USDA policy  Unlike CACFP, sponsors are required for an institution's participation in SFSP as a site  In FY2017, nearly 5,500 sponsors with 50,000 food service sites participated in the SFSP and served an average of approximately 2 7 million children daily (according to July data)  Participation of sites and children in SFSP has increased in recent years  Program costs for FY2017 totaled over $485 million, including cash assistance, commodity foods, administrative cost assistance, and health inspection costs  There are several options for eligibility and meal/snack service for SFSP sponsors (and their sites) Open sites provide summer food to all children in the community  These sites are certified based on area eligibility measures, where 50% or more of area children have family income that would make them eligible for free or reduced-price school meals (see Table 2 )  Closed or Enrolled sites provide summer meals/snacks free to all children enrolled at the site  The eligibility test for these sites is that 50% or more of the children enrolled in the sponsor's program must be eligible for free or reduced-price school meals based on household income  Closed/enrolled sites may also become eligible based on area eligibility measures noted above  Summer camps (that are not enrolled sites) receive subsidies only for those children with household eligibility for free or reduced-price school meals  Other programs specified in law , such as the National Youth Sports Program and centers for homeless or migrant children  Summer sponsors get operating cost (food, storage, labor) subsidies for all meals/snacks they serve—up to one meal and one snack, or two meals per child per day  In addition, sponsors receive payments for administrative costs, and states are provided with subsidies for administrative costs and health and meal-quality inspections  See Table B -7 for current SFSP reimbursement rates  Actual payments vary slightly (e g , by about 5 cents for lunches) depending on the location of the site (e g , rural vs  urban) and whether meals are prepared on-site or by a vendor  Although SFSP is the child nutrition program most associated with providing meals during summer months, it is not the only program option for providing these meals and snacks  The Seamless Summer Option, run through NSLP or SBP programs, is also a means through which food can be provided to students during summer months  Much like SFSP, Seamless Summer operates in summer sites (summer camps, sports programs, churches, private nonprofit organizations, etc ) and for a similar duration of time  Unlike SFSP, schools are the only eligible sponsors , although schools may operate the program at other sites  Reimbursement rates for Seamless Summer meals are the same as current NSLP/SBP rates  Beginning in summer 2011 and (as of the date of this report) each summer since, USDA-FNS has operated Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC or "Summer EBT") demonstration projects in a limited number of states and Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs)  These Summer EBT projects provide electronic food benefits over summer months to households with children eligible for free or reduced-price school meals  Depending on the site and year, either $30 or $60 per month is provided, through a WIC or SNAP EBT card model  In the demonstration projects, these benefits were provided as a supplement to the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) meals available in congregate settings  Summer EBT and other alternatives to congregate meals through SFSP were first authorized and funded by the FY2010 appropriations law ( P L  111-80 )  Although a number of alternatives were tested and evaluated, findings from Summer EBT were among the most promising, and Congress provided subsequent funding  Summer EBT evaluations showed significant impacts on reducing child food insecurity and improving nutritional intake   Summer EBT was funded by P L  111-80 in the summers from 2011 to 2014  Projects have continued to operate and were annually funded by FY2015-FY2018 appropriations; most recently, the FY2018 appropriations law ( P L  115-141 ) provided $28 million  According to USDA-FNS, in summer 2016 Summer EBT served over 209,000 children in nine states and two tribal nations—an increase from the 11,400 children served when the demonstration began in summer 2011  Schools (and institutions like summer camps and child care facilities) that are not already participating in the other child nutrition programs can participate in the Special Milk Program  Schools may also administer SMP for their part-day sessions for kindergartners or pre-kindergartners  Under SMP, participating institutions provide milk to children for free and/or at a subsidized paid price, depending on how the enrolled institution opts to administer the program (see Table B -8 for current Special Milk reimbursement rates for each of these options) An institution that only sells milk will receive the same per-half pint federal reimbursement for each milk sold (approximately 20 cents)  An institution that sells milk and provides free milk to eligible children (income eligibility is the same as free school meals, see Table 2 ), receives a reimbursement for the milk sold (approximately 20 cents) and a higher reimbursement for the free milks  An institution that does not sell milk provides milk free to all children and receives the same reimbursement for all milk (approximately 20 cents)  This option is sometimes called nonpricing  In FY2017, over 41 million half-pints were subsidized, 9 5% of which were served free  Federal expenditures for this program were approximately $8 3 million in FY2017  States receive formula grants through the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, under which state-selected schools receive funds to purchase and distribute fresh fruit and vegetable snacks to all children in attendance (regardless of family income)  Money is distributed by a formula under which about half the funding is distributed equally to each state and the remainder is allocated by state population  States select participating schools (with an emphasis on those with a higher proportion of low-income children) and set annual per-student grant amounts (between $50 and $75)  Funding is set by law at $150 million for school year 2011-2012 and inflation-indexed for every year after  In FY2017, states used approximately $184 million in FFVP funds  FFVP is funded by a mandatory transfer of funds from USDA's Section 32 program—a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous year's customs receipts  This transfer is required by FFVP's authorizing laws (Section 19 of the Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act and Section 4304 of P L  110-246 )  Up until FY2018's law, annual appropriations laws delayed a portion of the funds to the next fiscal year  After a pilot period, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 ( P L  108-265 ) permanently authorized and funded FFVP for a limited number of states and Indian reservations  In recent years, FFVP has been amended by omnibus farm bill laws rather than through child nutrition reauthorizations  The 2008 farm bill ( P L  110-246 ) expanded FFVP's mandatory funding, specifically providing funds through Section 32, and enabled all states to participate in the program  The 2014 farm bill ( P L  113-79 ) essentially made no changes to this program but did include, and fund at $5 million in FY2014, a pilot project that requires USDA to test offering frozen, dried, and canned fruits and vegetables and publish an evaluation of the pilot  Four states (Alaska, Delaware, Kansas, and Maine) participated in the pilot in SY2014-2015 and the evaluation was published in 2017  Other proposals to expand fruits and vegetables offered in FFVP have been introduced in both the 114 th and 115 th Congress  Two of the child nutrition programs discussed in previous sections, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), provide federal support for snacks and meals served during after-school programs  NSLP provides reimbursements for after-school snacks; however, this option is open only to schools that already participate in NSLP  These schools may operate after-school snack-only programs during the school year, and can do so in two ways: (1) if low-income area eligibility criteria are met, provide free snacks in lower-income areas; or (2) if area eligibility criteria are not met, offer free, reduced-price, or fully paid-for snacks, based on household income eligibility (like lunches in NSLP)  The vast majority of snacks provided through this program are through the first option  Through this program, approximately 206 million snacks were served in FY2017 (a daily average of nearly 1 3 million)  This compares with nearly 4 9 billion lunches served (a daily average of 27 8 million)  CACFP provides assistance for after-school food in two ways  First, centers and homes that participate in CACFP and provide after-school care may participate in traditional CACFP (the eligibility and administration described earlier)  Second, centers in areas where at least half the children in the community are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals can opt to participate in the CACFP At-Risk Afterschool program, which provides free snacks and suppers  Expansion of the At-Risk After-School meals program was a major policy change included in HHFKA  Prior to the law, 13 states were permitted to offer CACFP At-Risk After-School meals (instead of just a snack); the law allowed all CACFP state agencies to offer such meals  In FY2017, the At-Risk Afterschool program served a total of approximately 242 6 million free meals and snacks to a daily average of more than 1 7 million children  Federal child nutrition laws authorize and program funding supports a range of additional programs, initiatives, and activities  Through State Administrative Expenses funding, states are entitled to federal grants to help cover administrative and oversight/monitoring costs associated with child nutrition programs  The national amount each year is equal to about 2% of child nutrition reimbursements  The majority of this money is allocated to states based on their share of spending on the covered programs; about 15% is allocated under a discretionary formula granting each state additional amounts for CACFP, commodity distribution, and Administrative Review efforts  In addition, states receive payments for their role in overseeing summer programs (about 2 5% of their summer program aid)  States are free to apportion their federal administrative expense payments among child nutrition initiatives (including commodity distribution activities) as they see fit, and appropriated funding is available to states for two years  State Administrative Expense spending in FY2017 totaled approximately $279 million  Team Nutrition is a USDA-FNS program that includes a variety of school meals initiatives around nutrition education and the nutritional content of the foods children eat in schools  This includes Team Nutrition Training Grants, which provide funding to state agencies for training and technical assistance, such as help implementing USDA's nutrition requirements and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans  From 2004 to 2018, Team Nutrition also included the HealthierUS Schools Challenge (HUSSC), which originated in the 2004 reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act  HUSSC was a voluntary certification initiative designed to recognize schools that have created a healthy school environment through the promotion of nutrition and physical activity  Farm-to-school programs broadly refer to "efforts that bring regionally and locally produced foods into school cafeterias," with a focus on enhancing child nutrition  The goals of these efforts include increasing fruit and vegetable consumption among students, supporting local farmers and rural communities, and providing nutrition and agriculture education to school districts and farmers  HHFKA amended existing child nutrition programs to establish mandatory funding of $5 million per year for competitive farm-to-school grants that support schools and nonprofit entities in establishing farm-to-school programs that improve a school's access to locally produced foods  The FY2018 appropriations law provided an additional $5 million in discretionary funding to remain available until expended  Grants may be used for training, supporting operations, planning, purchasing equipment, developing school gardens, developing partnerships, and implementing farm-to-school programs  USDA's Office of Community Food Systems provides additional resources on farm-to-school issues  Through an Administrative Review process (formerly referred to as Coordinated Review Effort (CRE)), USDA-FNS, in cooperation with state agencies, conducts periodic on-site NSLP school compliance and accountability evaluations to improve management and identify administrative, subsidy claim, and meal quality problems  State agencies are required to conduct administrative reviews of all school food authorities (SFAs) that operate the NSLP under their jurisdiction at least once during a three-year review cycle  Federal Administrative Review expenditures were approximately $9 9 million in FY2017  USDA-FNS and state agencies conduct many other child nutrition program support activities for which dedicated funding is provided  Among other examples, there is the Institute of Child Nutrition (ICN), which provides technical assistance, instruction, and materials related to nutrition and food service management; it receives $5 million a year in mandatory funding appropriated in statute  ICN is located at the University of Mississippi  USDA-FNS provides training on food safety education  Funding is also provided for USDA-FNS to conduct studies, provide training and technical assistance, and oversee payment accuracy  Appendix A  Acronyms Used in This Report Appendix B  Per-meal or Per-snack Reimbursement Rates for Child Nutrition Programs This appendix lists the specific reimbursement rates discussed in the earlier sections of the report  Reimbursement rates are adjusted for inflation for each school or calendar year according to terms laid out in the programs' authorizing laws  Each year, the new rates are announced in the Federal Register   
Report 2:  The user can also identify the appropriation of collections from the AQI fee under “Program and Financing, Budgetary resources,” as shown below in figure 6  As discussed previously, the other five fees the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS) collects are not individually identifiable in the Budget Appendix, but fall under offsetting collections  OMB and Treasury reports, and the systems that support them, are designed for budget and financial information and not for an inventory of fees, fines, and penalties that includes the data elements that Congress may use in oversight  OMB staff said the agency does not have a requirement to prioritize reporting fee, fine, and penalty data over more detailed information on other types of funds  OMB staff said while they generally agree that additional data elements would be useful for oversight, there are trade-offs between transparency and the burden of collecting and reporting additional information  According to OMB staff and officials from Treasury, the Congressional Research Service, and external organizations with expertise in federal budget issues and data transparency, there are two primary benefits to government-wide reporting of fee, fine, and penalty data: increased transparency and better information for congressional oversight and decision-making  Generally, all congressional staff we spoke with said making additional government-wide data on fees, fines, and penalties, such as those data elements described previously, without additional outreach to agencies, would be useful and increase transparency  While some congressional staff said such data elements are available through direct outreach to agencies, other congressional staff told us they could not always obtain the information they wanted  For example, staff from a congressional committee said that one of the most critical data elements for the purpose of congressional oversight is information on agency reporting of obligations and expenditures because, in their view, currently many agencies do not adequately report this information and some agencies do not report this information at all  These data would provide Congress a more complete picture of individual agencies’ activities and any potential overlap or duplication in multiple agencies’ activities  Congressional staff also said having government-wide data on collections of fees could inform efforts that are crosscutting in nature  For example, APHIS and Customs and Border Protection jointly implement the AQI program to help prevent the introduction of harmful agricultural pests and diseases into the United States, and AQI fee collections are divided between the two agencies  Publicly available data on government-wide collections of fines and penalties could inform the public on agency enforcement activities and compliance of regulated parties, such as those related to health or safety  Some officials from external organizations and congressional staff said that it would be useful to have government-wide data on individual fines and penalties levied by agencies  For example, the Environmental Protection Agency publishes an online database on its compliance and enforcement actions, Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)  According to the website, the data available on ECHO allows the public to monitor environmental compliance in communities, corporations to monitor compliance across facilities they own, and investors to more easily factor environmental performance into decisions  Further, an official from an external organization with expertise in data transparency stated that, ideally, a user would be able to link fine and penalty data to spending data on USAspending gov to increase transparency in instances where an organization receiving a federal grant or contract has also had a fine or penalty levied against it  Last, publicly available government-wide data on collections could inform the public, specifically payers of fees, fines, and penalties, and facilitate their participation in public comment opportunities  For example, OMB staff said government-wide data could provide the public with clear, transparent information across agencies on fee collections and allow the public to analyze differences in fee programs among agencies  Payers of fees may be able to make more informed comments on proposed changes to a fee program if they had information on how it relates to other fee programs across the federal government  Government-wide fee, fine, and penalty data would provide more information to facilitate congressional oversight  These data could help Congress identify trends in collections and significant changes that could be an indication of an agency’s performance  For example, staff of a Congressional committee stated that fine and penalty data can be used to examine enforcement actions on a particular issue or to identify potential trends over time as an indicator of stronger or weaker enforcement actions by an agency  Congress could also use these data to identify variations in enforcement action among geographic regions or as an indicator of the frequency of violations  Additionally, data on review and reporting requirements can inform congressional oversight of fees, fines, and penalties  We previously reported that regular comprehensive reviews of fees provide opportunities for agencies and Congress to make improvements to a fee’s design which, if left unaddressed, could contribute to inefficient use of government resources  For example, fee reviews could help ensure that fees are properly set to cover the total costs of those activities which are intended to be fully fee-funded  Fee reviews may also allow agencies and Congress to identify where similar activities are funded differently; for example, one by fees and one by appropriations  One such example is the export control system, in which the State Department charges fees for the export of items on the U S  Munitions List, while the Commerce Department does not charge fees for those items exported under its jurisdiction  Government-wide reporting of fee, fine, and penalty data could also inform Congress’s funding decisions by providing a clearer picture of agencies’ total resources  Congressional staff stated that knowing the statutory authority to collect and obligate funding from fees, fines, and penalties—along with any appropriation an agency may have received from an annual appropriation act, which are currently available to congressional staff—would provide a more complete picture of an agency’s total annual funding, including the portion attributed to the taxpayer and the portion attributed to payers of specific fees, fines, and penalties  For example, staff from congressional committees we spoke with said it would be useful to have data to show programs that receive appropriations from both offsetting collections and appropriations not derived from offsetting collections to inform decisions on how the program is funded  Congressional staff also said this would provide more opportunities to track the flow of money in and out of the government  Overall funding decisions may be affected if an agency has an increase in fee collections, for example  Congressional committee staff also said it would be useful to have government-wide data on specific fees, fines, and penalties that are offsetting collections because these collections are available for obligation without going through the annual appropriations process  Our prior work has shown that it is important to consider how the agencies and entities with this authority facilitate oversight to ensure effective management, transparency, and public accountability  Some committee staff said they can request data directly from agencies when they need more disaggregated information on fees, fines, and penalties, and reported different levels of responsiveness from agencies  Publicly available data could reduce potentially overlapping or duplicative requests from staff to agencies  According to officials from agencies and external organizations, there are potential challenges to defining the government-wide data standard or definition of fee, fine, and penalty programs by which agencies could report  Because there is no statutory requirement for government-wide reporting of fee, fine, and penalty data, agencies collect and use these data for their own purposes, and are not using government-wide data elements and standards that are consistent and comparable between agencies  First, an agency may define a fee program as a single fee or a set of related fees  For example, the U S  Citizenship and Immigration Services charges more than 40 immigration and naturalization fees to applicants and petitioners that could be grouped together as related fees or split into up to 40 different fee programs  Second, officials from external organizations said there are also challenges in defining data standards the level of detail to report  For example, an official from an external organization said, for large financial penalties, it may be useful for oversight for the data to identify each instance of the penalty, including the fined party  However, that level of detail could raise privacy sensitivities  For example, reporting every individual that paid an entrance fee at a national park could present privacy concerns  Finally, for elements that are useful for congressional oversight, one challenge could be the timing of when funds are collected compared to when they are available for obligation  The amount of funds collected in a year does not necessarily equal the amount available to the agency that year  For example, collections of Harbor Maintenance Fees are deposited to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and are not available for obligation without appropriation  Funds collected in one year may not be necessarily appropriated and obligated until a subsequent year  Our prior work on the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act) implementation underscores the importance of standardized and clearly defined data elements  We found inconsistent and potentially confusing instructions from OMB regarding the Primary Place of Performance data elements that resulted in inconsistent reporting among agencies  The standard established by OMB and Treasury defines Primary Place of Performance as “where the predominant performance of the award will be accomplished” while other instructions define it as “the location of the principal plant or place of business where the items will be produced, supplied from stock, or where the service will be performed ” We found some agencies used the first definition and some used the second  In one case, the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services issued contracts to the same company for similar office printers, but one reported the primary place of performance as California, the location of the office where the printers were delivered and used  The other agency reported the primary place of performance as New Jersey, the location of the company that supplied the printers  As a result, the data were not comparable between agencies or across the federal government, limiting the usefulness for congressional oversight  We previously recommended that OMB and Treasury provide additional instruction to agencies on how to report Primary Place of Performance to ensure the definitions are clear and the data standards are implemented consistently by agencies  Staff from one congressional committee cautioned that attempts to present information on budget authorities for fees, fines, and penalties in a simple and accessible database create an unacceptable risk of confusion and legislative error  The staff said an accurate description of the nature of the spending–-including whether there is authority to obligate without further appropriation–-would be labor intensive and require significant legal analysis and research  Government-wide reporting of fees, fines, and penalties could increase transparency and facilitate oversight and decision-making, but would require time and resources to develop given that there is currently no government-wide system or requirements for agencies to collect and report detailed fee, fine, and penalty data  The level of federal investment would vary depending on factors, such as the number of data elements included and the level of detail reported  Developing a comprehensive and accessible data source would provide greater benefits, but would likely be resource intensive  We have reported on other federal transparency efforts that could provide strategies for reporting government-wide fee, fine, and penalty data  For example, to create a clear and accessible government-wide data source that includes the data elements we identified that would be useful for congressional oversight, Treasury officials said the process would be similar to the implementation of the DATA Act for spending data  To implement the DATA Act, OMB and Treasury led an intensive effort starting in May 2014 through May 2017 when the first government-wide data were reported under the DATA Act’s new standards  Data Standards: OMB, in coordination with Treasury, established 57 standardized data element definitions and approximately 400 associated sub-elements for reporting federal spending information  OMB and Treasury created opportunities for non-federal stakeholders to provide input into the development of data standards, including publishing a Federal Register notice seeking public comment on the establishment of financial data standards; presenting periodic updates on the status of DATA Act implementation to federal and non-federal stakeholders at meetings and conferences; soliciting public comment on data standards using an online collaboration space; and collaborating with federal agencies on the development of data standards and the technical schema through MAX gov, an OMB- supported website  Technical Process for Reporting: Treasury developed the initial DATA Act Information Model Schema, which provided information on how to standardize the way financial assistance awards, contracts, and other financial and nonfinancial data would be collected and reported under the DATA Act  System to Collect and Validate Data: Treasury developed a system that collects and validates agency data (the DATA Act Broker), which operationalizes the reporting framework laid out in the schema  In addition, Treasury employed online software development tools to provide responses to stakeholder questions and comments related to the development and revision of the broker  Public Reporting: Treasury created and updated the new USAspending gov website to display certified agency data submitted under the DATA Act  Agencies also took steps to prepare to report spending data  They reviewed data elements OMB identified, participated in standardizing the definitions, performed an inventory of their existing data and associated business processes, and updated their systems and processes to report data to Treasury  OMB and Treasury issued policy directions to help agencies meet their reporting requirements under the act  They also conducted a series of meetings with participating agencies to obtain information on any challenges that could impede effective implementation and assess agencies’ readiness to report required spending data  Although the steps to developing comprehensive, detailed reporting on government-wide collections of fees, fines, and penalties might be similar to the DATA Act efforts, the dollar amounts of collections would be smaller than those of federal spending  In fiscal year 2017, federal spending was $3 98 trillion compared to about $350 billion in collections of fees, fines, penalties, and forfeitures reported by OMB  On the other hand, defining data elements and standards for fee, fine, and penalty data could be more resource intensive than developing data standards for DATA Act implementation because the DATA Act built on earlier reporting requirements  The DATA Act amended the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), which required OMB to establish the website USAspending gov to report data on federal awards, including contracts, grants, and loans  The DATA Act required OMB and Treasury to standardize data required to be reported by FFATA  For fee, fine, and penalty data, OMB and Treasury would be starting without the benefit of some data elements already defined  Further, we have previously reported that effective implementation of provisions to make federal data publicly available, including the DATA Act and GPRAMA’s program inventory, especially the ability to crosswalk spending data to individual programs, could provide vital information to assist federal decision makers in addressing significant challenges the government faces  Incorporating a small number of data elements that Congress identifies as most useful for oversight into ongoing government-wide agency reporting efforts could incrementally improve transparency and information for oversight and decision-making, with fewer resources  For example, Congress required agencies to add selected data elements to their annual financial reports on civil monetary penalties  Specifically, the Federal Civil Penalties Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 requires agencies to include information about the civil monetary penalties within the agencies’ jurisdiction, including catch-up inflation adjustment of the civil monetary penalty amounts, in annual agency financial reports or performance and accountability reports  As shown in figure 7, to facilitate agencies’ reporting, OMB provided a table to define the data elements required in the act in its annual instructions, OMB Circular No  A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements  Agencies started reporting these data in their agency financial reports in fiscal year 2016  In July 2018, we reported that 40 of 45 required agencies reported in their fiscal year 2017 agency financial report information on civil monetary penalties as directed by the OMB instructions  Similarly, if Congress sought additional fine and penalty data elements, such as amounts collected and authority to spend collections, OMB could expand this table in Circular No  A-136 to include those data elements  Circular No  A-136 also outlines that agencies may include the results of biennial reviews of fees and other collections in their agency financial reports  OMB could also update this portion of the circular to require agencies to report specific data elements that are useful for oversight, such as review and reporting requirements  While this information reported in agency financial reports would be disaggregated in portable document format, or PDF, documents, it would provide some transparency on agencies’ activities that Congress could use to prioritize its oversight efforts  In another example, if OMB implements the federal program inventory as required by GPRAMA, it could include a data element on whether a program has a fee, fine, or penalty  We previously reported that the principles and practices of information architecture—a discipline focused on organizing and structuring information—offer an approach for developing such an inventory to support a variety of uses, including increased transparency for federal programs  A program inventory creates the potential to aggregate, disaggregate, sort, and filter information across multiple program facets  For example, from a user’s perspective, a program could be tagged to highlight whether it includes activities to collect fees, fines, or penalties  Then, a user interested in this data facet could select a tag (e g , fees) that could generate a list of programs that also have fees, fines, or penalties  While the program inventory is broader than agency collections of fees, fines, and penalties and would include programmatic descriptions, it would increase transparency by enabling Congress and the public to identify and isolate all programs that include, as a source of funding or a key data element, a fee, fine, or penalty to inform oversight and target additional requests for information to agencies  Federal agencies are authorized to collect hundreds of billions of dollars from fees, fines, and penalties each year that fund a wide variety of programs, but Congress and the American public do not have government-wide data on these collections that would provide increased transparency and facilitate oversight  OMB’s MAX database contains some disaggregated data labeled as fees, fines, and penalties, but OMB does not make these data publicly available  Without more disaggregated, government-wide, accessible data on collections of fees, fines, and penalties, such as by agency, Congress and the public do not have a complete and accurate picture of federal finances, the sources of federal funds, and the resources available to fund federal programs  In addition, improving the data OMB currently reports related to fees, fines, and penalties could help the user better understand the data and the potential limitations  First, until OMB describes how it identifies accounts with fees including that the government-wide totals of fees it reports in Analytical Perspectives may include collections that are not fees and exclude some fee collections, some users will likely be unaware that reported totals could be over- or under-estimates  Second, without OMB instruction to agencies to regularly review and update implementation of the criteria for designating accounts that contain fees, accounts could be designated incorrectly if the makeup of the collections changes  Therefore, OMB cannot provide reasonable assurance that the total amount of fees it reports is accurate  Third, until OMB describes in the User’s Guide that its Public Budget Database reports budget authority net of offsetting collections, including collections of fees, fines, and penalties, users could misinterpret the information and underestimate collections in some cases  OMB and Treasury do not collect many of the data elements on fees, fines, and penalties that would be useful for congressional oversight, such as review and reporting requirements  There are trade-offs between the potential costs and the potential benefits  While reporting government- wide data on specific fees, fines, and penalties would improve transparency and information for decision-making, more data elements would require greater investment of resources from OMB, Treasury, and agencies  Any new reporting of fee, fine, and penalty data would be most useful if it is designed to be compatible with other transparency efforts— the DATA Act reporting and the federal program inventory  Regardless of the approach taken, linkage of data on fees, fines, and penalties with other government-wide data reporting, such as USASpending gov, would enhance transparency and facilitate congressional oversight  We are making the following four recommendations to OMB: The Director of OMB should make available more disaggregated data on fees, fines, and penalties that it maintains in its OMB MAX database  For example, OMB could report data on fee collections by agency in Analytical Perspectives  (Recommendation 1) The Director of OMB should present, in Analytical Perspectives, the data limitations related to the government-wide fee totals by describing the 50- percent criteria OMB uses to identify accounts with fees or by directing users to the relevant sections of OMB Circular No  A-11  (Recommendation 2) The Director of OMB should instruct agencies to regularly review the application of the user fee designation in the OMB MAX data and update the designation, as needed, to meet the criteria in OMB Circular No  A-11  (Recommendation 3) The Director of OMB should describe in the Public Budget Database User’s Guide that budget authority is reported net of any offsetting collections, such as collections of fees, fines, and penalties  (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to Treasury and OMB for review and comment on December 10, 2018  Treasury informed us that they had no comments  As of March 4, 2019, OMB did not provide comments  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget  In addition, the report is available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or nguyentt@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix II  This report examines: (1) the extent to which government-wide data on collections of fees, fines, and penalties are publicly available and useful for the purpose of congressional oversight, and (2) the benefits and challenges to government-wide reporting of specific fees, fines, and penalties including data elements that facilitate congressional oversight  To assess the extent and usefulness of publicly available data, we developed criteria for the availability and usefulness for the purpose of congressional oversight of data on collections of fees, fines, and penalties reported in government-wide sources (see table 3)  The first three criteria—clear and accessible presentation, complete, and accurate—address the availability of the data and the final criterion, useful for the purpose of congressional oversight, addresses content of the data specific to congressional oversight needs  These criteria are based on: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government related to Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act) government-wide instruction from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on public access to data and open government, our prior work on user fees, fines, and penalties, and input from staff of congressional committees on appropriations, budget, and oversight  Using a standard list of semistructured interview questions, we interviewed congressional staff that were available to meet with us on or before November 1, 2018  We shared the criteria with OMB staff and Department of the Treasury (Treasury) officials, and they agreed the criteria are relevant and reasonable  To identify publicly available government-wide sources of data with information on collections of fees, fines, and penalties, we reviewed our prior work on user fees, fines, penalties, and permanent funding authorities, conducted general background research including reviewing Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports, and interviewed staff from OMB, and officials from Treasury, CBO, and CRS  We identified the Budget of the U S  Government—including Analytical Perspectives, the Budget Appendix, and the Public Budget Database—produced annually by OMB; the Financial Report of the U S  Government (Financial Report), the Daily Treasury Statement, the Monthly Treasury Statement, the Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances, and USAspending gov produced by Treasury; and CBO products, such as its budget projections and historical budget tables as containing government-wide federal budget or financial data  Of the sources we identified, we included Analytical Perspectives, the Budget Appendix, the Public Budget Database, and the Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances in our study because they contain government-wide information on collections of fees, fines, and penalties  We excluded the Treasury’s Daily Treasury Statement, Monthly Treasury Statement, Financial Report, and USAspending gov from this review because we determined that the information presented did not differentiate between types of collections in a way that would allow us to separately identify fees, fines, and penalties  For example, Treasury’s Financial Report reports government-wide information in categories that are broader than fees, fines, and penalties  Specifically, it reports “earned revenue,” which includes collections of interest payments for federal loan programs  Such collections are not fees  The Financial Report also reports fines and penalties combined with interest and other revenues  We also reviewed and excluded CBO products because the data reported are not designed to differentiate between types of collections  We assessed Analytical Perspectives, the Budget Appendix, the Public Budget Database, and the Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances using the criteria we developed for clear and accessible presentation, accurate, and complete  We also assessed the Budget Appendix, the Public Budget Database, and the Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances using the criteria for useful for the purpose of congressional oversight  Further, we assessed relevant portions of OMB and Treasury instructions using Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  We also used OMB and Treasury data to identify and report government- wide totals for fees, fines, and penalties to the extent that they were reported  To assess the reliability of OMB’s MAX database data related to the collections of fees, fines, and penalties, we reviewed related documentation, interviewed knowledgeable agency officials, and conducted electronic data testing  To assess Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service data related to the collections of fees, fines, and penalties, we reviewed related documentation and interviewed knowledgeable agency officials  In both cases, we found the data to be reliable for our purposes  We did not examine whether agencies accurately report collections as fees, fines, and penalties to OMB and Treasury  In addition, we identified and reviewed other sources of data on fees, fines, and penalties that are specific to federal agencies, including annual financial reports and agency websites  We did not apply the criteria we developed for available and useful for the purpose of congressional oversight to these sources because they contain data for an individual agency rather than government-wide data  To determine the benefits and challenges to government-wide reporting of fees, fines, and penalties, we interviewed staff of congressional committees on appropriations, budget, and oversight, OMB staff and Treasury officials, staff of CBO, and external organizations, including the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Data Coalition, the Data Foundation, the Project on Government Oversight, the Peter G  Peterson Foundation, and the Sunlight Foundation, on the potential benefits and challenges of government-wide reporting of fees, fines, and penalties  In addition, we reviewed our prior work on the DATA Act, federal program inventories, and federal fees, to identify and assess issues to consider in government-wide reporting  We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to March 2019 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  In addition to the contact named above, Susan E  Murphy (Assistant Director), Barbara Lancaster (Analyst in Charge), Michael Bechetti, Jacqueline Chapin, Colleen Corcoran, Ann Marie Cortez, Lorraine Ettaro, John Mingus, and Rachel Stoiko made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: The "child nutrition programs" refer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food for children in school or institutional settings. The best known programs, which serve the largest number of children, are the school meals programs: the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). The child nutrition programs also include the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which provides meals and snacks in day care and after school settings; the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), which provides food during the summer months; the Special Milk Program (SMP), which supports milk for schools that do not participate in NSLP or SBP; and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), which funds fruit and vegetable snacks in select elementary schools. Funding: The vast majority of the child nutrition programs account is considered mandatory spending, with trace amounts of discretionary funding for certain related activities. Referred to as open-ended, "appropriated entitlements," funding is provided through the annual appropriations process; however, the level of spending is controlled by benefit and eligibility criteria in federal law and dependent on the resulting levels of participation. Federal cash funding (in the form of per-meal reimbursements) and USDA commodity food support is guaranteed to schools and other providers based on the number of meals or snacks served and participant category (e.g., free meals for poor children get higher subsidies). Participation: The child nutrition programs serve children of varying ages and in different institutional settings. The NSLP and SBP have the broadest reach, serving qualifying children of all ages in school settings. Other child nutrition programs serve more-narrow populations. CACFP, for example, provides meals and snacks to children in early childhood and after-school settings among other venues. Programs generally provide some subsidy for all food served but a larger federal reimbursement for food served to children from low-income households. Administration: Responsibility for child nutrition programs is divided between the federal government, states, and localities. The state agency and type of local provider differs by program. In the NSLP and SBP, schools and school districts ("school food authorities") administer the program. Meanwhile, SFSP (and sometimes CACFP) uses a model in which sponsor organizations handle administrative responsibilities for a number of sites that serve meals. Reauthorization: The underlying laws covering the child nutrition programs were last reauthorized in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, P.L. 111-296, enacted December 13, 2010). This law made significant changes to child nutrition programs, including increasing federal financing for school lunches, expanding access to community eligibility and direct certification options for schools, and expanding eligibility options for home child care providers. The law also required an update to school meal nutrition guidelines as well as new guidelines for food served outside the meal programs (e.g., snacks sold in vending machines and cafeteria a la carte lines). Current Issues: The 114th Congress began but did not complete a 2016 child nutrition reauthorization, and there was no significant legislative activity with regard to reauthorization in the 115th Congress. However, the vast majority of operations and activities continue with funding provided by appropriations laws. Current issues in the child nutrition programs are discussed in CRS Report R45486, Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues.