Background

E-government is seen as promising a wide range of benefits based largely  on harnessing the power of the Internet to facilitate interconnections and  information exchange between citizens and their government. A variety of  actions have been taken in recent years to enhance the government’s  ability to realize the potential of e-government. The President designated  e-government as one of five priorities in his fiscal year 2002 management  agenda for making the federal government more focused on citizens and  results. According to the agenda, e-government is expected to    provide high-quality customer services regardless of whether the citizen  contacts the agency by phone, in person, or on the Web; reduce the expense and difficulty of doing business with the government;   cut government operating costs;    provide citizens with readier access to government services;  increase access for persons with disabilities to agency Web sites and  e-government applications; and   make government more transparent and accountable.
As the lead agency for implementing the President’s management agenda,  OMB developed a governmentwide strategy for expanding e-government,  which it published in February 2002. In its strategy, OMB organized the 25  selected e-government initiatives into five portfolios: “government to  citizen,” “government to business,” “government to government,” “internal  efficiency and effectiveness,” and “cross-cutting.” Figure 1 provides an  overview of this structure.
For each initiative, OMB designated a specific agency to be the initiative’s  “managing partner,” responsible for leading the initiative, and assigned  other federal agencies as “partners” in carrying out the initiative. Partner  responsibilities can include making contributions of funding or in-kind  resources (e.g., staff time). Most of the initiatives do not have direct  appropriations but rely instead on a variety of alternative funding  strategies. Table 1 summarizes the funding strategies employed by the 25  OMB-sponsored e-gov initiatives in fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
A common strategy used in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 was to reach  agreement among the participating agencies on monetary contributions to  be made by each—10 of the 25 initiatives used this strategy. Initiatives  used different approaches in determining how much an agency should  contribute. For example, some adopted complex allocation formulas  based on agency size and expected use of the initiative’s resources, while  others decided to have each agency contribute an equal share. In most  cases, the funding strategy and allocation formula adopted for an initiative  was determined by its governing board, with input from partner agencies  and OMB. To further reinforce the strategy of having partner agencies  make financial contributions, OMB generally reflected planned agency  allocations in its annual budget guidance to partner agencies, known as  passback instructions.
The remaining 15 initiatives used other funding approaches. Specifically,  for 7 of the 15, the managing partner contributed all necessary funds.  Seven others used a combination of managing partner funding and other  sources, such as charging fees for services provided, or received support  from the E-Government Fund, established by the E-Government Act of  2002.
The E-Government Fund was intended to be used to support projects that  enable the federal government to expand its ability to conduct activities  electronically. The Director of OMB, supported by the E-Government  Administrator, is responsible for determining which projects are to receive  support from the E-Government Fund. Table 2 summarizes support from  the E-Government Fund given to the 25 OMB-sponsored initiatives in fiscal  years 2003 and 2004.
As shown in table 2, $5.4 million of the available $8 million in the  E-Government Fund was spent on, among other things, 4 of the 25  initiatives. In addition to its use for the e-gov initiatives, OMB also used the  E-Government Fund to support development of its “lines of business”  initiatives (a total of $1.9 million) in fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

	Although Agencies Generally Contributed Amounts as Planned, Shortfalls Nevertheless Occurred

For fiscal years 2003 and 2004, agencies generally made funding  contributions in the amounts originally planned by the managing partners  of the 10 initiatives that relied on funding contributions. Table 3 shows the  specific numbers of partner agencies that made such contributions as  planned.
Although most contributions were made in the amounts planned, 6 of the  10 initiatives experienced funding shortfalls from their planned budgets in  fiscal year 2003, and 9 experienced shortfalls in fiscal year 2004. Shortfalls  in fiscal year 2003 totaled approximately $31 million (22 percent) of a  planned budget of $138.7 million. In fiscal year 2004, shortfalls totaled  approximately $25.4 million (20 percent) of a planned $124.2 million. The  rationale provided by agencies for contributions that were less than  planned included (1) substitution of in-kind resources in lieu of funds,  (2) lack of budget guidance from OMB reflecting the original planned  amounts, (3) inability to obtain congressional approval to reprogram funds  from other accounts, and (4) organizational realignments associated with  creation of DHS in fiscal year 2003. Figure 2 shows the shortfalls in  contributions for each fiscal year and the primary rationale provided by  agencies for those shortfalls.
As shown in figure 2, in some cases partner agencies negotiated with the  initiatives’ managing partners for reductions in monetary contributions,  which often included an agreement for transfer of in-kind resources. For  example, in fiscal year 2004, the Social Security Administration provided  in-kind resources in lieu of requested funding to the e-Authentication  initiative, managed by GSA. Specific details of all initiative shortfalls and  associated agency explanations can be found in appendix II.
Most of the shortfalls that occurred in each fiscal year were concentrated  in one or two of the initiatives. For example, shortfalls in fiscal year 2003  experienced by the Project SAFECOM initiative—which is to serve as the  umbrella program within the federal government to help local, tribal, state,  and federal public safety agencies improve public safety response through  more effective and efficient interoperable wireless communications— accounted for 57 percent of the total shortfall in that year. According to  program officials, these shortfalls resulted from two major causes: (1) the  inability of the Departments of Justice and the Interior to obtain  congressional approval to reprogram funds from other accounts and  (2) the impact of organizational realignments associated with the creation  of DHS in fiscal year 2003. SAFECOM officials reported that the fiscal year  2003 shortfalls resulted in delays in the development of standards and  architecture efforts related to communications interoperability. For  example, the timeline for development of a methodology for assessing  communications interoperability nationwide was postponed until  sufficient funding could be made available.
In fiscal year 2004, shortfalls experienced by the e-Rulemaking and  Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) initiatives accounted for nearly  two-thirds (64 percent) of the total shortfall. The e-Rulemaking initiative,  managed by EPA, received only $5,850,208 (51 percent) of its planned  fiscal year 2004 budget of $11,505,000 in partner agency contributions.  Although the initiative’s funding plan had called for an expanded number  of funding partners (from 9 to 35) over the previous fiscal year, OMB did  not reflect that plan with passback instructions to the new funding  partners. According to OMB officials, the disconnect between the  initiative’s funding strategy and OMB’s passback instructions represented  a “timing problem,” in that the passback instructions were based on the  previously defined project scope of 9 partners. However, according to  e-Rulemaking’s funding plan for fiscal year 2004, the project’s scope had  already been broadened at the time OMB issued its passback instructions.  Without passback instructions in fiscal year 2004, planned partner  agencies did not make contributions, except in a few instances.  E-Rulemaking officials reported that the resulting shortfall in funds,  compounded with delays in reaching agreements regarding contributions  from other agencies, required them to significantly scale back agency  migration to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), the  centerpiece of the initiative. Specifically, the number of agencies planned  to migrate to the system in its first phase of implementation was reduced  from 10 to 5, and 2 of those represented only component organizations  rather than entire agencies.
In IAE’s case, the shortfall in fiscal year 2004 also resulted in part from  OMB passback instructions to the Department of Energy not reflecting the  amount originally planned by GSA. According to OMB and GSA officials,  the passback instructions did not reflect the planned amount due to an  administrative error. IAE officials reported that as a result of this shortfall,  implementation of several planned systems applications was postponed  indefinitely. In addition, IAE received a smaller than anticipated  contribution in fiscal year 2004 from the Department of Defense, because  Defense provided in-kind resources in lieu of the originally planned  funding contribution.

	Contributions Were Often Made Late in the Fiscal Year

Although initiatives generally received funding contributions from federal  agencies in the amounts planned, in most cases, funds were contributed in  the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year. Specifically, seven of the  initiatives reported that they had finalized half or more of their agreements  with partner agencies in the third or fourth quarter of the fiscal year. In  providing a rationale for contributions made late in the fiscal year, officials  from both managing and funding partner agencies reported that the  administrative burden associated with drafting, negotiating, and signing  interagency agreements, as well as the timing of appropriations bill  enactment, contributed to these delays.
For illustrative purposes, figure 3 shows the timing of funding obligations  for one of the initiatives, IAE. As the figure shows, most funding  obligations were finalized in the last quarter of the fiscal year.
Both managing and funding partner agencies reported that the extended  process of drafting, negotiating, and signing interagency agreements  contributed significantly to the timing of funding contributions in fiscal  years 2003 and 2004. Officials from 5 of the 10 initiatives that relied on  funding contributions from partner agencies specifically cited the  administrative burden as a factor in interagency agreements being reached  in the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year. Officials from the  Geospatial One-Stop initiative, managed by Interior, reported that  potential partner agencies that could have provided modest funding  contributions were sometimes not invited to do so because the resource  investment required to reach interagency agreements was prohibitively  high.
In addition to the administrative burden associated with finalizing  interagency agreements, managing and funding partner agencies also  attributed the timing of contributions to the enactment of appropriations  bills relatively late in the fiscal year. For example, in fiscal year 2003,  appropriations were not enacted for most agencies until February 20,  2003, almost 5 months into the fiscal year. Further, managing partner  agencies did not begin the process of establishing memorandums of  understanding with partner agencies until after relevant appropriations  had been enacted. Although OMB instructed agencies in fiscal year 2004 to  make their funding obligations to managing partner agencies within 45  days of enactment of appropriations, agencies reported that this deadline  was rarely achieved.
According to OMB officials overseeing the initiatives, partner agencies  should make every effort to provide promised contributions as early as  possible within a funding cycle because of the benefits in facilitating  implementation of the initiatives. However, for both fiscal years, agency  officials generally did not report that obtaining funds late in the fiscal year  caused their initiatives to suffer significant setbacks in executing planned  tasks or achieving planned goals. Further, several agency officials noted  that the process of drafting and negotiating memorandums of  understanding among agencies had improved over time and was becoming  more efficient in fiscal year 2005, for example, than in the two fiscal years  we examined. These officials attributed the greater efficiency to  increased knowledge and experience among officials involved in managing  the e-gov initiatives.

	Conclusions

Most e-gov initiative partner agencies made contributions as planned to  the 10 initiatives that relied on such contributions in fiscal years 2003 and  2004, although shortfalls occurred for a variety of reasons. In fiscal year  2004, the e-Rulemaking and IAE initiatives experienced shortfalls when  OMB did not reflect the initiatives’ funding plans in budget guidance to  partner agencies. Without corresponding budget guidance from OMB,  partner agencies generally did not make planned contributions, and as a  result, officials had to delay implementation of elements of the planned  initiatives.
Agreements on contributions often were not finalized until late in the  fiscal year, in large part because the administrative burden in obtaining  funds through interagency agreements was cumbersome. However,  managing partners generally did not report significant disruptions in their  planned milestones and objectives, and several commented that the  interagency agreement process was becoming more efficient over time.

	Recommendation for Executive Action

In order to avoid errors and to better assist the managing partner agencies  in obtaining funds to execute the OMB-sponsored e-gov initiatives, we  recommend that the Director of OMB take steps to ensure that OMB’s  budget guidance to partner agencies correctly reflects the funding plans of  each of the initiatives that rely on funding contributions.

	Agency Comments

We received oral comments on a draft of this report from representatives  of OMB’s Office of E-Government, including the Associate Administrator  for E-Government and Information Technology. These representatives  generally agreed with the content of our draft report and our  recommendation and provided technical comments, which have been  incorporated where appropriate.
OMB officials stated that, while there had been some problems in  administering the funding of the e-government initiatives in fiscal years  2003 and 2004, agencies had made substantial progress in fiscal year 2005  in executing memorandums of understanding as early as possible.  Specifically, OMB officials reported that as of April 8, 2005, about 80  percent of fiscal year 2005 funding commitments had been finalized.  Although we did not evaluate fiscal year 2005 as part of our review, we  noted in the report that the process of drafting and negotiating  memorandums of understanding among agencies had reportedly improved  over time. As described in the report, agency officials attributed the  greater efficiency to increased knowledge and experience among officials  involved in managing the e-gov initiatives.
Unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan  no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we  will provide a copy of this report to the Director of OMB. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
Should you have any questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-6240 or John de Ferrari, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-6335. We  can also be reached by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov and deferrarij@gao.gov,  respectively. Other key contributors to this report included Barbara  Collier; Felipe Colón, Jr.; Wilfred Holloway; Sandra Kerr; Frank Maguire;  and Jamie Pressman.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were, for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, to (1) determine  whether federal agencies made contributions in the amounts planned to  the 10 e-gov initiatives that relied on such contributions, and (2) determine  the timing of these contributions and reasons for any contributions made  late in each fiscal year.
To determine whether federal agencies made monetary contributions to  OMB-sponsored e-gov initiatives for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 in the  amounts planned, we analyzed detailed funding data and supporting  documentation from both managing partner and funding partner agencies.  This documentation included the initiative’s agreed-upon funding plans for  both fiscal years, as well as signed interagency agreements for each  contribution. We also held follow-up discussions with agency officials to  clarify the timing and amounts of contributions. For example, to  determine shortfalls, we compared planned contributions with amounts  obligated by funding partner agencies in their signed agreements and  obtained rationale from agency officials regarding any differences.
We determined the timing of partner agency contributions based on when  in the fiscal year funds were obligated—the dates on which formal  agreements such as memorandums of understanding and/or interagency  agreements were signed by both managing and funding partner agencies.  We also obtained rationale from agency officials regarding the major  reasons why monetary contributions were made late in the fiscal year.
Our work was conducted in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, from  September 2004 to April 2005, in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies

	Disaster Management

Managing partner agency: Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Purpose: Provide federal, state, and local emergency managers online  access to disaster management–related information, planning, and  response tools.
Funding: Disaster Management project officials reported that their fiscal  year 2003 and 2004 funding plans were developed by the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) and communicated to partner agencies  through passback instructions. In fiscal year 2003, seven of nine partner  agencies were to make equal contributions totaling approximately $1.5  million each, with DHS contributing a larger share than the others. In  fiscal year 2004, for most partners the per-partner contribution was  decreased to $681,250, again with DHS contributing a larger share. The  decrease was due to a rescoping of the initiative that cancelled plans to  develop new tool sets and reduced funding for the Disaster Management  Web portal. Table 4 details contributions to the initiative for fiscal years  2003 and 2004.
Funding shortfalls occurred that were related to two funding partner  agencies: Interior did not make planned fiscal year 2003 or fiscal year 2004  contributions, and Commerce did not make its planned fiscal year 2004  contribution. Interior officials stated that their request to reprogram funds  in 2004 to support Disaster Management was not approved by Congress.  Commerce officials reported that they did not make their fiscal year 2004  contribution because Commerce’s appropriations bill included a  restriction preventing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration (NOAA), the principal Commerce participant for Disaster  Management, from contributing fiscal year 2004 funds to any of the e-gov  initiatives.
DHS officials reported that the late timing of contributions was  predominantly the result of agencies having to reformulate internal  financial plans to meet the unforeseen e-government requirement. For  example, Justice and two agencies transferred from Transportation made  their fiscal year 2003 contributions in fiscal year 2004 for a variety of  reasons. Justice officials reported that they were not permitted to  reprogram the required funds during fiscal year 2003. Instead, they  negotiated with OMB to make their fiscal year 2003 contribution in fiscal  year 2004. A portion of Transportation’s fiscal year 2003 contribution was  delayed by the transfer of key organizations—the Coast Guard and  Transportation Security Administration—to DHS.
According to Disaster Management officials, interruptions caused by late  funding contributions and shortfalls included a delay in adding new  responder groups to Disaster Management Interoperability Services  (DMIS), delays in holding meetings and workshops with the emergency  management community (including first responders) to facilitate  development of interoperability standards, and delays in implementing an  alternative site to ensure continuity of operations for the DMIS and  DisasterHelp.gov servers.
Managing partner agency: General Services Administration (GSA)
Purpose: Minimize the burden on businesses, the public, and government  when obtaining services online by providing a secure infrastructure for  online transactions, eliminating the need for separate processes for the  verification of identity and electronic signatures.
Funding: In fiscal year 2003, e-Authentication had 14 funding partner  agencies, and the funding plan called for $25 million in agency  contributions to be divided among these partners based on criteria such as  expected transaction volume and agency size. For fiscal year 2004, the  total funding requirement was divided equally among the partner agencies  ($377,000 per partner), with GSA contributing a larger amount ($600,000).  On June 29, 2004, the e-Authentication project manager sent a  memorandum out to members of the Executive Steering Committee  explaining that the new federated identity architecture approach that the  initiative had decided to adopt could be completed at a lower cost ($1.86  million less) than the original approach (developing an e-authentication  gateway), and therefore, the initiative was reducing expected fiscal year  2004 agency contributions from $377,000 to $244,361. Table 5 details  contributions to the initiative for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
GSA officials reported that five agencies did not make their full monetary  contributions as planned in fiscal year 2003 and two agencies did not do so  in fiscal year 2004. In each of these instances, reductions were negotiated  between GSA and the funding partner agency and generally included a  provision for in-kind resources (e.g., staff time) in lieu of the full monetary  amount. For example in fiscal year 2003, in lieu of the $2.3 million  contribution planned for EPA, GSA agreed to a $350,000 cash transfer; a  $125,000 grant to be funded, administered, and managed by EPA; and  various in-kind contributions. As another example, the Department of  Education agreed to lead a proof-of-concept effort to test the use of its  federal student aid personal identification number identity credential  through the planned E-Authentication gateway in lieu of providing the full  requested monetary amount. Project officials reported that NASA, the  Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development’s contributions were  reduced because these agencies simply did not have the funds available to  contribute the planned amounts. In fiscal year 2004, the Social Security  Administration provided in-kind resources in lieu of its planned funding  contribution. Finally, in fiscal year 2004, Commerce did not make its full  planned contribution because a stipulation in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus  appropriations bill prohibited NOAA from spending any fiscal year 2004  appropriations on the OMB-sponsored e-government initiatives.
GSA officials reported that the administrative burden associated with the  memorandum of understanding process and appropriations enacted late in  the fiscal year contributed to the late timing of contributions in fiscal years  2003 and 2004. For example, the officials noted that in some cases  proposed memorandums of understanding that had already been signed by  GSA officials were lost in the process of traversing partner agency offices,  resulting in the need to obtain signatures from high-level officials multiple  times.
Managing partner agency: Department of Education  Purpose: Create a single point of access for citizens to locate information  on federal loan programs, and improve back-office loan functions.
Funding: Although the funding allocation for each of the e-Loans  initiative’s five partners is very simple ($397,000 per agency for both fiscal  years), the initiative is somewhat unusual in that the managing partner  does not centrally manage all the funds or activities of the initiative.  Rather, the initiative is divided into four work streams with partner  agencies taking the lead on specific work streams. The lead agencies used  their own funding up to $397,000 per fiscal year, and if planned costs  exceeded that amount, they obtained contributions from other funding  partner agencies. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban  Development manages one of the four work streams and used its own  fiscal year 2003–2004 funds to support it, as well as receiving contributions  from Agriculture in 2003 and 2004 and from Veterans Affairs in 2004. Table  6 details monetary contributions to the e-Loans initiative for fiscal years  2003 and 2004.
Two shortfalls from planned amounts were associated with the Small  Business Administration (SBA); however, both instances represent  negotiated reductions. In fiscal year 2003, as a result of e-Loans budget  negotiations between SBA and OMB and the expected contract cost of  work stream deliverables, SBA’s fiscal year 2003 contribution was  reduced. Education officials stated that this decision was supported by the  partner agencies. In fiscal year 2004, SBA originally intended to spend  $300,000 of its $397,000 commitment for activities that SBA subsequently  determined could be supported under an existing contract at no additional  cost. Accordingly, SBA reallocated the funds to support other e-gov work.
Education officials noted that all partner agencies were affected by the  enactment of appropriations late in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, which  affected agencies’ ability to transfer or make funds available. Nevertheless,  the officials reported that despite the timing of appropriations, partner  agencies made their contributions in a timely manner.
Managing partner agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Purpose: Allow citizens to easily access and participate in the rulemaking  process. Improve access to, and quality of, the rulemaking process for  individuals, businesses, and other government entities while streamlining  and increasing the efficiency of internal agency processes.
Funding: In fiscal year 2003, the e-Rulemaking project management office  requested $100,000 apiece from nine partner agencies to support the  initiative’s activities. These allocations were reflected in OMB’s passback  instructions to the agencies. In addition, the Department of  Transportation—the former managing partner of the initiative—was asked  to transfer $5 million to EPA. For fiscal year 2004, the initiative’s funding  workgroup developed a plan allocating a budget of $11.5 million among 35  anticipated funding partners, based on criteria such as agency budget size  and average number of rules issued per year. OMB, however, issued  passback instructions to only eight of the nine agencies that had funded  the initiative in fiscal year 2003 and DHS. Table 7 details contributions to  the initiative for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
E-Rulemaking officials reported that the combination of shortfalls and late  contributions negatively affected the initiative, specifically in fiscal year  2004. In fiscal year 2003, two agencies, the Nuclear Regulatory  Commission (NRC) and Transportation, did not make their full  contributions as planned. Although OMB’s passback to NRC for fiscal year  2003 included the $100,000 amount allocated to each partner, NRC  asserted that it was not subject to OMB’s budget guidance because it  derives most of its budget from user fees. Accordingly, NRC did not make  its planned contribution. Transportation, the former managing partner of  the initiative, provided monetary funds and in-kind support in lieu of its  full planned contribution in fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year 2004,  Transportation did not make its full contribution because it believed the  amount should be reduced because of the transfer of the Transportation  Security Administration and the Coast Guard to DHS in fiscal year 2003.  However, based on subsequent discussions between E-Rulemaking and  Transportation officials, Transportation officials told us that they have  agreed to pay the remaining fiscal year 2004 balance in fiscal year 2005.  Additionally, the Department of Energy did not make its full contribution  as planned because the OMB passback did not reflect the planned amount.  This occurred because OMB erroneously assessed the Department of  Energy at the same total contribution to e-gov initiatives in the passback  as it had the Department of Education (the two departments have similar  abbreviations).
In fiscal year 2004, although e-Rulemaking requested funds from 35  agencies based on the budget workgroup’s funding plan, OMB issued  passback instructions to just nine agencies, resulting in a shortfall of $5.6  million, nearly half of the initiative’s planned budget. Of the agencies that  did not receive passback instructions, only three agencies contributed  monetary resources in fiscal year 2004, and one agency contributed in-kind  resources in lieu of funds. E-Rulemaking officials reported that they were  not provided with an explanation as to why OMB did not issue passback  instructions to all 35 agencies as had been planned. According to OMB  officials, the disconnect between the initiative’s funding strategy and  OMB’s passback instructions represented a “timing problem,” in that the  passback instructions were based on the previously defined project scope  of nine partners. The OMB officials did not state that the planned  expansion of e-Rulemaking was inappropriate, noting that fiscal year 2005  passback instructions did reflect the larger number of partners. However,  without passback instructions in fiscal year 2004, planned partner  agencies did not make contributions, except in a few instances.  E-Rulemaking officials reported that the resulting shortfall in funds,  compounded with delays in receiving funds from other agencies, required  them to scale back agency migration to the Federal Docket Management  System (FDMS), the centerpiece of the initiative. Specifically, although the  initiative planned to migrate 10 agencies to the FDMS in its first phase of  implementation, the revised schedule now includes only 5 agencies, 2 of  which are component agencies of larger departments.

	Geospatial One-Stop

Managing partner agency: Department of the Interior  Purpose: Provide federal and state agencies with a single point of access  to map-related data to enable consolidation of redundant data.
Funding: Planned contributions to the Geospatial One-Stop initiative were  initially distributed among the agencies that were major federal geospatial  data producers or were members of the Federal Geographic Data  Committee. Partner agency concurrence in both fiscal years was obtained  at a meeting hosted by the Interior. Partners willing to contribute more  than the minimum $100,000 agency allocation indicated their intention to  do so. Table 8 details funding for the initiative for fiscal years 2003 and  2004.
Although the Geospatial One-Stop initiative experienced no shortfalls from  its overall planned budget in fiscal year 2003, one agency, Transportation,  contributed less than planned because in-kind resources were provided in  lieu of the full requested amount. In fiscal year 2004 there were two  shortfalls. Geospatial One-Stop officials reported that shortfall from  Interior arose because its fiscal year 2004 requested increase was not  funded by Congress and an agreement was made for Interior to provide  $200,000 of in-kind resources in lieu of monetary funds. Additionally, there  was a shortfall of $200,000 from Commerce because of the prohibition on  NOAA contributing funds to e-government projects in fiscal year 2004.
Project officials stated that extensive paperwork and staff time were  invested in getting agreements drafted, reviewed, finalized, and signed.
Some potential partners who could have participated at a lower level of  funding were not invited because of the high overhead required to  establish interagency agreements. The project officials stated their belief  that the considerable amount of staff time required for managing the  cross-agency approach to funding could be more effectively used carrying  out the actual work of the project. They also stated that the burden of the  administrative overhead to administer agreements made it infeasible to  allocate costs fairly among partner agencies.
Managing partner agency: Department of Labor  Purpose: Provide a single point of access for citizens to locate and  determine potential eligibility for government benefits and services.
Funding: Planned funding partner contributions for the GovBenefits  initiative were based on a funding plan developed in October 2002 that  placed each of the 10 partner agencies, including Labor, into one of three  categories based on the anticipated volume of benefit program  information each agency would generate for the GovBenefits Web site.  The same approach was used in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. As managing  partner, Labor contributed the largest share. Table 9 details GovBenefits  funding for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
The GovBenefits initiative received all planned contributions from funding  partners in fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year 2004, only one agency, DHS,  failed to make its contribution as planned, resulting in a $491,000 shortfall.  According to OMB officials, the planned allocation for GovBenefits was  erroneously not included in its annual budget guidance to DHS.  GovBenefits project officials reported that funding partner agencies  transferred funds as soon as memorandums of understanding were agreed  upon.
Managing partner agency: Health and Human Services  Purpose: Create a single portal for all federal grant customers to find,  apply for, and ultimately manage grants online.
Funding: Planned contributions for Grants.gov’s 11 partner agencies were  allocated based on a fiscal year 2002–2004 funding algorithm that  classified grant-making agencies by size. In addition to the 11 partner  agency requests, OMB identified development, modernization, and  enhancement funds in specific agencies’ budgets for Grants.gov funding.  Health and Human Services also received contributions in fiscal year 2004  from the Department of Energy and GSA. Table 10 details funding for  Grants.gov for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Grants.gov received all of its planned partner contributions from its  funding partner agencies in fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year 2004, Grants.gov  received almost all of its planned partner contributions from its funding  partner agencies; the exception was Commerce, because of the  appropriations bill restriction on NOAA contributing funds to e-gov  initiatives. Commerce contributed in-kind resources in lieu of the full  requested funds in fiscal year 2004.

	Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE)

Managing partner agency: General Services Administration  Purpose: Create a secure business environment that will facilitate and  support the cost-effective acquisition of goods and services by agencies,  while eliminating inefficiencies in the current acquisition environment.
Funding: In addition to funding from GSA’s General Supply Fund, the IAE  initiative relied on monetary contributions from partner agencies in fiscal  years 2003 and 2004. Planned contributions were allocated based on each  agency’s procurement volume as reported in the Federal Procurement  Data System. Table 11 details funding for the IAE initiative for fiscal years  2003 and 2004.
IAE project officials reported that for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the  Department of Energy contribution was lower than the planned amount  because of an error by OMB that assessed the Department of Energy the  same amount as the Department of Education (the two departments have  similar abbreviations). This resulted in nearly a $10 million shortfall over  fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Officials reported that this indirectly impacted  the initiative and reported that several applications were postponed and  are now indefinite because the funds were not available at that time. In  fiscal year 2004, remaining shortfalls from the planned amount  represented negotiated reductions. For example, as reported by both IAE  and DOD officials, DOD contributed less than the planned amount, instead  providing in-kind support (e.g., staff time and existing IT resources) for  project activities. Commerce’s fiscal year 2004 shortfall was again  attributable to the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill language that  prohibited NOAA from contributing to any of the e-gov initiatives.
GSA officials reported that continuing resolutions and “red-tape” issues  such as paperwork and lost documents prolonged the transfer of funds.  Specifically noted was the administrative burden on both the managing  and funding partner agencies in crafting interagency agreements. Although  in fiscal year 2003, requests were made from the smaller agencies  (including the Broadcasting Board of Governments, the Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission, the Executive Office of the  President, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Smithsonian  Institution, and the Peace Corps), only the Peace Corps made its requested  contribution. The IAE project manager reported that a decision was made  that the administrative costs to process the memorandum of  understanding and funding requests could not be offset by the funds  collected and therefore fiscal year 2003 contributions were not pursued  and funds were not sought from these agencies in fiscal year 2004.

	Project SAFECOM

Managing partner agency: Department of Homeland Security  Purpose: Serve as the umbrella program within the federal government to  help local, tribal, state, and federal public safety agencies improve public  safety response through more effective and efficient interoperable  wireless communications.
Funding: According to SAFECOM project officials, contributions were  determined by OMB and communicated through budget passback  instructions. Table 12 summarizes funding for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
SAFECOM officials reported experiencing shortfalls and receiving funds  from partner agencies late in the fiscal year. As we previously reported,  SAFECOM has been managed by three different agencies since its  inception. In fiscal year 2003, SAFECOM received only about $17 million  of the $34.9 million OMB had allocated as contributions from funding  partners. According to program officials, these shortfalls resulted from  two major causes: (1) the inability of the Departments of Justice and the  Interior to obtain congressional approval to reprogram funds from other  accounts and (2) the impact of organizational realignments associated  with the creation of DHS in fiscal year 2003. SAFECOM officials reported  that the shortfall experienced in fiscal year 2003 resulted in delays in the  development of the standards and architecture efforts related to  communications interoperability. For example, the timeline of the  National Baseline Methodology and Assessment of communications  interoperability was extended until sufficient funding was available.  According to agency officials, Justice was not authorized to reprogram  funds and negotiated to provide its fiscal year 2003 allocation in fiscal year  2004. The total amount contributed was a reduced amount negotiated with  OMB. Although SAFECOM re-requested Interior’s unpaid fiscal year 2003  contribution in addition to its fiscal year 2004 allocation, Interior officials  reported that their reprogramming request was denied. According to DHS  officials, fiscal year 2003 unpaid amounts from FEMA and the  Transportation Security Administration were not re-requested in fiscal  year 2004 at the direction of the DHS Under Secretary for Management.
SAFECOM officials also reported that in fiscal year 2004, they were unable  to collect funding resources in a timely manner because of enactment of  the fiscal year 2004 appropriation bill late in the fiscal year. Project  officials reported that this affected the initiative’s progress by delaying  start dates for certain tasks and creating breaks in project service and  performance.

	Recreation One-Stop

Managing partner agency: Department of the Interior  Purpose: Provide a single-point-of-access, user-friendly, Web-based  resource to citizens, offering information and access to government  recreational sites.
Funding: The Recreation One-Stop initiative relied on monetary  contributions from four partner agencies, including Interior, in fiscal years  2003 and 2004. Additionally, the initiative received $800,000 from the  E-Government Fund in fiscal year 2003. According to project officials,  Recreation One-Stop partners agreed that agencies receiving major  benefits from the initiative would contribute $50,000 annually, and  agencies receiving fewer benefits would contribute $25,000 annually, with  the managing partner contributing a larger share. Table 13 details  contributions for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Recreation One-Stop officials reported that all fiscal year 2003 and 2004  planned contributions had been received; however, officials noted that the  logistics of transferring funds according to agency-specific procedures was  time-consuming, and as a result funding requests from “minor partners”  were eliminated for fiscal year 2006.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

In accordance with the President's Management Agenda, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has sponsored initiatives to promote electronic government--the use of information technology, such as Web-based Internet applications, to enhance government services. Generally, these "e-gov" initiatives do not have direct appropriations but depend on a variety of funding sources, including monetary contributions from participating agencies. GAO was asked to review the funding of e-gov initiatives that relied on such contributions: specifically, to determine, for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, whether agencies made contributions in the amounts planned and to determine the timing of these contributions.

What GAO Found

Most federal agencies contributed funds as originally planned by the managing partners of the 10 initiatives that relied on such contributions in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Nevertheless, 6 of the 10 initiatives experienced shortfalls from their funding plans in fiscal year 2003 and 9 in 2004. The rationale provided by agencies for contributions that were less than planned included: (1) substitution of in-kind resources in lieu of funds, (2) lack of budget guidance from OMB reflecting planned funding amounts, (3) inability to obtain permission to reprogram funds from other accounts, and (4) organizational realignments associated with creation of the Department of Homeland Security in fiscal year 2003. For example, the e-Rulemaking initiative (managed by the Environmental Protection Agency) received only 51 percent of its planned fiscal year 2004 contributions. Although the initiative's funding plan called for adding new funding partners in that year, OMB did not reflect this expansion when it issued its annual budget guidance to agencies. As a result, the newly added agencies generally did not contribute. According to E-Rulemaking officials, the resulting shortfall in funds, along with delays in receiving funds from other agencies, required them to significantly scale back their plans. In most cases, fiscal year 2003 and 2004 contributions from partner agencies were made in the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year. Agency officials identified the administrative burden associated with drafting, negotiating, and signing interagency agreements, as well as the delayed enactment of the fiscal year 2003-2004 appropriations bills, as contributing to this timing of contributions. However, according to officials from several agencies, although the administrative burden is still high, agencies have become more accustomed to funding strategies based on partner agency contributions.