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



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



Report 2: The federal government receives funds from numerous sources in addition to tax revenues, including collections of user fees, fines, and penalties  According to the Budget of the U S  Government, in fiscal year 2017, the U S  government’s total receipts were $3 3 trillion and collections of fees, fines, penalties, and forfeitures were more than $350 billion  User fees (fees): Fees are charges assessed to users for goods or services provided by the federal government, such as fees to enter a national park, and charges assessed for regulatory services, such as fees charged by the Food and Drug Administration for prescription drug applications  Fees are an approach to financing federal programs or activities that, in general, are related to some voluntary transaction or request for government services above and beyond what is normally available to the public  By requiring identifiable beneficiaries to pay all or part of the cost of a good or service, fees can promote both equity and economic efficiency  Regularly reviewing fees help ensure that agencies, Congress, and stakeholders have complete information  Fines and penalties: Criminal fines and penalty payments are imposed by courts as punishment for criminal violations  Civil monetary penalties are not a result of criminal proceedings but are employed by courts and federal agencies to enforce federal laws and regulations  For example, civil monetary penalty payments are collected from financial institutions by certain financial regulators, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, from enforcement actions assessed against financial institutions for violations related to anti-money laundering requirements  Reviews and, as needed, adjustments to fines and penalties could help ensure they provide a meaningful incentive for compliance  The design and structure of statutory authorities for fees, fines, and penalties can vary widely  In prior work, we have identified key design decisions related to how fee, fine, and penalty collections are used that help Congress balance agency flexibility with congressional control and oversight  Congress determines the availability of collections by defining the extent to which an agency may obligate and expend them, including the availability of the funds, the period of time the collections are available for obligation, the purposes for which they may be obligated, and the amount of the collections that are available to the agency  Fees, fines, and penalties may be categorized as one of three types of collections based on the structure of their statutory authority: offsetting collections, offsetting receipts, or governmental receipts (see figure 1)  Offsetting collections can provide agencies with more flexibility because they are generally available for agency obligation without an additional annual appropriation  In contrast, offsetting receipts and governmental receipts involve greater congressional opportunities for control and oversight because, generally, additional congressional action is needed before the collections are available for agency obligation  For example, Congress must appropriate collections from offsetting receipts before agencies are authorized to obligate these funds  The type of collection also determines how OMB and Treasury report the collections  Offsetting collections and offsetting receipts result from businesslike transactions and are recorded as offsets to spending  Offsetting collections are authorized by law to be credited to appropriation or fund expenditure accounts, while offsetting receipts are deposited in receipt accounts  Because offsetting collections are offsets to spending, an account will generally show the net amount that was collected and spent at any point in time  While there is no statutory requirement for government-wide reporting of data of specific fees, fines and penalties, Congress has enacted legislation to make other data on federal spending and federal programs publicly available: The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act)  The DATA Act built on previous transparency legislation by expanding what federal agencies are required to report regarding their spending  The act significantly increased the types of data that must be reported, and required the use of government-wide data standards and regular reviews of data quality to help improve the transparency and accountability of federal spending data  These data are reported on the USAspending gov website  The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA)  GPRAMA, in part, requires OMB to present a coherent picture of all federal programs by making information available about each federal program on a website, including related budget and performance information  Programs have been defined as an organized set of activities directed toward a common purpose or goal that an agency undertakes or proposes to carry out its responsibilities  A federal program inventory would consist of the individual programs identified by the agencies and OMB and information collected about each of them  OMB and agencies implemented the inventory once, in May 2013  In October 2014, we found several issues limited the usefulness of that inventory and made several recommendations to OMB to ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful  Further, in September 2017, we found that OMB continued to delay implementation of the program inventory  We recommended that OMB consider a systematic approach to developing the program inventory and issue instructions to provide time frames and milestones for its implementation  Although OMB updated its instruction in June 2018, it did not provide any time frames or milestones for implementing the inventory  OMB has yet to develop a systematic approach for resuming implementation of the inventory or specific time frames for doing so  There is no source of data that lists all collections of specific fees, fines, and penalties at a government-wide or agency level  Both OMB and Treasury report government-wide budgetary and financial data, including some information on collections of fees, fines, and penalties; however, none of the reports identifies all specific fees, fines, and penalties, and their associated collection amounts at a government-wide level  OMB reports budgetary and financial data in various parts of the Budget of the U S  Government, including Analytical Perspectives, the Budget Appendix, and the Public Budget Database  Treasury reports financial data in the Combined Statement  Each source provides information for a broader purpose than reporting on collections of fees, fines, and penalties  OMB and Treasury provide specific instructions for agency submission of the underlying data, as described in table 2  OMB’s reports include budgetary and financial information on federal collections at different levels of detail—from aggregated government-wide data to agency account-level data—depending on the source and its purpose  Analytical Perspectives identifies collections as fees and as fines, penalties, and forfeitures and reports government-wide summary information on these collections  For example, in a table summarizing government-wide governmental receipts in Analytical Perspectives, OMB reported fines, penalties, and forfeitures in federal funds as $20 98 billion and in trust funds as $1 17 billion for fiscal year 2017  These summary data do not provide a government-wide total of all federal collections from fines, penalties, and forfeitures because they do not include those that are categorized as offsetting collections or offsetting receipts, according to OMB staff  OMB staff said that OMB does not publish a government- wide total of fines, penalties, and forfeitures  OMB data on governmental receipts include source codes—including a code that identifies fines, penalties, and forfeitures—but data on offsetting collections and offsetting receipts do not include a comparable source code  In the Budget Appendix and the Public Budget Database, OMB reports account-level information by agency, identified by types of collections, such as offsetting collections, offsetting receipts, and governmental receipts  The Budget Appendix and the Public Budget Database do not label collections as fees, fines, or penalties and therefore, cannot be used to calculate government-wide totals for fees, fines, or penalties  To assemble Analytical Perspectives, the Budget Appendix, and the Public Budget Database, OMB compiles data from federal agencies into OMB MAX  OMB MAX, which is not publicly available, contains government-wide data at the account level and captures information such as the type of collection and the type of fund to which collections are deposited  While the data in OMB MAX help drive reporting in the Budget, not all data compiled in OMB MAX appear in the Budget  For example, OMB MAX includes an indicator for accounts that contain fees, but that information is not made available in the Budget of the U S  Government  According to congressional staff we spoke with, they do not have open access to OMB MAX, but OMB provides excerpts of OMB MAX data to staff upon request  Treasury’s Combined Statement reports both government-wide totals and agency account-level data for collections classified as receipts, by various source categories—such as proprietary receipts from the public, miscellaneous receipts, and fines, penalties, and forfeitures  Fees  Fees may fall within several source categories  Therefore, Treasury does not have a single government-wide total for fees  It does present government-wide totals for various source categories, including, Sale of Products and Fees for Permits and Regulatory and Judicial Services, for example  Treasury also reports some fees under non-fee categories, such as Miscellaneous Taxes and Excise Taxes  Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures  Treasury reports a government- wide total of receipts of fines, penalties, and forfeitures, which in fiscal year 2017 was $22 2 billion  Treasury’s Combined Statement presents these data, disaggregated by account, in the tables Receipts by Source Categories and Receipts by Department  For example, it identifies total Internal Revenue Service receipts in the category Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures of about $6 8 million in fiscal year 2017  Treasury also reports some fines, penalties, and forfeitures receipts under other categories; these receipts are not included in its total of fines, penalties, and forfeitures  For example, Department of Homeland Security breached bond penalties are reported in two categories labeled as fees: Miscellaneous Receipts – Fees for Permits and Regulatory and Judicial Services and Offsetting Governmental Receipts – Regulatory Fees (see figure 2)  In addition to the government-wide data sources, agencies report some data on their collections of specific fees, fines, and penalties in their annual financial reports, congressional budget justifications, and on agency websites  These data are dispersed by agency, are not comprehensive, and cannot be aggregated to create government-wide data because they vary in format and in the level of detail presented  For example: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an online, searchable database of enforcement and compliance information that includes data on individual fine and penalty assessments for violations of certain, but not all, statutes  The Department of Labor also makes selected enforcement data accessible in an online database collected by the Employee Benefits Security Administration, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Wage and Hour Division without Department of Labor-wide data standards on individual fine and penalty assessments  USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s 2019 Congressional Budget Justification, on the other hand, is a PDF document that provides annual collection totals for Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Fees, Import-Export User Fees, Phytosanitary Certificate User Fees, Veterinary Diagnostics User Fees, and Other User Fees, rather than disaggregated to individual fee assessments  The government-wide totals for fees that OMB reports in Analytical Perspectives are not presented at a more disaggregated level, such as by agency or program, except for some major fee collections identified by OMB  For example, in Analytical Perspectives for fiscal year 2017, OMB reported $335 4 billion as a government-wide total of fee collections  OMB also reported some disaggregated data for the subset of fees that were offsetting collections and offsetting receipts  Specifically, it listed 11 fees totaling $258 4 billion collected by specific agencies and listed the remaining $72 3 billion as “all other user charges” without identifying the agency or program  As described in table 1 above, clear and accessible data can be aggregated or disaggregated by the user  OMB has more detailed data on collections in OMB MAX, including the agency, account, type of collection, and fund type, which it uses to compile reported totals of fees as well as fines, penalties, and forfeitures  OMB does not publicly report these data disaggregated below the government-wide level, such as at the agency level  OMB staff said that they do not report the disaggregated data because the purpose of Analytical Perspectives is to develop or support the President’s policies and more detailed tables may not be included if they are not considered necessary for that purpose  However, Analytical Perspectives also serves to provide other significant data that place the President’s Budget in context and assist the public and policymakers in better understanding the budget proposals  For example, Analytical Perspectives includes a chapter on aid to state and local governments that presents the President’s budget proposals for grant programs along with crosscutting information on federal grants to state and local governments, including government-wide grant spending, by agency and program  Analytical Perspectives also presents a summary of fee proposals but does not provide comparable crosscutting information about current fees  For fines and penalties, neither proposals nor crosscutting information is presented by agency  Until OMB makes more disaggregated data on fees, fines, and penalties maintained in its OMB MAX database—such as collections by agency—publicly available, Congress has limited information on such collections to inform oversight and decision-making  Analytical Perspectives’ government-wide totals of fees may include inaccurately labeled collections—other collections that are not fees—and may exclude some fee collections  Data that are clear and accessible are presented with known limitations, as shown in table 1  OMB Circular No  A-11 states that all accounts in which more than half of collections are from fees will be designated as containing fees  OMB staff said that the entire account is designated as containing fees because account-level data are the most disaggregated data OMB collects from agencies  OMB calculates its government-wide total for fees by adding collections in all accounts designated in OMB MAX as containing user fees  However, agency accounts can include multiple sources of budget authority  For example, Treasury’s U S  Mint’s account “United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund” includes offsetting collections from Mint operations and programs; these include the production and sale of commemorative coins and medals, the production and sale of circulating coinage, the protection of government assets, as well as gifts and bequests of property  The United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund is designated as containing fees in OMB MAX  Therefore, budget authority that is not derived from the collection of fees but is still included in this account will be designated as fees as well when calculating a government-wide total  Conversely, accounts in which fees contribute to less than half of collections are not designated as containing fees amounts, and those fees will not be included in the government-wide total OMB calculates  OMB Circular No  A-11 describes the designation of fee accounts, but the data presented in Analytical Perspectives as totals for fees do not disclose OMB’s designation criteria, including the limitations to the accuracy of the data  OMB staff said they do not report this limitation because they consider OMB Circular No  A-11 a more appropriate document for providing technical information like the designation of accounts containing user fees  However, the section on fees in Analytical Perspectives does not direct the reader to OMB Circular No  A-11 for key information related to the data presented on fees  For other topics, including lease-purchase agreements, Analytical Perspectives directs the reader to OMB Circular No  A-11 for further details  Furthermore, for other topics, OMB provided explanatory information along with the data in Analytical Perspectives  For example, OMB explained a recent change to definitions in the research and development section of Analytical Perspectives and the effect of the change on budget authority  Until OMB provides a description of data limitations regarding the criteria used to identify accounts with fees for compiling government-wide totals in Analytical Perspectives, or directs users to the relevant section of OMB Circular No  A-11, some users are likely to be unaware of the potential for the total user fees to be overestimated or underestimated  In addition, OMB does not regularly review and update implementation of its criteria for designating fees  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that agency management should use quality information to achieve the objectives, such as processing data into quality information that is current and accurate  OMB Circular No  A-11 states that the fee designation is applied at the time the account is established  OMB staff told us that when establishing a new account, OMB collaborates with Treasury to determine the legal attributes of the account, including any fee authorities, and whether to designate the account as containing fees  OMB staff further explained they review the designation when new legislation is enacted that would change the attributes of the account, or if an agency informs OMB that the makeup of an account has changed because of programmatic changes  However, OMB Circular No  A-11 does not instruct agencies to regularly review or update this designation and report changes to OMB  Therefore, if the makeup of collections in an account changes so that fees go from being more than half of the collections to less than half, or vice versa, the account’s fee designation may not be updated accordingly  Until OMB instructs agencies to regularly review the fee designation in OMB MAX and update the designation, as needed, OMB cannot provide reasonable assurance that accounts are designated correctly, and that the government-wide totals of fees reported in Analytical Perspectives are accurate  While Analytical Perspectives reports government-wide data labeled as fees, fines, and penalties, the other three sources we reviewed—the Budget Appendix, the Public Budget Database, and the Combined Statement—report account-level information by agency  Users cannot further disaggregate the data presented to specific fee, fine, and penalty collections  For example, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is funded in part by six fees: (1) Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) fee, (2) Phytosanitary Export Certification fee, (3) Veterinary Services Import Export fee, (4) Veterinary Diagnostics fee, (5) Reimbursable Overtime, and (6) Trust Funds and Reimbursable Funds  However, a user cannot identify collections from each of these APHIS fees in the Budget Appendix  The Budget Appendix specifically identifies AQI fee collections—$768 million in fiscal year 2017—because they are receipts deposited to a trust fund  The other five fees are combined within the total for offsetting collections—$152 million (see figure 3)  The Budget Appendix, the Public Budget Database, and the Combined Statement report data at the account level because the purposes of these reports are broader than fees, fines, and penalties, and OMB and Treasury instruct agencies to report data at that level  Treasury’s Financial Manual states that agencies post appropriations and spending authorizations by Congress to accounts established by Treasury  OMB’s Circular No  A-11 instructs agencies to report data at the budget account level in OMB MAX, which supports the data in the Budget Appendix and the Public Budget Database  Because OMB and Treasury do not collect data that can be disaggregated to the level of fee, fine, or penalty, the collections for specific fees, fines, and penalties within accounts are not identifiable within account totals  Both the Budget Appendix and Public Budget Database label and present data within each account by collection type: offsetting collections, offsetting receipts, and governmental receipts  These collection types include fees, fines, and penalties, as well as other sources of collections, as shown in the text box below  Budgetary Collections as Labeled by the Budget of the U S  Government Include More than Fees, Fines, and Penalties Offsetting Collections and Offsetting Receipts include user fees as w ell as reimbursements for damages, intragovernmental transactions, and voluntary gifts and donations to the government  Governmental Receipts include collections that result from the government’s exercise of its sovereign pow er to tax or otherw ise compel payment, and include taxes, compulsory user fees, regulatory fees, customs duties, court fines, certain license fees, and deposits of earnings by the Federal Reserve System  As a result, the user cannot separate fees, fines, and penalties from other collections  For example, offsetting collections may include fees, reimbursements for damages, gifts or donations of money to the government, and intragovernmental transactions with other government accounts  Analytical Perspectives explains that amounts collected by government agencies are recorded in two ways that broadly affect the formulation of the government-wide budget, but may not provide detail on specific agency collections: (1) governmental receipts, which are compared to total outlays in calculating the surplus or deficit; and (2) offsetting collections or offsetting receipts, which are deducted from gross outlays to calculate net outlay figures  These collections are presented together for budgeting purposes, but cannot be separated to specific fees, fines, or penalties  Therefore, it is not clear what percentage of the reported collections are fees, fines, and penalties as opposed to other collections  Treasury’s Combined Statement and OMB’s Public Budget Database do not identify offsetting collections, including collections of fees, fines, and penalties  Instead, the Combined Statement reports net outlays, which include any offsetting collections as deductions from outlays  Similarly, the Public Budget Database reports budget authority net of any offsetting collections  Treasury clearly describes this presentation of the data in the Combined Statement, but OMB does not in the Public Budget Database  In the “Explanation of Transactions and Basis of Figures” section of the Combined Statement, Treasury describes that outlays are stated net of collections representing reimbursements as authorized by law, which include offsetting collections  With the description provided in the Combined Statement, the user can understand that fees, fines, and penalties that are offsetting collections are not identifiable in the data  OMB reports receipts and budget authority—which include collections from fees, fines, and penalties—in separate spreadsheets of the Public Budget Database  Similar to outlays reported in Treasury’s Combined Statement, the Budget Authority spreadsheet reports the net budget authority of accounts after agencies have credited offsetting collections from fees, fines, penalties, or other collections  For example, the National Park Service reported net budget authority of $2 425 billion for the Operation of the National Park System account in fiscal year 2017 in both the Budget Appendix and the Public Budget Database, both of which present data compiled in OMB MAX  The Budget Appendix presents additional information, reporting offsetting collections that are at least partially derived from fees of $35 million, and gross budget authority of $2 46 billion, as shown in figure 4  The Public Budget Database, on the other hand, does not identify the amount of offsetting collections in the account or gross budget authority  OMB does not describe this presentation of the data in the Public Budget Database User’s Guide  As shown in table 1, data that are clear and accessible are presented with descriptions of the data  The User’s Guide directs users who may not be familiar with federal budget concepts to Analytical Perspectives and OMB Circular No  A-11  However, OMB does not describe, either in the User’s Guide or in the Budget Authority spreadsheet of the Public Budget Database, that this source reports budget authority net of offsetting collections, such as collections of fees, fines, and penalties  OMB staff said they do not describe the presentation because it is explained in Analytical Perspectives  However, the Public Budget Database is available for download separate from Analytical Perspectives, and the User’s Guide specific to the Public Budget Database includes other information describing the data in the spreadsheets  Describing the presentation of the data in the User’s Guide would help ensure that users of the Public Budget Database can correctly interpret the information and not underestimate agencies’ fee, fine, or penalty collections  No source of government-wide data consistently reports data elements related to fees, fines, and penalties that could help inform congressional oversight of agencies and programs, such as the amount collected annually, account balances, and whether the collection is a fee, fine, or penalty  See figure 5 for the extent to which data elements are included in the Budget Appendix, Public Budget Database, and Combined Statement  See appendix I for more detailed information on the data elements that are useful for congressional oversight  To a limited extent there are some cases where government-wide reports included data elements useful for the purpose of congressional oversight of fees, fines, and penalties  In some cases the Budget Appendix includes information on the fund type receiving collections and the extent to which the collections from fees may be appropriated to the agency collecting the fee  The Budget Appendix, for example, reports that collections for the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) fee are recorded under “Special and Trust Fund Receipts,” as shown previously in figure 3
Report 2:  PLCY officials stated that PLCY makes tradeoffs and rarely chooses to work on self-initiated projects over its other three categories of effort  According to the officials, PLCY’s work on the other three higher-priority categories is sufficient to ensure that the office is effectively leading, conducting, and coordinating strategy and policy across the department  Given its organizational position and strategic priorities, PLCY is uniquely situated to identify opportunities to better harmonize or enhance departmentwide and crosscutting policy, a role that is in line with its strategic priority to build departmental policymaking capacity and foster Unity of Effort  In the absence of clear articulation of the department’s expectations for PLCY in this role, it is difficult for PLCY and DHS leadership to make completely informed and deliberate decisions about the tradeoffs they make across any available resources  In addition to statutory authority that PLCY received in the NDAA, PLCY officials stated that a separate, clear delegation of authority—a mechanism by which the Secretary delegates responsibilities to other organizational units within DHS—is needed to help confront the ambiguous roles it has experienced in the past  PLCY officials stated that past efforts to finalize a delegation of authority have stalled during leadership changes and that the initiative has been a lower priority, in part, due to where PLCY is in its maturation process and DHS is in its evolution into a more cohesive department under the Unity of Effort  As of May 2018, the effort had been revived, but it is not clear whether and when DHS will finalize it  According to a senior official in the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, a delegation of authority is important for PLCY  He described the creation of a delegation of authority as a process that does more than simply delegate the Secretary’s authority  He noted that defining PLCY’s roles and responsibilities in relation to other organizational units presents an opportunity to engage all relevant components and agree on appropriate roles  He said that, earlier in the organizational life of the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, it went through a process like this, which has been vital in it being able to carry out its mission  He said now that PLCY has a deputy undersecretary in place, this is a good time to restart the process to develop the delegation of authority  Until the delegation or a similar process clearly and fully articulates PLCY’s roles and responsibilities, PLCY and the operational components are likely to continue to experience limitations in collaboration on crosscutting and departmentwide policy  PLCY determines its workforce needs through the annual budget process, but systematic identification of workforce demand, capacity gaps, and strategies to address them could help ensure that PLCY’s workforce aligns with its and DHS’s priorities and goals  To determine its workforce needs each year, PLCY officials told us that, as part of the annual budget cycle, they work with PLCY staff and operational components to determine the scope of activities required for each PLCY area of responsibility and the associated staffing needs  PLCY officials said there are three skill sets needed to carry out the office’s responsibilities: policy analysis, social science analysis, and regional affairs analysis  PLCY officials explained that the office’s priorities can change rapidly as events occur and the Secretary’s and administration’s priorities shift  Therefore, according to PLCY officials, their staffing model must be flexible  They said that, rather than a defined system of full-time equivalents with set position types and levels, PLCY officials start with their budget allotment and consider current and potential emerging needs to set position types and levels, which may fluctuate significantly from year to year  In addition, PLCY officials stated that PLCY staff are primarily generalists and, given the versatility in skill sets of their workforce, PLCY has a lot of flexibility to move staff around if there is an emerging need  For example, if there is an emerging law enforcement issue that affects all law enforcement agencies, PLCY may be tasked with developing a policy to ensure the issue is addressed quickly and that the resulting policy is harmonized across the department and with other law enforcement agencies, such as the Department of Justice  While PLCY completes some workforce planning activities as part of its annual budgeting process, PLCY does not systematically address several aspects of the DHS Workforce Planning Guide that may create more efficient operations and greater alignment with DHS priorities  According to the DHS Workforce Planning Guide, workforce planning is a process that ensures the right number of people with the right skills are in the right jobs at the right time for DHS to achieve the mission  This process provides a framework to: align workforce planning to the department’s mission and goals, predict, then assess how evolving missions, new processes, or environmental conditions may impact the way that work will be performed at DHS in the future, identify gaps in capacity, develop and implement strategies and action plans to address capacity and capability gaps, and continuously monitor the effectiveness of action plans and modify, as necessary  The DHS Workforce Planning Guide stipulates that an organization’s management should not only lead and show support during the workforce planning process, but ensure alignment with the strategic direction of the agency  Moreover, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should use quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives  For example, management uses an entity’s operational processes to make informed decisions and evaluate the entity’s performance in achieving key agency objectives  According to PLCY officials, the current staffing paradigm involves shifting the office’s staff when new and urgent issues arise from the Secretary or White House, and adding these unexpected tasks to staff’s existing responsibilities  However, this means that tradeoffs are made, resulting in some priority items taking longer to address or not getting attention at all  PLCY officials stated that they have been caught off-guard at times by changes in demands placed on PLCY and had to scramble to address the new needs  Additionally, PLCY officials said they have a number of vacancies, which hamper the office’s ability to meet certain aspects of its mission  For example, PLCY’s Office of Cyber, Infrastructure, and Resilience was created in 2015  According to PLCY officials, PLCY has had some resources to address cyber issues, however, there has not been funding to staff this office and an assistant secretary has not been appointed to lead it  Therefore, PLCY officials stated that PLCY has not been able to address its responsibilities for infrastructure resilience  Similarly, PLCY has limited capacity for risk analysis  A provision of the NDAA provides that PLCY is to: develop and coordinate strategic plans and long-term goals of the department with risk-based analysis and planning to improve operational mission effectiveness, including consultation with the Secretary regarding the quadrennial homeland security review under section 707 [6 U S C  § 347]  However, PLCY officials acknowledged that their focus on identifying needs for risk analyses and conducting them has been limited, in part, because DHS disbanded the risk management office  Officials from one component told us that they contribute to a report that PLCY coordinates, called Homeland Security National Risk Characteristics, which is prepared as a precursor to the DHS Strategic Plan  PLCY officials stated that, outside of these foundational documents and some risk-based analyses completed as part of specific policy development efforts, PLCY does not have the capacity to complete any additional risk analysis activities  Although PLCY officials said they conduct some analysis of potential demands as a starting point for how to allocate PLCY’s annual staffing budget, these efforts are largely informal and internal and have not resulted in a systematic analysis that provides PLCY and DHS management with the information they need to understand the effects of resource tradeoffs  Also, PLCY officials said they track accomplishments toward PLCY’s strategic priorities as part of a weekly meeting and report, however, officials acknowledged they do not analyze what role workforce decisions have played in achieving or not achieving strategic priorities  Moreover, although PLCY officials stated that they have intermittent, in- person, informal communication about resource use, they have not used the principles outlined in the DHS Workforce Planning Guide to systematically identify and communicate workforce demands, capacity gaps, and strategies to address workforce issues  According to PLCY officials, they have not conducted such analysis, in part, because the Secretary’s office has not requested it of them or the other DHS offices that are funded in the same part of the DHS budget  Regardless of whether the Secretary expects workforce analysis as part of the budgeting process, the DHS Workforce Planning Guide could be used within and outside of the budgeting process to help inform resource decision making throughout the year  PLCY officials stated that at the PLCY Deputy Under Secretary’s initiative, they recently began a review of all relevant statutory authorities, which they will map against the current organizational structure and day- to-day operations  The Deputy Under Secretary plans to use the results of the review to enhance PLCY’s efficiency and effectiveness, and the results could serve as a foundation for a more holistic and systematic analysis of workforce demand, any capacity gaps, and strategies to address them  Employing workforce planning principles—in particular, systematic identification of workforce demand, capacity gaps, and strategies to address them—consistent with the DHS Workforce Planning Guide could better position PLCY to use its workforce as effectively as possible under uncertain conditions  Moreover, using the DHS guide would help PLCY to systematically communicate information about any workforce gaps to DHS leadership, so there is transparency about how workforce tradeoffs affect PLCY’s ability to support DHS goals  As discussed earlier, officials from PLCY and DHS operational components praised existing mechanisms to coordinate and communicate at the senior level, especially about strategy  However, component officials identified opportunities for PLCY to better connect at the staff level to identify and respond to emerging policy and strategy needs  Leading practices for collaboration that we have identified in our prior work state that it is important to ensure that all relevant participants have been included in a collaborative effort, and positive working relationships among participants from different agencies or offices can bridge organizational cultures  These relationships build trust and foster communication, which facilitate collaboration  Also, as previously stated, PLCY has mechanisms like the S&P ESC to communicate and coordinate with operational components and other DHS stakeholders at the senior level (e g , Senior Executive Service officials)  However, PLCY does not have a mechanism to effectively engage in routine communication and collaboration at the staff level (e g , program and policy specialists working at operational components to oversee or implement policy and strategy functions)  Specifically, officials with responsibility for policy and strategy at 6 of 8 operational components told us that they did not have regular contact with or know who to contact at PLCY for questions about policies or strategies, or that the reason they knew who to contact was because of existing working relationships, not because of efforts PLCY had undertaken to facilitate such contacts  In addition, some component officials noted that, when they tried to use the PLCY website to coordinate, they found it to be out of date and lacking sufficient information  PLCY officials acknowledged that the website needs improvement  They stated that the office has developed improved content for the website, but does not have the necessary staff to update the website  According to the officials, the needed staff should be hired soon and improved content should be on the website by the end of summer 2018  Although officials at 5 of the 8 operational components we interviewed stated that the quality of PLCY’s coordination and collaboration has improved in the past 2 years or so, component officials offered several suggestions to enhance PLCY’s coordination and collaboration, especially at the staff level  Among these were: conduct routine information sharing meetings with staff-level officials who have policy and strategy responsibilities at each operational component, clearly articulate points of contact, their contact information, and their portfolios at PLCY as well as at other policy and strategy stakeholders, ensure the PLCY website is up-to-date with contact information for PLCY and components that work in strategy and policy areas, and with relevant information about crosscutting strategy and policy initiatives underway, host a forum—such as an annual conference—to bring together policy and strategy officials from PLCY and DHS components to share ideas and make contacts, and prepare a standard briefing for component officials with strategy and policy responsibilities to help ensure that staff at all levels understand what PLCY does, how it works, and opportunities for engagement on emerging policy and strategy needs or identified harmonization opportunities  For example, officials from one component told us that they would like PLCY officials to have in-person meetings with component staff to discuss what PLCY does, who to contact in PLCY, where to find information about policies and strategies, and other relevant information to ensure a smooth working relationship between the component and PLCY  According to PLCY officials, the office recognizes the value of creating mechanisms to connect staff, who work on policy and strategy at all levels in DHS  PLCY officials said they have historically done a better job in coordinating at the senior level, but are interested in expanding opportunities to connect other staff with policy and strategy responsibilities  PLCY officials stated that they are considering creating a working group structure that mirrors existing organizational mechanisms to coordinate at the senior level, but have not taken steps to do so  Routine collaboration among PLCY, operational components, and other DHS offices at the staff level is important to ensure that PLCY is able to carry out its functions under the NDAA, including the effective coordination of policies and strategies  A positive working relationship among these stakeholders can build trust, foster communication, and facilitate collaboration  Such enhanced communication and collaboration across PLCY and among component officials with policy and strategy responsibility could help the department more quickly and completely identify emerging, crosscutting strategy and policy needs and opportunities to enhance policy harmonization  PLCY’s efforts to lead, conduct, and coordinate departmentwide and crosscutting policies have sometimes been hampered by the lack of clearly-defined roles and responsibilities  In addition, PLCY does not have a consistent process and procedures for its strategy development and policymaking efforts  Without a delegation of authority or similar documentation from DHS leadership clearly articulating PLCY’s missions, roles, and responsibilities—along with defined processes and procedures to carry them out in a predictable and repeatable manner—there is continuing risk that confusion and uncertainty about PLCY’s authority, missions, roles, and responsibilities will limit its effectiveness  PLCY employs some workforce planning, but does not systematically apply key principles of the DHS Workforce Planning Guide to help predict workforce demand, and identify any workforce gaps and design strategies to address them  Without this analysis, PLCY faces limitations in ensuring that its workforce is aligned with its and DHS’s priorities and goals  Moreover, the results of this analysis would better position PLCY to communicate to DHS leadership any potential tradeoffs in workforce allocation that would affect PLCY’s ability to meet priorities and goals  PLCY could enhance its use of mechanisms for collaboration and communication with DHS stakeholders at the staff level  Implementation of additional mechanisms at the staff level for regular communication and coordination, including providing up-to-date information to stakeholders about the office, could help PLCY and operational components to better connect in order to identify and address emerging policy and strategy needs  We are making the following four recommendations to DHS: The Secretary of Homeland Security should finalize a delegation of authority or similar document that clearly defines PLCY’s mission, roles, and responsibilities relative to DHS’s operational and support components  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Homeland Security should create corresponding processes and procedures to help implement the mission, roles, and responsibilities defined in the delegation of authority or similar document to help ensure predictability, repeatability, and accountability in departmentwide and crosscutting strategy and policy efforts  (Recommendation 2) The Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans should use the DHS Workforce Planning Guide to help identify and analyze any gaps in PLCY’s workforce, design strategies to address any gaps, and communicate this information to DHS leadership  (Recommendation 3) The Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans should enhance the use of collaboration and communication mechanisms to connect with staff in the components with responsibilities for policy and strategy to better identify and address emerging needs  (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to DHS  DHS provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix I  DHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate  DHS concurred with three of our recommendations and described actions planned to address them  DHS did not concur with one recommendation  Specifically, DHS did not concur with our recommendation that PLCY should use the DHS Workforce Planning Guide to help identify and analyze any gaps in PLCY’s workforce, design strategies to address any gaps, and communicate this information to DHS leadership  The letter described a number of actions, including actions that are also described in the report, which PLCY takes to help ensure alignment of its staff with organizational needs  In the letter, PLCY officials pointed to the workforce activities PLCY undertakes as part of the annual budgeting cycle  We acknowledge that the actions described to predict upcoming priorities and resource needs as part of the annual budgeting cycle are in line with the DHS workforce planning principles  However, as we noted, there are opportunities to apply the workforce planning principles outside the annual budgeting cycle to provide greater visibility and awareness of resource tradeoffs to management inside PLCY and in the Secretary’s office  In the letter, PLCY officials made note of the dynamic and changing nature of its operational environment, stating that it often required them to shift resources and priorities on a more frequent or ad hoc basis than many organizations  We acknowledged in the report that PLCY’s operating environment requires it to maintain flexibility in its staffing approach  However, PLCY has a number of important duties, including helping foster Unity of Effort throughout the department and helping to ensure the availability of risk information for departmental decision making, that require longer-term, sustained attention and strategic management  During interviews, PLCY officials acknowledged that striking a balance between these needs has been difficult and at times they have faced significant struggles  The report describes some areas where, during the time we were conducting our work, it was clear that some tasks and functions, such as risk analyses, lacked the resources or focus necessary to ensure they received sustained institutional attention  It is because of PLCY’s dynamic operating environment, coupled with the need for sustained institutional attention to other key responsibilities, that we recommended PLCY undertake workforce planning activities that would help generate better information for PLCY and DHS management to have full visibility and awareness of gaps and resource tradeoffs  Finally, the letter stated that because PLCY is a very small and flat organization, it is able to identify capacity gaps and develop action plans without obtaining all of the data collected through each recommended element, worksheet, form, and template of the model proposed in the DHS Workforce Planning Guide  We acknowledge that it would be counterproductive for PLCY to engage in data collection and analysis that are significantly more elaborate than its planning needs  Nevertheless, we continue to believe that PLCY could use the principles more robustly, outside the annual budgeting process, to help ensure that it identifies and communicates the effect that resource tradeoffs have on its ability to accomplish its multifaceted mission  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and the Secretary of Homeland Security  In addition, the report is 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 (404) 679-1875 or CurrieC@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 significant contributions to this report are listed in Appendix II  In addition to the contact named above, Kathryn Godfrey (Assistant Director), Joseph E  Dewechter (Analyst-in-Charge), Michelle Loutoo Wilson, Ricki Gaber, Dominick Dale, Thomas Lombardi, Ned Malone, David Alexander, Sarah Veale, and Michael Hansen made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: SSA delivers services that touch the lives of almost every American, and relies heavily on IT resources to do so. Its systems support a range of activities, such as processing Disability Insurance payments, to calculating and withholding Medicare premiums, and issuing Social Security numbers and cards. For fiscal year 2018, the agency planned to spend approximately $1.6 billion on IT. GAO has previously reported that federal IT projects have often failed, in part, due to a lack of oversight and governance. Given the challenges that federal agencies, including SSA, have encountered in managing IT acquisitions, Congress and the administration have taken steps to improve federal IT, including enacting federal IT acquisition reform legislation and issuing related guidance. This statement summarizes GAO's previously reported findings regarding SSA's management of IT acquisitions and operations. In developing this testimony, GAO summarized findings from its reports issued in 2011 through 2018, and information on SSA's actions in response to GAO's recommendations. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has improved its management of information technology (IT) acquisitions and operations by addressing 14 of the 15 recommendations that GAO has made to the agency. For example, Incremental development . The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has emphasized the need for agencies to deliver IT investments in smaller increments to reduce risk and deliver capabilities more quickly. In November 2017, GAO reported that agencies, including SSA, needed to improve their certification of incremental development. As a result, GAO recommended that SSA's CIO (1) report incremental development information accurately, and (2) update its incremental development policy and processes. SSA implemented both recommendations. Software licenses . Effective management of software licenses can help avoid purchasing too many licenses that result in unused software. In May 2014, GAO reported that most agencies, including SSA, lacked comprehensive software license policies. As a result, GAO made six recommendations to SSA, to include developing a comprehensive software licenses policy and inventory. SSA implemented all six recommendations. However, SSA's IT management policies have not fully addressed the role of its CIO. Various laws and related guidance assign IT management responsibilities to CIOs in six key areas. In August 2018, GAO reported that SSA had fully addressed the role of the CIO in one of the six areas (see table). Specifically, SSA's policies fully addressed the CIO's role in the IT leadership and accountability area by requiring the CIO to report directly to the agency head, among other things. In contrast, SSA's policies did not address or minimally addressed the IT workforce and IT strategic planning areas. For example, SSA's policies did not include requirements for the CIO to annually assess the extent to which personnel meet IT management skill requirements or to measure how well IT supports agency programs. GAO recommended that SSA address the weaknesses in the remaining five key areas. SSA agreed with GAO's recommendation and stated that the agency plans to implement the recommendation by the end of this month. GAO has made 15 recommendations to SSA to improve its management of IT acquisitions and operations from 2011 through 2018, and 1 recommendation to improve its CIO policies. While SSA has implemented nearly all of them, it would be better positioned to overcome longstanding IT management challenges when it addresses the CIO's role in its policies.

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



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

Report 1: SSA’s mission is to deliver Social Security services that meet the changing needs of the public  The Social Security Act and amendments established three programs that the agency administers: Old-Age and Survivors Insurance provides monthly retirement and survivors benefits to retired and disabled workers, their spouses and their children, and the survivors of insured workers who have died  SSA has estimated that, in fiscal year 2019, $892 billion in old-age and survivors insurance benefits are expected to be paid to a monthly average of approximately 54 million beneficiaries  Disability Insurance provides monthly benefits to disabled workers and their spouses and children  The agency estimates that, in fiscal year 2019, a total of approximately $149 billion in disability insurance benefits will be paid to a monthly average of about 10 million eligible workers  Supplemental Security Income is a needs-based program financed from general tax revenues that provides benefits to aged adults, blind or disabled adults, and children with limited income and resources  For fiscal year 2019, SSA estimates that nearly $59 billion in federal benefits and state supplementary payments will be made to a monthly average of approximately 8 million recipients  SSA relies heavily on its IT resources to support the administration of its programs and related activities  For example, its systems are used to handle millions of transactions on the agency’s website, maintain records for the millions of beneficiaries and recipients of its programs, and evaluate evidence and make determinations of eligibility for benefits  According to the agency’s most recent Information Resources Strategic Plan, its systems supported the processing of an average daily volume of about 185 million individual transactions in fiscal year 2015  SSA’s Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Systems is responsible for developing, overseeing, and maintaining the agency’s IT systems  Comprised of approximately 3,800 staff, the office is headed by the Deputy Commissioner, who also serves as the agency’s CIO  SSA has long been challenged in its management of IT  As a result, we have previously issued a number of reports highlighting various weaknesses in the agency’s system development practices, governance, requirements management, and strategic planning, among other areas  Collectively, our reports stressed the need for the agency to strengthen its IT management controls  In 2016, we reported that SSA’s acting commissioner had stated that the agency’s aging IT infrastructure was not sustainable because it was increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain  Accordingly, the agency requested $132 million in its fiscal year 2019 budget to modernize its IT environment  As reflected in the budget, these modernization efforts are expected to include projects such as updating database designs by converting them to relational databases, eliminating the use of outdated code, and upgrading infrastructure  Among the agency’s priority IT spending initiatives in the budget is its Disability Case Processing System, which has been under development since December 2010  This system is intended to replace the 52 disparate Disability Determination Services’ component systems and associated processes with a modern, common case processing system  According to SSA, the new system is to modernize the entire claims process, including case processing, correspondence, and workload management  However, SSA has reported substantial difficulty in the agency’s ability to carry out this initiative, citing software quality and poor system performance as issues  Consequently, in June 2016, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) placed the initiative on its government- wide list of 10 high-priority programs requiring attention  As previously mentioned, Congress enacted federal IT acquisition reform legislation (commonly referred to as FITARA) in December 2014  This legislation was intended to improve agencies’ acquisitions of IT and enable Congress to monitor agencies’ progress and hold them accountable for reducing duplication and achieving cost savings  It includes specific requirements related to seven areas: (1) agency CIO authority enhancements, (2) federal data center consolidation initiative, (3) enhanced transparency and improved risk management, (4) portfolio review, (5) IT acquisition cadres, (6) government-wide software purchasing program, and (7) the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative  In June 2015, OMB released guidance describing how agencies are to implement FITARA  The guidance identifies a number of actions that agencies are to take to establish a basic set of roles and responsibilities (referred to as the common baseline) for CIOs and other senior agency officials and, thus, to implement the authorities described in the law  More recently, on May 15, 2018, the President signed Executive Order 13833, Enhancing the Effectiveness of Agency Chief Information Officers  Among other things, this executive order is intended to better position agencies to modernize their technology, execute IT programs more efficiently, and reduce cybersecurity risks  The order pertains to 22 of the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies; the Department of Defense and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are exempt  For the covered agencies, including SSA, the executive order strengthens the role of the CIO by, among other things, requiring the CIO to report directly to the agency head; to serve as the agency head’s primary IT strategic advisor; and to have a significant role in all management, governance, and oversight processes related to IT  In addition, one of the cybersecurity requirements directs agencies to ensure that the CIO works closely with an integrated team of senior executives, including those with expertise in IT, security, and privacy, to implement appropriate risk management measures  In June 2018, we issued a report that examined the cybersecurity workforce of the government  We noted that most of the 24 agencies we examined had developed baseline assessments to identify cybersecurity personnel within their agencies that held certifications, but the results were potentially unreliable  However, SSA’s baseline was found to be reliable because it addressed all of the reportable information, such as the extent to which personnel without professional certifications were ready to obtain them or strategies for mitigating any gaps  Further, we found that most of the 24 agencies had established procedures to assign cybersecurity codes to positions, including SSA  We also have ongoing work at SSA, including reviewing its cybersecurity workforce; standardized approach to security assessment, authorization, and continuous monitoring; cybersecurity strategy; and intrusion detection and prevention capabilities  From July 2011 through January 2018, we issued a number of reports that addressed specific weaknesses in SSA’s management of IT acquisitions and operations and in the role of its CIO  These reports included 15 recommendations aimed at improving the agency’s efforts with regard to data center consolidation, incremental development, IT acquisitions, and software licenses  We also made a recommendation to SSA to address weaknesses related to the role of the CIO in key management areas  SSA has taken steps to improve its management of IT acquisitions and operations by addressing 14 of the 15 recommendations that we previously directed to the agency regarding data center consolidation, incremental development, IT acquisitions, and software licenses  Data center consolidation  OMB established the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative in February 2010 to improve the efficiency, performance, and environmental footprint of federal data center activities  The enactment of FITARA in 2014 codified and expanded the initiative  In addition, pursuant to FITARA, in August 2016, the Federal CIO issued a memorandum that announced the Data Center Optimization Initiative as a successor effort to the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative  Further, in August 2016, OMB released guidance which established the Data Center Optimization Initiative and included instructions on how to implement the date center consolidation and optimization provisions of FITARA  Among other things, the guidance required agencies to consolidate inefficient infrastructure, optimize existing facilities, improve their security posture, and achieve cost savings  In addition, the guidance directed agencies to develop a data center consolidation and optimization strategic plan that defines the agency’s data center strategy for fiscal years 2016, 2017, and 2018  This strategy is to include, among other things, a statement from the agency CIO indicating whether the agency has complied with all data center reporting requirements in FITARA  Further, the guidance indicates that OMB is to maintain a public dashboard to display consolidation-related cost savings and optimization performance information for the agencies  In a series of reports that we issued from July 2011 through August 2017, we noted that, while data center consolidation could potentially save the federal government billions of dollars, weaknesses existed in agencies’ data center consolidation plans and data center optimization efforts  Specifically with regard to SSA, in 2011, we reported that the agency had an incomplete consolidation plan and inventory of IT assets  In 2016, we reported that SSA did not meet any of the seven applicable data center optimization targets, as required by OMB  In addition, in 2017, we reported that the agency had an incomplete data center optimization plan  We stressed that until SSA completed these required activities, it might not be able to consolidate data centers, as required, and realize expected savings  We made a total of four recommendations to SSA in our 2011, 2016, and 2017 reports to help improve the agency’s reporting of data center-related cost savings and to achieve data center optimization targets  As of September 2018, SSA had implemented all four recommendations  Consequently, the agency is better positioned to improve the efficiency of its data centers and achieve cost savings  In addition, we reported in May 2018 that the agencies participating in the Data Center Optimization Initiative had communicated mixed progress toward achieving OMB’s goals for closing data centers by September 2018  With regard to SSA, we noted that the agency had not yet achieved its planned savings but that its data centers were among the most optimized that we reviewed  In particular, while SSA reported that it planned to save $1 08 million on its data center initiative from 2016 through 2018, it had not achieved any of those savings  However, the agency reported having met the goal of closing 25 percent of its tiered data centers  Further, SSA reported the most progress among the 22 applicable agencies in meeting OMB’s data center optimization targets  Specifically, SSA reported that it had met four of the five targets  (One other agency reported that it had met three targets, 6 agencies reported having met either one or two targets, and 14 agencies reported meeting none of the targets)  Consequently, we did not make any additional recommendations to SSA in our May 2018 report  We also have ongoing work involving SSA related to agencies’ progress on closing data center and achieving optimization targets  Incremental development  OMB has emphasized the need to deliver investments in smaller parts, or increments, in order to reduce risk, deliver capabilities more quickly, and facilitate the adoption of emerging technologies  In 2010, it called for agencies’ major investments to deliver functionality every 12 months and, since 2012, every 6 months  Subsequently, FITARA codified a requirement that covered agency CIOs certify that IT investments are adequately implementing incremental development, as defined in the capital planning guidance issued by OMB  Further, subsequent OMB guidance on the law’s implementation, issued in June 2015, directed agency CIOs to define processes and policies for their agencies to ensure that they certify that IT resources are adequately implementing incremental development  In November 2017, we reported that 21 agencies, including SSA, needed to improve their certification of incremental development  We pointed out that, as of August 2016, agencies had reported that 103 of 166 major IT software development investments (62 percent) were certified by the agency CIO for implementing adequate incremental development in fiscal year 2017, as required by FITARA  With regard to SSA, we noted that only 3 of the agency’s 10 investments primarily in development had been certified by the agency CIO as using adequate incremental development, as required by FITARA  In addition, we noted that SSA’s incremental development certification policy did not describe the CIO’s role in the certification process or how CIO certification would be documented  However, accurate agency CIO certification of the use of adequate incremental development for major IT investments is critical to ensuring that agencies are making the best effort possible to create IT systems that add value while reducing the risks associated with low-value and wasteful investments  As a result of these findings, we recommended that SSA ensure that its CIO (1) reports major IT investment information related to incremental development accurately, in accordance with OMB guidance; and (2) updates the agency’s policy and processes for the certification of incremental development and confirm that the policy includes a description of how the CIO certification will be documented  SSA agreed with our recommendations and implemented both of them  Thus, the agency should be better positioned to realize the benefits of incremental development practices, such as reducing investment risk, delivering capabilities more rapidly, and permitting easier adoption of emerging technologies  IT acquisitions  FITARA includes a provision to enhance covered agency CIOs’ authority through, among other things, requiring agency heads to ensure that CIOs review and approve IT contracts  OMB’s FITARA implementation guidance expanded upon this aspect of the legislation in a number of ways  Specifically, according to the guidance, CIOs may review and approve IT acquisition strategies and plans, rather than individual IT contracts, and CIOs can designate other agency officials to act as their representatives  In January 2018, we reported that most of the CIOs at 22 selected agencies, including SSA, were not adequately involved in reviewing and approving billions of dollars of IT acquisitions  In particular, we found that SSA’s process to identify IT acquisitions for CIO review did not involve the acquisition office, as required by OMB  In addition, we noted that SSA had a CIO review and approval process in place that fully satisfied the requirements set forth in OMB’s guidance  However, while SSA provided evidence of the CIO’s review of most of the IT contracts we examined, the agency had not ensured that the CIO or a designee reviewed and approved each IT acquisition plan or strategy  Specifically, of 10 randomly selected IT contracts that we examined at SSA, 7 acquisitions associated with those contracts had been reviewed and approved, as required by OMB  We pointed out that, until SSA ensured that its CIO or designee reviewed and approved all IT acquisitions, the agency would have limited visibility and input into its planned IT expenditures and would not be effectively positioned to benefit from the increased authority that FITARA’s contract approval provision is intended to provide  Further, the agency could miss an opportunity to strengthen the CIO’s authority and the oversight of IT acquisitions—thus, increasing the potential to award IT contracts that are duplicative, wasteful, or poorly conceived  Accordingly, we made three recommendations to SSA to address these weaknesses  As of September 2018, the agency had made progress by implementing two of the recommendations: to ensure that (1) the acquisition office is involved in identifying IT acquisitions and (2) the CIO or designee reviews and approves IT acquisitions according to OMB guidance  By taking these actions, SSA should be better positioned to properly identify and provide oversight of IT acquisitions  However, SSA has not yet implemented our third recommendation that it issue guidance to assist in the identification of IT acquisitions  SSA stated that, in September 2017, it updated its policy for acquisition plan approval to address this recommendation; however, upon review of this policy, we did not find guidance for identifying IT acquisitions  Without the proper identification of IT acquisitions, SSA’s CIO cannot effectively provide oversight of these acquisitions  Software licenses  Federal agencies engage in thousands of software licensing agreements annually  The objective of software license management is to manage, control, and protect an organization’s software assets  Effective management of these licenses can help avoid purchasing too many licenses, which can result in unused software, as well as too few licenses, which can result in noncompliance with license terms and cause the imposition of additional fees  As part of its PortfolioStat initiative, OMB has developed policy that addresses software licenses  This policy requires agencies to conduct an annual, agency-wide IT portfolio review to, among other things, reduce commodity IT spending  Such areas of spending could include software licenses  In May 2014, we reported on federal agencies’ management of software licenses and determined that better management was needed to achieve significant savings government-wide  Of the 24 agencies we reviewed, SSA was 1 of 22 that lacked comprehensive policies that incorporated leading practices  In particular, SSA’s policy partially met four of the leading practices and did not meet one  Further, we noted that SSA was among 22 of the 24 selected agencies that had not established comprehensive software license inventories—a leading practice that would help the agencies to adequately manage their software licenses  As such, we made six recommendations to SSA to improve its policies and practices for managing software licenses  These included recommendations that the agency develop a comprehensive policy for the management of software licenses and establish a comprehensive inventory of software licenses  SSA agreed with the recommendations and, as of September 2018, had implemented all six of them  As a result, the agency should be better positioned to manage its software licenses and identify opportunities for reducing software license costs  While SSA has taken steps that improved its IT management in the areas of data center consolidation, incremental development, IT acquisitions, and software licenses, we reported in August 2018 that the agency had not fully addressed the role of the CIO in its policies  As previously mentioned, FITARA and the President Executive Order 13833, among other laws and guidance, outline the roles and responsibilities for agency CIOs in an attempt to improve the government’s performance in IT and related information management functions  Within these laws and guidance, we identified IT management responsibilities assigned to CIOs in six key IT areas: Leadership and accountability  CIOs are responsible and accountable for the effective implementation of IT management responsibilities  For example, CIOs are to report directly to the agency head or that official’s deputy and designate a senior agency information security officer  Strategic planning  CIOs are required to lead the strategic planning for all IT management functions  An example of a CIO requirement related to the strategic planning area is measuring how well IT supports agency programs and reporting annually on the progress in achieving the goals  IT workforce  CIOs are to assess agency IT workforce needs and develop strategies and plans for meeting those needs  For example, CIOs are responsible for annually assessing the extent to which agency personnel meet IT management knowledge and skill requirements, developing strategies to address deficiencies, and reporting to the head of the agency on the progress made in improving these capabilities  IT budgeting  CIOs are responsible for the processes for all annual and multi-year IT planning, programming, and budgeting decisions  For example, CIOs are to have a significant role in IT planning, programming, and budgeting decisions  IT investment management  CIOs are to manage, evaluate, and assess how well the agency is managing its IT resources  In particular, CIOs are required to improve the management of the agency’s IT through portfolio review  Information security  CIOs are to establish, implement, and ensure compliance with an agency-wide information security program  For example, CIOs are required to develop and maintain an agency-wide security program, policies, procedures, and control techniques  In our August 2018 report, we noted that SSA, along with 23 other agencies, did not have policies that fully addressed the role of the CIO in these six key areas, consistent with the laws and guidance  To its credit, SSA had fully addressed the role of the CIO in the IT leadership and accountability area  In particular, the agency’s policies addressed the requirements that the CIO report directly to the agency head, assume responsibility and accountability for IT investments, and designate a senior agency information security officer  However, the policies did not fully address the role of the CIO in the other five areas (i e , strategic planning, workforce, budgeting, investment management, and information security)  For example, the agency’s policies did not address the IT workforce area at all, including the requirements that the CIO annually assess the extent to which agency personnel meet IT management knowledge and skill requirements, develop strategies to address deficiencies, and report to the head of the agency on the progress made in improving these capabilities  Further, SSA’s policies minimally addressed the requirements for IT strategic planning  Specifically, while the agency’s policies required the CIO to establish goals for improving agency operations through IT, the policies did not require the CIO to measure how well IT supports agency programs and report annually on the progress in achieving the goals  Table 1 summarizes the extent to which SSA’s policies addressed the role of its CIO, as reflected in our August 2018 report  As a result of these findings, we made a recommendation to SSA to address the weaknesses in its policies with regard to the remaining five key management areas  In response, the agency agreed with our recommendation and, subsequently, stated that it planned to do so by the end of September 2018  Following through to ensure that the identified weaknesses are addressed in its policies will be essential to helping SSA overcome its longstanding IT management challenges  In conclusion, effective IT management is critical to the performance of SSA’s mission  Toward this end, the agency has taken steps to improve its management of IT acquisitions and operations by implementing 14 of the 15 recommendations we made from 2011 through 2018 to improve its IT management  Nevertheless, SSA would be better positioned to effectively address longstanding IT management challenges by ensuring that it has policies in place that fully address the role and responsibilities of its CIO in the five key management areas, as we previously recommended  Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Larson, and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement  I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have  If you or your staffs have any questions about this testimony, please contact Carol C  Harris at (202) 512-4456 or harriscc@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this testimony statement  GAO staff who made key contributions to this statement are Kevin Walsh (Assistant Director), Jessica Waselkow (Analyst in Charge), and Rebecca Eyler  This is a work of the U S  government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States  The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO  However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately 


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: Congress has authorized federal agencies to collect hundreds of billions of dollars annually in fees, fines, and penalties. These collections can fund a variety of programs, including programs related to national security, and the protection of natural resources. Data on collections are important for congressional oversight and to provide transparency in agencies' use of federal resources. GAO was asked to review the availability of government-wide data on fees, fines, and penalties. This report examines (1) the extent to which data on collections of fees, fines, and penalties are publically available and useful for the purpose of congressional oversight; and (2) the benefits and challenges to government-wide reporting of fees, fines, and penalties. GAO assessed government-wide fee, fine, and penalty data against criteria for availability and usefulness based on multiple sources, including prior GAO work and input from staff of selected congressional committees. GAO interviewed OMB staff, Treasury officials, and representatives of organizations with expertise in federal budget issues and reviewed prior GAO work to identify benefits and challenges of reporting these data. There are no comprehensive, government-wide data at the level of detail that identifies specific fees, fines, or penalties. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) report data that include these collections at the budget account level, which generally covers a set of agency activities or programs. OMB and Treasury also report some summary data for budgeting and financial management purposes. In the Budget of the U.S. Government , for example, OMB data showed government-wide fees totaled just over $335 billion in fiscal year 2017. These reports, however, are not designed to inventory or analyze fee, fine, or penalty collections and have significant limitations for that purpose. Although OMB collects more disaggregated data on fees, fines, and penalties, it does not make the data publicly available. OMB uses the disaggregated data in its OMB MAX database—such as the agency and account—to compile reported totals, such as the government-wide fees total in the Budget of the U.S. Government . Until OMB makes more disaggregated data publicly available, Congress has limited information on collections by agency to inform oversight and decision-making. OMB's government-wide total of fees includes collections that are not fees and excludes some fee collections. The total includes all collections for accounts in which fees make up at least half of the account's collections and excludes all others. OMB does not direct agencies to regularly review and update the accounts included in the total. Therefore, if accounts' makeups change such that fee collections drop below, or rise above, the 50 percent threshold, accounts may have incorrect fee designations and the total may be inaccurate. Further, OMB does not disclose the limitation that the total may exclude some fees and include other collections that are not fees. As a result, some users of the data are likely unaware of the potential for the total fees to be overestimated or underestimated. Further, no source of government-wide data consistently reports data elements on fees, fines, and penalties that could help inform congressional oversight. Generally, congressional staff told us that additional data, such as amounts of specific penalties, would increase transparency and facilitate oversight. These data could help Congress identify trends in collections and significant changes that could be an indication of an agency's performance. While reporting government-wide fee, fine, and penalty data provides benefits, there are trade-offs in terms of the time and federal resources it would take to develop and implement a process for agencies to report these 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. Alternatively, incorporating a small number of data elements that Congress identifies as most useful for oversight into ongoing government-wide reporting efforts could incrementally improve transparency and information for oversight and decision-making, with fewer resources. GAO is making four recommendations to enhance OMB reporting on fees, fines, and penalties, including making disaggregated data publically available, updating instructions to federal agencies to review accounts designated as containing fees, and disclosing limitations in data reported. OMB did not provide comments.