GOVERNMENT 

EFFICIENCY AND 

EFFECTIVENESS

Inconsistent 

Definitions and 

Information Limit the 

Usefulness of Federal 

Program Inventories

Report to Congressional Committees

October 2014

GAO-15-83

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-83, a report to 

congressional committees

October 2014

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY AND 

EFFECTIVENESS

Inconsistent Definitions and Information Limit the 

Usefulness of Federal Program Inventories

Why GAO Did This Study

GAO’s reports over the past 4 years 

have found more than 90 areas where 

opportunities exist for the executive 

branch or Congress to better manage, 

reduce, or eliminate fragmentation, 

overlap, and duplication. GPRAMA 

calls for the creation of a list (inventory)

of all federal programs, along with 

related budget and performance 

information, which could make it easier 

to determine the scope of the federal 

government’s involvement in particular 

areas and, therefore, where action is 

needed to address crosscutting issues, 

including instances of fragmentation, 

overlap, or duplication. 

GPRAMA requires GAO to periodically 

review its implementation. This report

is part of GAO’s response to that 

mandate and examines (1) how OMB 

and agencies defined programs, (2)

the extent to which inventories provide 

useful information for decision makers, 

and (3) the extent to which inventories 

provide a coherent picture of the scope 

of federal involvement in particular 

areas. To address these objectives, 

GAO analyzed the 24 inventories using 

GPRAMA requirements, OMB 

guidance, and related leading practices 

from GAO’s past work, and interviewed 

OMB staff and agency officials. For the 

first objective, GAO also selected two 

areas of fragmentation, overlap, and 

duplication identified in past GAO 

work—STEM education and nuclear 

nonproliferation—and compared the 

lists of programs developed in its past 

work to those contained in agency 

inventories. The two areas were 

selected based on various factors, 

including the number of agencies 

involved and whether those agencies

published an inventory.

(continued on the following page)

What GAO Found

To date, the approach used by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and 

agencies has not led to the inventory of all federal programs, along with related 

budget and performance information, envisioned in the GPRA Modernization Act 

of 2010 (GPRAMA). In developing the inventory, OMB allowed for significant 

discretion in several areas—leading to a variety of approaches for defining 

programs and inconsistencies in the type of information reported. The 

inconsistent definitions, along with agencies not following an expected 

consultation process, led to challenges in identifying similar programs in different 

agencies. As a result of these limitations, the inventory is not a useful tool for 

decision making. OMB is considering options for enhancing the inventory.

GPRAMA requires OMB to publish a list of all federal programs on a central 

governmentwide website. It also requires OMB to issue guidance, and agencies 

to identify and provide to OMB for publication information about each program— 

including how they defined their programs in line with OMB’s guidance. OMB is 

taking an iterative approach to implement these requirements. Based on 

experiences from a pilot involving 11 agencies in 2012, OMB issued guidance 

allowing agencies flexibility to define their programs using different approaches, 

but within a broad definition of what constitutes a program—a set of related 

activities directed toward a common purpose or goal. According to OMB staff, 

this was based on a lesson learned from the pilot effort: a one-size-fits-all 

approach does not work well; agencies and their stakeholders use the term 

“program” in different ways because agencies achieve their missions through 

different programmatic approaches. In May 2013, OMB published the inventories 

developed by 24 agencies, which used various approaches to define and identify 

1,524 programs (see table below). 

Because agencies used different approaches, similar programs across agencies 

may not be identifiable. To illustrate the shortcomings of the inventory, GAO 

attempted to locate in relevant agencies’ inventories the various science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and nuclear 

nonproliferation programs identified in GAO’s past work. GAO was unable to 

identify in the inventories a large majority of the programs previously identified in 

View GAO-15-83. For more information, 

contact J. Christopher Mihm at (202) 512-6806 

or mihmj@gao.gov.
United States Government Accountability Office

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes several recommendations 

to OMB. To present a more coherent 

picture of all federal programs, GAO 

recommends OMB revise its guidance 

to direct agencies to collaborate when 

defining and identifying programs that 

contribute to a common outcome, 

define plans for expanding 

implementation beyond the current 24 

agencies, and include tax expenditures 

in the federal program inventory. In 

addition, to improve the usefulness of 

the information in inventories GAO 

recommends OMB ensure agencies 

consistently identify the various goals 

each program supports, and consult 

with stakeholders when developing or 

updating their inventories. 

OMB staff generally agreed with 

these recommendations, although 

they neither agreed nor disagreed 

with three of GAO’s 

recommendations related to

including tax expenditures and 

additional performance information. 

OMB staff stated that until they had 

firmer plans on how program 

inventory and DATA Act 

implementation would be merged, 

they could not determine if 

implementing those

recommendations would be feasible.

its work: 9 of the 179 programs matched exactly and 51 others were identified 

based on program descriptions.

The lack of comparability may also be the result of agencies not working with 

each other when developing their inventories. One of OMB’s stated purposes for 

the inventories is to facilitate coordination among programs that contribute to 

similar outcomes. However, agencies did not work together to consistently define 

their programs. Increased coordination could help agencies identify where they 

have programs that contribute to similar goals and thus, opportunities to 

collaborate in achieving desired outcomes.

The 24 inventories developed by agencies in 2013 did not provide the programs 

and related budget and performance information required by GPRAMA. This 

limits the usefulness of the inventories to various decision makers, including 

Congress and stakeholders. To be useful, the inventories must meet various 

users’ needs for accuracy, completeness, consistency, reliability, and validity, 

among other factors. Specific steps OMB and agencies could take to ensure the 

inventories are more useful to decision makers include:

Presenting program-level budget information. Although GPRAMA requires 

agencies to identify program-level funding, OMB did not direct agencies to 

include this information in their 2013 inventories—it was to be part of a planned 

May 2014 update. However, OMB subsequently put the 2014 update on hold to 

determine how to merge these requirements with implementation of the federal 

spending information to be reported under the Digital Accountability and 

Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). Reporting for both laws is web-based, 

which could more easily enable linkages between the two sites or incorporating 

information from each other. The Senate version of a bill, the Taxpayers Right-toKnow Act of 2014, which is currently under consideration, would require this 

linkage in lieu of incorporating budget information on the program inventory site.

Providing complete performance information. GPRAMA and OMB’s guidance 

require agencies to describe each program’s contribution to the agency’s goals. 

However, there are instances where agencies omitted that information. For 

example, agencies did not consistently show how some or all of their programs 

supported strategic goals (in 7 of 24 inventories) or strategic objectives (in 13 of 

24 inventories). Ensuring agencies illustrate this alignment would better explain 

how programs support the results agencies are achieving.

Consulting with stakeholders. None of the agencies sought input on their 

inventories from external stakeholders, such as Congress, state and local 

governments, and third-party service providers, although OMB’s 2012 guidance 

instructed agencies to do so. In several instances, agency officials stated that 

they thought OMB was soliciting feedback on all inventories. By consulting with 

stakeholders to understand their needs, agencies would better ensure that the

information provided in the inventories is useful for stakeholder decision making. 

Other features of OMB’s approach further limit the program inventories’ ability to 

present a coherent picture of all federal programs, as required by GPRAMA. 

First, to date, OMB has only included 24 agencies in this effort. Second, while not 

specified by GPRAMA, tax expenditures were not included in the 2013 inventory.

Tax expenditures, which represent a reduction in a taxpayer’s tax liability through 

credits, deductions, or other means, resulted in $1.1 trillion in forgone revenue in 

fiscal year 2013, nearly the same amount as discretionary spending that year. By 

including tax expenditures, OMB could help ensure that agencies are properly 

identifying their contributions to the achievement of agency goals, as OMB’s 

guidance directs them to do. Finally, OMB’s guidance and staff have stated that 

eventually the inventory will move to a more dynamic, web-based presentation. 

This could make it easier to tag and sort related or similar programs, for instance, 

by type of program or contribution to the same or similar goals. Covering 

additional agencies and tax expenditures in the federal program inventory, along 

with web-based sorting capabilities, would help decision makers determine the 

scope of the federal government’s involvement in a particular area, and therefore 

where action is needed to better address fragmentation, overlap, or duplication. 
Page i GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

Letter 1 

Background 4

Agencies Used Various Approaches to Define Their Programs, 

Which Limits the Comparability of Programs within and across 

Agencies 7

Presenting Program Budget Information, Providing Additional and 

Consistent Performance Information, and Seeking Stakeholder 

Feedback Could Help Ensure Inventories Are Useful to 

Decision Makers 18

Identifying All Federal Programs and Providing Sorting 

Capabilities Could Help Provide a More Coherent Picture of 

Federal Involvement in Particular Areas 28

Conclusions 34

Recommendations for Executive Action 36

Agency Comments 37

Appendix I Objectives, Scope & Methodology 39

Appendix II Staff Acknowledgments 42

Tables

Table 1: OMB’s Approaches for Defining Agency Programs 9

Table 2: Number of Programs and Definition Approaches 

Identified by Agencies 10

Table 3: Analysis of Relevant Agency Inventories for STEM 

Education Programs 12

Table 4: Analysis of Relevant Agency Inventories for Nuclear 

Nonproliferation Programs 14

Table 5: Status of GAO’s Recommendations Related to Identifying 

Goal Contributors 23

Table 6: Status of GAO’s Recommendations Related to Involving 

Contributors in Reviews 25

Table 7: OMB’s Inventory Program Types and Definitions 29

Table 8: Status of GAO’s June 2013 Tax Expenditure-related 

Recommendations 31

Contents
Page ii GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

Figures

Figure 1: GAO’s Definition of the Term “Program” 8

Figure 2: Example of Program Match between GAO’s Past Work 

and Department of Education’s Inventory 13

Figure 3: Example of Program Identified by Description Based on 

GAO’s Past Work and Department of Homeland 

Security’s Inventory 15

Figure 4: Office of Nuclear Energy’s Budget Authority Presented in 

Department of Energy’s Inventory 20

Abbreviations

APG agency priority goal

CAP goal cross-agency priority goal

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

DATA Act Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense

Energy Department of Energy

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010

Interior Department of the Interior

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

PA program activity

PIC Performance Improvement Council

SBA Small Business Administration

SSA Social Security Administration

State Department of State

STEM science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

Treasury Department of the Treasury

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

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.
Page 1 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

October 31, 2014

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

The Honorable Tom Coburn, M.D.

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Mark R. Warner

Chairman

Task Force on Government Performance

Committee on the Budget

United States Senate

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings

Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to 

achieve, such as those related to protecting food and agriculture and 

providing homeland security, require the coordinated efforts of more than 

one federal agency, level of government, or sector. However, agencies 

face a range of challenges and barriers when they attempt to work across 

organizational boundaries to address these crosscutting issues. 

Moreover, our reports over the past 4 years have found more than 90 

areas where opportunities exist for executive branch agencies or 

Congress to reduce fragmentation, overlap, and duplication.1

 

1

GAO, 2014 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, 

and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, 

As our 

annual reports have highlighted, creating a comprehensive list of federal 

GAO-14-343SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 8, 2014); 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, 

and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-13-279SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 9, 2013); 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012); and Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government 

Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 1, 2011). For additional information about this body of work, see 

http://www.gao.gov/duplication. 
 

Page 2 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

programs along with related funding information is critical for identifying 

potential fragmentation, overlap, or duplication among federal programs 

or activities. The lack of such a list makes it difficult to determine the 

scope of the federal government’s involvement in particular areas and, 

therefore, where action is needed to eliminate, reduce, or better manage 

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication. We also found that budget 

information is often not available or not sufficiently reliable to identify the 

level of funding provided to programs or activities.

The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA)2 requires the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to make publicly available a list of all 

federal programs identified by agencies, along with budget and 

performance information about each federal program.3 In May 2013, OMB 

began implementing this provision by publishing the initial program 

inventories developed by 24 agencies. We are required to review 

implementation of GPRAMA at several critical junctures.4

To address all three objectives, we assessed the 24 agency program 

inventories published by OMB on Performance.gov in May 2013 using 

relevant GPRAMA requirements, OMB guidance, and related leading 

This report is 

part of our response to that mandate. Our specific objectives for this 

report were to (1) assess how OMB and agencies defined and identified 

the programs contained in the inventories, (2) examine the extent to 

which the inventories provide useful information for federal decision 

makers, and (3) examine the extent to which the inventories provide a 

coherent picture of the scope of federal involvement in particular areas.

 

2

Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (Jan. 4, 2011). The acronym "GPRA" in the act's title 

refers to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 

Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993). 

3

31 U.S.C. § 1122.

4

Pub. L. No. 111-352, § 15. For our report reviewing initial implementation of GPRAMA, 

see GAO, Managing for Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the 

GPRA Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges, GAO-13-518 

(Washington, D.C.: Jun. 26, 2013). Other reports issued pursuant to this mandate include 

GAO, Managing for Results: Agencies’ Trends in the Use of Performance Information to 

Make Decisions, GAO-14-747 (Washington, D.C.: Sep. 26, 2014); Managing for Results: 

Enhanced Goal Leader Accountability and Collaboration Could Further Improve Agency 

Performance, GAO-14-639 (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 22, 2014); Managing for Results: OMB 

Should Strengthen Reviews of Cross-Agency Goals, GAO-14-526 (Washington, D.C.: 

Jun. 12, 2014); and Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance 

Collaboration in Interagency Groups, GAO-14-220 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2014).
 

Page 3 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

practices from our past work on managing for results, such as those 

related to involving Congress and stakeholders in performance 

management activities and ensuring performance information is useful to 

decision makers.5

In addition, to address our first objective, we selected two areas of 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication from our annual reports—science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and nuclear 

nonproliferation programs—and compared the lists of programs 

developed by our work to those contained in agency inventories. We 

selected these areas based on the number of agencies involved in the 

area as reported in our past work,

We also developed a structured set of questions and 

conducted interviews with, or received written responses from, officials 

involved in developing the inventories at each of the 24 agencies. We 

also interviewed staff from OMB’s Office of Performance and Personnel 

Management who led governmentwide implementation of these 

requirements and developed guidance for the agencies.

6

We conducted this performance audit from August 2013 to October 2014 

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 

whether those agencies had 

developed and published an inventory in May 2013, and whether the area 

primarily involved domestic or foreign assistance/national security 

programs—to ensure diversity among the agencies and programs we 

reviewed. Because the two selected areas are a non-generalizable 

sample of instances where fragmentation, overlap, and duplication exist, 

our results cannot be generalized more broadly. However, the results of 

our analysis illustrate how various approaches to defining programs can 

lead to differences in how programs are identified. See appendix I for 

additional information about the objectives, scope, and methodology for 

this report.

 

5

See, for example, GAO, Managing for Results: A Guide for Using the GPRA 

Modernization Act to Help Inform Congressional Decision Making, GAO-12-621SP 

(Washington, D.C.: Jun. 15, 2012), and Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of 

Performance Information for Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, 

D.C.: Sep. 9, 2005).

6

GAO-13-279SP, GAO-12-342SP, and GAO-11-318SP. 
 

Page 4 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

GPRAMA requires OMB to make publicly available, on a central 

governmentwide website, a list of all federal programs identified by 

agencies. For each program, the agency is to provide to OMB for 

publication:

• an identification of how the agency defines the term “program,” 

consistent with OMB guidance, including program activities that were 

aggregated, disaggregated, or consolidated to be considered a 

program by the agency;

• a description of the purposes of the program and how the program 

contributes to the agency’s mission and goals; and

• an identification of funding for the current fiscal year and the previous 

2 fiscal years.7

In addition, GPRAMA requires OMB to issue guidance to ensure that the 

information provided on the website presents a coherent picture of all 

federal programs.8

In January 2012, OMB announced that it would conduct a pilot for 

implementing the inventory provisions for trade, export, and 

competitiveness programs.9

 

7

31 U.S.C. § 1122(a)(2). 

According to OMB’s memorandum, pilot 

agencies were to identify an inventory of programs and map them to 

established programmatic and organizational structures as well as the 

agency’s strategic plan and performance goals. In addition, agencies 

were to provide program purpose and funding information for each 

program. The memorandum noted that, based on the pilot, OMB would 

issue guidance to all federal agencies detailing the approach for 

developing a governmentwide inventory.

8

31 U.S.C. § 1122(d).

9

OMB, Inventory of Government Programs: Trade, Export, and Competitiveness Pilot, M12-07 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13, 2012). This effort included the Department of 

Commerce, U.S. Trade Representative, U.S. Trade Development Agency, Export-Import 

Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and Small Business Administration as 

well as agencies/subcomponents within the Departments of Agriculture, Health and 

Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury, and the National Science Foundation.

Background
 

Page 5 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

In its August 2012 update to its guidance for implementing GPRAMA, 

OMB included guidance for broader implementation of the inventory 

requirements.10 Initial implementation was limited to the 24 agencies that 

developed agency priority goals (APG) for fiscal years 2012-2013.11

However, agencies did not publish updated inventories in May 2014. 

According to OMB staff, plans for updating the inventories are on 

indefinite hold as OMB re-evaluates next steps for what type of 

information will be presented in the inventories and how it will be 

presented based on (1) recent legislative actions that could affect the 

information required for the inventories; (2) a lack of stakeholder 

feedback; and (3) insufficient funding for,

In 

addition, the guidance provided a phased approach for these 24 

agencies. For the first phase, for publication in May 2013, agencies were 

to describe their program definition approach, identify their programs, and 

provide limited funding and performance information. OMB subsequently 

published 24 separate inventory documents on the central 

governmentwide website required under GPRAMA, which it has 

implemented as Performance.gov. For the second phase, originally 

planned for publication in May 2014, the 24 agencies were to update their

inventories based on any stakeholder feedback they received and provide 

additional program-level funding and performance information. OMB’s 

guidance also stated that at that time the inventory information was to be 

presented in a more dynamic, web-based approach.

12

 

10OMB, Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget, pt 6 

(August 2012). OMB updated this guidance in its July 2013 and July 2014 revisions to 

Circular No. A-11. 

and technological challenges 

related to, presenting the inventories in a web-based format on 

11These agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 

Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and 

Veterans Affairs, as well as the U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers—Civil Works Program, Environmental Protection Agency, General 

Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science 

Foundation, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business Administration, and Social 

Security Administration.

12Performance.gov has been funded through the E-Government Fund, which consists of 

funding appropriated by Congress every year. The E-Government Fund was established 

by the E-Government Act of 2002 to support projects that enable the federal government 

to expand its ability, through the development and implementation of innovative uses of 

the Internet or other electronic methods, to conduct activities electronically. Pub. L. No. 

107-347, § 101,116 Stat. 2899, 2906 (Dec. 17, 2002). 44. U.S.C. § 3604.
 

Page 6 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

Performance.gov. Regarding legislative action, OMB staff are considering 

how implementation of the expanded reporting requirements for federal 

spending information under the recently-enacted Digital Accountability 

and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act)13 could be tied to the program 

inventories. The DATA Act is intended to increase accountability and 

transparency in federal spending. It requires federal agencies to publicly 

report, on at least a quarterly basis, information about any funding made 

available to, or expended by, an agency or a component of the agency. 

This reporting covers a variety of budget information—budget authority, 

obligations, unobligated balances, outlays, and any other budgetary 

resources—at different levels of aggregation and disaggregation: 

appropriations account, program activities, and object class. Reporting 

under the act is required to begin no later than 3 years after enactment 

(no later than May 9, 2017). In addition, the DATA Act provides for the 

establishment of government-wide financial data standards to, among 

other things, produce consistent and comparable data across program 

activities. The act also holds agencies more accountable for the quality of 

the information disclosed. As we reported in April 2014, such increased 

transparency provides opportunities for improving the efficiency and 

effectiveness of federal spending and improving oversight to prevent and 

detect fraud, waste, and abuse of federal funds.14

In addition, the House has passed and the Senate is considering a bill 

that would amend the program inventory provisions of GPRAMA. On 

February 25, 2014, the House passed H.R. 1423, the Taxpayers Right-toKnow Act, which would require agencies to identify, for each program, an 

estimate of the number of clients/beneficiaries served, an estimate of (for 

the previous fiscal year) the number of full-time federal employees who 

administer the program, and the number of full-time employees—at 

organizations that administer or assist in administering the program (e.g. 

grantees or contractors)—whose salary is paid in part of full by the federal 

government. It would also require agencies to provide additional programlevel information in their inventories, including total administrative costs

and expenditures for services. On May 21, 2014, the Senate Committee 

 

13Pub. L. No. 113-101, 128 Stat. 1146 (May 9, 2014). The DATA Act amends the Federal 

Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-282, 120 Stat. 

1186 (Sep. 26, 2006).

14GAO, Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Opportunities to Reduce 

Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, 

GAO-14-478T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 2014).
 

Page 7 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs favorably reported to the 

full Senate S. 2113, the Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act, which would also 

amend the program inventory provisions of GPRAMA to require agencies 

to identify additional program-level information in their inventories.

GPRAMA requires agencies to identify how they define the term 

“program,” consistent with guidance provided by the Director of OMB.15

As a starting point, OMB’s guidance cites, in part, the definition for 

“program” contained in our September 2005 Glossary of Terms Used in 

the Federal Budget Process: an organized set of activities directed toward 

a common purpose or goal that an agency undertakes or proposes to 

carry out its responsibilities.16

 

1531 U.S.C. § 1122(a)(2)(A). 

Figure 1 contains the full definition from our 

glossary.

16GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2005).

Agencies Used 

Various Approaches 

to Define Their 

Programs, Which 

Limits the 

Comparability of 

Programs within and 

across Agencies

Agencies Used Different 

Approaches to Define 

Their Programs Based on 

OMB’s Guidance
 

Page 8 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

Figure 1: GAO’s Definition of the Term “Program” 

The guidance notes that agencies and their stakeholders use the term 

“program” in different ways, and that because agencies have varying 

missions and achieve their missions through different programmatic 

approaches, these differences in the use of the term “program” are 

legitimate and meaningful. As OMB’s guidance further states, it does not 

prescribe a superseding definition of “program.” Rather, the guidance 

allows agencies to identify programs consistent with the manner in which 

the agencies use programs to interact with key stakeholders and execute 

their missions. 

According to OMB staff, the flexibility provided by the guidance is based 

on lessons learned from the inventory pilot. They told us that, for the pilot, 

OMB developed guidelines for defining programs and worked closely with 

agencies to identify their programs, but in doing so realized that a onesize-fits-all approach would not work well given differences across 

agencies in how they operate. Therefore, the guidance allowed agencies 

to define their programs using different approaches, but within a broad 

definition of what constituted a program consistent with several 

characteristics. 

OMB’s guidance presents five possible approaches agencies could take 

to define their programs, and notes that agencies could use one or more 

of those approaches in doing so.17

 

17OMB, Circular No. A-11, pt 6, § 280.3 (2012). 

According to OMB staff, these 
 

Page 9 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

approaches were based on the results of the inventory pilot. These 

approaches and OMB’s explanation of them are contained in Table 1.

Table 1: OMB’s Approaches for Defining Agency Programs

Approach Explanation

Outcomes Directly attributable to an end result the program is trying to 

achieve, such as increased exports. Can also be linked to 

specific functions to accomplish an objective, such as trade 

enforcement. Can cut across organizational units and/or 

budget accounts.

Customers Organized by the focus on providing a service or product to a 

specific entity or consumer group, such as women-owned 

small businesses or veterans. Can cut across organizational 

units and/or budget accounts.

Prominent Products, 

Services, Outputs

Produces major reports or studies, such as the Consumer 

Price Index and Producer Price Index. May group similar 

products, services, or activities into one program.

Organizational 

Structure 

Defined by agency office structure. Offices could focus on 

specific regions, functions, or specialized subject matter such 

as U.S. Polar Research or Cyberinfrastructure.

Budget Links closely with the program activity lines in the President’s 

Budget, such as Disaster Recovery or Patents. May align to 

other budget materials such as the Congressional Budget 

Justification or internal agency budget/accounting systems. In 

some instances, a program may be synonymous with its 

appropriation account title; although it is not presumed that an 

appropriation is the same as a program.

Source: OMB. |  GAO-15-83

Based on their chosen approach(es), the 24 agencies identified 1,524 

programs. Table 2 shows, by agency, the approach(es) used to define 

programs as well as the number of programs identified.
 

Page 10 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

Table 2: Number of Programs and Definition Approaches Identified by Agencies

Department/Agency

Programs 

Identified

Program Definition Approach

Budget

Organizational 

Structure Outcomes

Products/ 

Services/

Outputs Customer Other

Agriculture 59 x 

Commerce 70 x 

Defense 91 x x 

Education 116 x 

Energy 53 x 

Health and Human Services 115 x 

Homeland Security 53 x x 

Housing and Urban Development 65 x 

the Interior 166 x x 

Justice 119 x x 

Labor 45 x 

State (Operations) 22 x 

State & U.S. Agency for 

International Development 

(Foreign Assistance)

37 x x 

Transportation 60 x 

the Treasury 94 x 

Veterans Affairs 93 x 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—

Civil Works Program 

8 x 

Environmental Protection Agency 121 x 

General Services Administration 22 x x 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

57 x 

National Science Foundation 13 x 

Office of Personnel Management 10 x 

Small Business Administration 32 x 

Social Security Administration 3 x 

Total 1,524 19 4 2 2 2 1 

Source: GAO (analysis) and OMB (inventories). |  GAO-15-83

Note: The “other” column represents when an agency took an alternate approach. The Social 

Security Administration defined its programs by authorizing statute(s).

As shown in Table 2, the majority of agencies (19 out of 24) used a 

budget approach, in part or in whole, to define their programs. In general, 
 

Page 11 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

officials at these agencies told us that a primary factor in choosing this 

approach was that their existing financial and performance management 

and reporting systems were organized around their budget/appropriations 

structure. According to these officials, this approach will help their 

agencies meet requirements to include budget and performance 

information by program in future iterations of their inventories.

The use of inconsistent approaches by agencies to define their programs, 

illustrated in Table 2, limits the comparability of programs within agencies

as well as governmentwide. A few agencies did not use the same 

program definition approach across their subcomponents or offices, which 

limits comparability of their own programs. For example, the Department 

of State’s (State) programs are defined using two separate approaches. 

State operations programs follow a budget approach while State and U.S. 

Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance 

programs follow both a budget and outcome-based approach. In addition, 

while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is an agency within the 

Department of Defense (DOD), the Corps—Civil Works Program and 

DOD developed separate inventories that took different approaches to 

define programs.

To illustrate how program definition differences limit comparability across 

agencies for similar programs, we selected two areas of potential 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication highlighted in our past annual 

reports: science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) 

education and nuclear nonproliferation and determined which programs 

were recognizable in both. We compared the lists of programs developed 

from our past work to those contained in the relevant agencies’ 

inventories.18

 

18Both of these areas were highlighted in our 2012 annual report, GAO-12-342SP. In May 

2014, we updated our work on STEM education programs. See GAO, Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Assessing the Relationship 

between Education and the Workforce, GAO-14-374 (Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2014).

For additional information about nuclear nonproliferation programs identified in our past 

work, see GAO, Nuclear Nonproliferation: Action Needed to Address NNSA’s Program 

Management and Coordination Challenges, GAO-12-71 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 14, 

2011). 

Inconsistent Definitions 

Limit Comparability of 

Programs within Agencies 

and across the Federal 

Government
 

Page 12 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

As shown in Table 3, of the 158 programs previously listed in our work on 

STEM education, we were able to identify 51 programs in relevant agency 

program inventories.

Table 3: Analysis of Relevant Agency Inventories for STEM Education Programs

Department/Agency Inventory Approach(es)

Number of Programs

Identified by

Past GAO Work

Identifiable

in Inventory Exact Match

Agriculture Budget 11 9 0 

Commerce Budget 13 0 0 

Defense Budget, Outcomes 3 0 0 

Education Budget 8 8 7 

Energy Budget 22 1 0 

Health and Human Services Budget 44 1 0 

Homeland Security Organizational Structure, 

Products/Services/Outputs 4 3 0 

the Interior Budget, Organizational Structure 5 0 0 

Transportation Budget 6 0 0 

Environmental Protection Agency Budget 9 1 1 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

Budget

8 6 1 

National Science Foundation Budget 22 22 0 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Not applicable – OMB did not direct 

this agency to produce an inventory in 

2013 3 - - 

TOTAL 158 51 9

Source: GAO (analysis) and OMB (inventories). |  GAO-15-83

Of those 51, 9 were an exact match between how we previously identified 

a program in our past work and how the agency identified it in its 

inventory. For example, as figure 2 illustrates, both our past work on 

STEM education and the Department of Education’s program inventory 

identify “Mathematics and Science Partnerships” as a program.
 

Page 13 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

Figure 2: Example of Program Match between GAO’s Past Work and Department of Education’s Inventory
 

Page 14 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

We were able to identify the other 42 programs based on related 

information contained in program descriptions in relevant agency 

inventories. For four agencies, we were not able to identify any STEM 

education programs from our past work in their inventories—covering 27 

of the 158 programs. In addition, although our past work identified 3 

STEM education programs at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it was 

not 1 of the 24 agencies directed by OMB to produce a program inventory 

for 2013.

In the nuclear nonproliferation area, we were able to identify 9 of the 21 

programs identified in our past work in relevant agency program 

inventories, as shown in table 4.

Table 4: Analysis of Relevant Agency Inventories for Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs

Department/Agency Inventory Approach(es)

Number of Programs

Identified by

Past GAO Work

Identifiable

in Inventory Exact Match

Defense Budget, Outcomes 3 0 0 

Energy Budget 6 1 0 

Homeland Security Organizational Structure, 

Products/Services/Outputs

3 1 0 

Justice Budget, Organizational Structure 3 1 0 

State/U.S. Agency for International 

Development (Foreign Assistance)

Budget, Outcomes 6 6 0 

TOTAL 21 9 0 

Source: GAO (analysis) and OMB (inventories). |  GAO-15-83

None of the nine nuclear nonproliferation programs we were able to 

identify in the inventories were exact matches. Rather, we were able to 

identify them as activities under larger programs in the inventories based 

on the related program descriptions. For example, our past work identified 

the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) “Global Nuclear Detection 

Architecture” as a program within its Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. 

DHS’s inventory identifies one program, Domestic Radiological/Nuclear 

Detection, Forensics, and Prevention Capability, within the Domestic 

Nuclear Detection Office. The inventory describes Global Nuclear 

Detection Architecture as an activity within that program, as illustrated in 

figure 3.
 

Page 15 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

Figure 3: Example of Program Identified by Description Based on GAO’s Past Work and Department of Homeland Security’s 

Inventory
 

Page 16 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

For both illustrative examples, we were not able to locate a majority of the 

programs identified in our prior work in the relevant agency inventories. 

The lack of comparability of similar programs across agencies in part 

could be due to differences in the way we previously defined “program” 

and the way each agency defined its programs, such as different levels of 

aggregation of related activities to constitute a program. The flexibility 

OMB’s guidance afforded in defining programs allows agencies to align 

their definitions with multiple purposes, including carrying out their 

mission and goals; serving beneficiaries, customers, and other target 

populations; and providing benefits, services, and products. However, it 

also can lead to differences in how programs are identified.

In addition, the lack of comparability may also be the result of agencies 

not working across organizational boundaries when developing their 

inventories. We asked agency officials whether they had worked with any 

external parties when determining their program definition approach or 

identifying their programs. Officials from all 24 agencies stated that they 

had not sought input from any entities outside their own agencies, with 

the exception of OMB. One of OMB’s stated purposes for the inventories 

is to facilitate coordination among programs that contribute to similar 

outcomes. If agencies worked together to more consistently define their 

programs, it could also help them identify where they have programs that 

contribute to similar outcomes, and therefore opportunities to collaborate.

OMB’s guidance directed agencies to work with OMB to determine the 

appropriate primary approach (or mix of approaches) and level of 

aggregation/disaggregation to be used to define their programs. It also 

identified characteristics agencies should consider when determining 

what constitutes a program (see text box).19

 

19OMB, Circular No. A-11, p. 6, § 280.3 (2012). 

Officials at each of the 24 

agencies told us that they worked with OMB—with most stating it was 

staff in relevant Resource Management Offices as well as the Office of 

Performance and Personnel Management—to determine (1) the 

appropriate approach and (2) what constitutes a program. Similarly, staff 

within OMB’s Office of Performance and Personnel Management told us 

that they worked closely with agencies as they were defining and 

identifying their programs.

In a Few Instances, 

Several Agencies Did Not 

Include Activities in Their 

Inventories Based on 

OMB’s Criteria for 

Determining What 

Constitutes a Program
 

Page 17 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

OMB’s Characteristics of a Program

• Externally recognizable. Agencies should use programs that are or relate to 

programs or objectives used in Congressional Budget Justifications, statute, are 

recognized by Congress and stakeholders, or are already publicly known; agencies 

should use program names that are known outside the agency, and generally not 

create new names.

• Operationally meaningful. Agencies should use programs that are operationally 

meaningful to agency senior leadership and components of the agency, and 

programs should represent how the agency is managed and delivers on its mission.

• Link to an organizational component(s), such as headquarters, bureau or office. 

Programs should be operationally meaningful to the agency and agency senior 

leadership.

• Persistent. Generally, programs that persist over time should be included. However, 

agencies have the flexibility to identify short-term efforts as programs, such as 

activities related to the Recovery Act.

Source: OMB. |  GAO-15-83

Note: While the other three characteristics were included in OMB’s guidance beginning in 2012, 

“operationally meaningful” was added in the July 2013 update.

When we asked officials at each agency if the inventory covered 

everything the agency does, most responded that the inventory included 

all agency activities. However, officials at a few agencies told us that their 

inventories did not always include certain activities. In most cases, 

activities were excluded from the inventory because they did not meet 

one of the characteristics of a program described in OMB’s guidance. For 

instance, the Small Business Administration (SBA) only included 

programs that were permanent in nature and excluded pilot programs 

from its inventory because, according to SBA officials, they did not 

consider pilot programs to meet the “persistent” characteristic. As an 

example, they cited SBA’s Boots to Business program, which was in a 

pilot phase when the agency’s 2013 inventory was published. SBA 

officials told us they expected to add the program in the next inventory 

update as the pilot phase had been completed. Because OMB’s guidance 

does not clearly define when a short-term activity has persisted long 

enough to be considered a program, agencies may be using different 

criteria for when to include them as programs in their inventories. As a 

result, agencies’ inventories may not be as comprehensive as desired. 

Clearer guidance from OMB could lead to a more complete picture of 

federal programs in the inventory.

In other instances, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) officials told 

us they did not include a voting rights oversight program in their inventory 

because it was not operationally meaningful, in that it did not easily align 

with OPM’s mission. Social Security Administration (SSA) officials told us 

they, in consultation with OMB staff, did not include the Special Benefits 
 

Page 18 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

for Certain World War II Veterans program in their inventory because it is 

relatively small in size, in terms of its funding ($8 million of the agency’s 

total net budget authority of $55.9 billion in fiscal year 2013) and number 

of beneficiaries (approximately 1,000, based on information in SSA’s 

fiscal year 2015 congressional budget justification) compared to the 

agency’s other programs. In response to a question during our interview, 

Department of the Interior (Interior) officials realized they did not include 

functional management offices, such as the Offices of Policy and the 

Chief Financial Officer, as part of a set of “programs” in their inventory 

falling under the Office of the Secretary. Agency officials at OPM, SSA 

and Interior told us they intend to account for these programs in future 

iterations of their program inventories.

The federal government is one of the world’s largest and most diverse 

entities, with about $3.5 trillion in outlays in fiscal year 2013, funding an 

extensive array of programs and operations. In responding to the varied 

and increasingly complex issues the federal government seeks to 

address, it faces a number of significant fiscal, management, and 

governance challenges. To operate as effectively and efficiently as 

possible and to make difficult decisions to address these challenges, 

Congress, the administration, and federal managers must have ready 

access to reliable and complete financial and performance information. 

However, crucial information on the federal government’s programs is 

decentralized, according to OMB’s guidance. The federal program 

inventory has the potential to improve public understanding about what 

federal programs currently operate and how programs link to budget, 

performance, and other information by centralizing this information from 

disparate sources—such as the President’s Budget, Congressional 

Budget Justifications, USAspending.gov, and the Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance—in a single location: Performance.gov. Agencies 

should consider the differing needs of various users—agency top 

leadership and line managers, OMB, Congress, and stakeholders—to 

ensure that this information will be both useful and used in decision 

making.20

 

20

To be useful, this information must meet users’ needs for 

GAO-05-927. To identify practices that can facilitate the use of performance information 

in this September 2005 report, we reviewed relevant literature, including our previous 

reports, spoke to experts in using performance information, and held group discussions 

with federal program managers.

Presenting Program 

Budget Information, 

Providing Additional 

and Consistent 

Performance 

Information, and 

Seeking Stakeholder 

Feedback Could Help 

Ensure Inventories 

Are Useful to 

Decision Makers
 

Page 19 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

accuracy, completeness, consistency, reliability, and validity, among other 

factors. 

GPRAMA requires agencies to identify for each program in their 

inventories:

• the program activities that are aggregated, disaggregated, or 

consolidated to be considered a program by the agency;21

• funding for the current and two previous fiscal years (for the 

inventories published in May 2013, that would have been fiscal years 

2013, 2012, and 2011).

and

22

OMB’s 2012 and 2013 guidance delayed implementation of these 

provisions until the planned May 2014 update.

Although OMB’s guidance delayed this, some agencies provided this 

information in their inventories. A few agencies provided information 

about how their program activity (PA) lines align with their programs as 

defined in their inventory. For example, the National Science 

Foundation’s inventory notes that programs presented in it are consistent 

with the PA lines presented in the budget. In addition, the Department of 

Transportation’s inventory states that its programs generally consist of 

one to four PA lines. For example, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration’s “Pipeline Safety” program receives its funding 

from four PA lines.

In addition, OMB’s guidance directed agencies to include funding (budget 

authority) for agency bureaus or subcomponents for fiscal years 2012, 

2013, and 2014 (requested). Since some agencies identified a 

bureau/subcomponent to constitute a program, the bureau-level funding 

information in their 2013 inventories also met GPRAMA’s requirement for 

program-level funding information. For example, the Department of 

Energy (Energy) defined its Office of Nuclear Energy as a program. 

 

2131 U.S.C. § 1122(a)(2)(A). “Program activity” is defined as a specific activity or project 

as listed in the program and financing schedules of the annual budget of the United States 

Government. 31 U.S.C. § 1115(h)(11).

2231 U.S.C. § 1122(a)(2)(C). 

Agencies Generally Did 

Not Present Program-level 

Budget Information in 

Their Inventories but DATA 

Act Implementation Could 

Provide More Detailed and 

Consistent Data
 

Page 20 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

Because the office is also considered a subcomponent, Energy provided 

the related funding information, as illustrated in figure 4.

Figure 4: Office of Nuclear Energy’s Budget Authority Presented in Department of 

Energy’s Inventory

As noted earlier, plans for updating the inventories are on indefinite hold 

and agencies did not publish updated inventories, with the planned 

program-level budget data, in May 2014—in part due to the enactment of 

the DATA Act. According to OMB’s 2014 update to its guidance, it is 

working with agencies to merge implementation of the DATA Act and 

federal program inventory requirements to the extent possible, but has 

not yet determined its implementation strategy. Agency reporting for both 

sets of requirements is web-based, which could more easily enable 

linkages between the two sites or incorporating information from each 

other. The Senate version of the Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act would 

require this linkage in lieu of incorporating this budget information on the 

program inventory site. As OMB stated, one of its purposes in 

implementing the program inventory requirements is to consolidate 

information from various sources. By leveraging the DATA Act’s 

requirements, OMB could expand the transparency of budget information 

made available in the inventories—beyond PA lines and budget authority 

and at different levels of disaggregation—and help ensure that 

information is consistent across agencies. In addition, the disaggregated 

budget information is important since our annual reports on 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication have found that it is not always 

available for the programs and activities covered by our work. However, 

the DATA Act provides up to 3 years for full implementation of its 

reporting requirements. Thus, until OMB and agencies are ready to move 

forward with the implementation of the two laws’ requirements, one option

to help ensure the inventories remain relevant and useful would be for 
 

Page 21 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

OMB to direct agencies to update the existing information in the 2013 

versions for publication.

GPRAMA requires agencies to describe for each program in their 

inventories

• the purposes of the program and

• the program’s contribution to the agency’s mission and goals.23

OMB’s guidance for the 2013 inventories directed agencies to provide a 

program description (purpose) and identify supported strategic goals and 

objectives. In addition, they were to add language directing readers to 

Performance.gov to see programs supporting their agency priority goals 

(APG) and the cross-agency priority (CAP) goals.

Agencies provided descriptions of their programs’ purposes. However, 

some agencies did not consistently show how each program supports 

agency missions and goals.

• With the exception of one inventory—the joint State/USAID inventory 

for foreign assistance programs—all provided a purpose for each 

program, although State and USAID provided a link to a separate 

document that provided purpose information for their foreign 

assistance programs.

• Only a few inventories (4 of 24) identified how the agencies’ programs 

contribute to their mission. However, because agency strategic goals 

and objectives are an outgrowth of the agency’s mission, the linkage 

between agency programs and those goals can show the program’s 

support to the mission.

• A majority of the inventories (17 of 24) identified the agency strategic 

goals each program supported,

24

 

2331 U.S.C. § 1122(a)(2)(B). 

while less than half of the 

24For the 7 inventories that did not consistently identify these contributions, 5 showed how 

some, but not all, of their programs supported agency strategic goals, while 2 did not 

provide this information at all.

Agencies Defined the 

Purposes of Their 

Programs but Did Not 

Consistently Show How 

Programs Contribute to 

Agency Missions, Goals, 

and Results
 

Page 22 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

inventories (11 of 24) identified the agency strategic objectives each 

program supported.

25

• Finally, most of the inventories (20 out of 24) referred readers to 

Performance.gov for information about how the agencies’ programs 

support both CAP goals and APGs.

OMB’s review of the inventories did not always identify instances where 

agencies omitted this information. Providing this information allows 

agencies to explain how programs contribute to the results the federal 

government is achieving. Consistently showing the alignment between 

programs and goals could also improve implementation of other 

GPRAMA provisions. First, GPRAMA requires OMB and agencies to 

identify for publication on Performance.gov the various organizations, 

program activities, and other activities that contribute to the CAP goals 

and APGs, respectively.26 In addition, OMB’s guidance directs agencies 

to identify these contributors for their strategic objectives. These 

provisions are important because they show how agencies are 

coordinating efforts toward a common outcome. As we have previously 

reported, uncoordinated program efforts can waste scarce funds, confuse 

and frustrate program customers, and limit the overall effectiveness of the 

federal effort.27 Our past work has found that OMB and agencies did not 

always identify all relevant contributors to their CAP goals and APGs.28

Accordingly, in May 2012 and April 2013, we made recommendations to 

OMB. Table 5 describes these recommendations and related actions 

taken to date.

 

25For the 13 inventories that did not consistently identify these contributions, 7 showed 

how some, but not all, of their programs supported agency strategic objectives, while 6 did 

not provide this information at all. 

2631 U.S.C. § 1122(b)(3)(C), (c)(6). 

27GAO-13-279SP. 

28GAO, Managing for Results: Agencies Should More Fully Develop Priority Goals under 

the GPRA Modernization Act, GAO-13-174 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 19, 2013) and 

Managing for Results: GAO's Work Related to the Interim Crosscutting Priority Goals 

under the GPRA Modernization Act, GAO-12-620R (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2012).
 

Page 23 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

Table 5: Status of GAO’s Recommendations Related to Identifying Goal Contributors

Report Recommendation Status 

Managing for Results: Agencies 

Should More Fully Develop 

Priority Goals under the GPRA 

Modernization Act, GAO-13-174 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 19, 2013).

In April 2013, we recommended that the 

Director of OMB should ensure agencies 

adhere to OMB’s guidance for website 

updates by providing complete information 

about the organizations, program activities, 

regulations, policies, tax expenditures, and 

other activities—both within and external to 

the agency—that contribute to each APG.

OMB staff agreed with this recommendation. 

According to information provided by OMB staff in 

October 2014, agencies were asked to identify 

contributing organizations, program activities, 

regulations, policies, tax expenditures, and other 

activities as part of the September 2014 update to 

Performance.gov. At that time, agencies provided 

this information for 75 of the 89 APGs and OMB staff 

expect it will be provided for the remaining 14 APGs 

during the next update, planned for December 2014. 

We will continue to monitor progress.

Managing for Results: GAO’s 

Work Related to the Interim 

Crosscutting Priority Goals under 

the GPRA Modernization Act, 

GAO-12-620R (Washington, D.C.: 

May 31, 2012).

In May 2012, we recommended that the 

Director of OMB, in considering additional 

programs with the potential to contribute to 

the crosscutting goals, should review the 

additional departments, agencies, and 

programs that we have identified, and 

consider including them in the federal 

government’s performance plan, as 

appropriate.

OMB staff agreed with this recommendation. In 

December 2012, and again in May 2013, OMB 

updated information on Performance.gov on the 

cross-agency priority goals. In these updates, OMB 

added some of the departments, agencies, and 

programs that we recommended in our report. For 

example, we had noted that 12 member agencies of 

the Trade Promotion Coordination Committee had 

not been identified as contributors to the Export 

Cross Agency Priority Goal, which aims to double 

U.S. exports by the end of 2014. This information 

was added to Performance.gov in its December 

2012 update. As a result of these actions, we closed 

this recommendation.

Source: GAO and OMB. |  GAO-15-83

Second, GPRAMA requires OMB and agencies, on at least a quarterly 

basis, to review and report on Performance.gov progress towards the 

CAP goals and APGs, respectively.29 As part of these reviews, OMB and 

agencies are to (1) involve relevant stakeholders from contributing 

organizations and program activities and (2) assess the contributions of 

the various organizations, program activities, and other activities that 

support these goals.30

 

2931 U.S.C. §§ 1121 and 1122. 

In addition, OMB’s 2013 guidance for implementing 

GPRAMA directed agencies, beginning this year (2014), to conduct 

annual reviews of progress towards their strategic objectives—the 

outcomes or impacts the agency is intending to achieve. According to 

OMB’s guidance, the strategic reviews should inform many of the 

agency’s decision-making processes, as well as decision making by the 

3031 U.S.C. § 1121.
 

Page 24 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

agency’s stakeholders, such as informing long-term strategy, annual 

planning and budget formulation; strengthening collaboration on 

crosscutting issues; and improving transparency. If successfully 

implemented in a way that is open, inclusive, and transparent—to 

Congress, delivery partners (e.g., state and local governments, grantees, 

non-profit organizations, associations, contractors), and a full range of 

stakeholders—these reviews could help decision makers assess the 

relative contributions of various programs that contribute to a given goal.31

Successful reviews could also help decision makers identify and assess 

the interplay of public policy tools that are being used, to ensure that 

those tools are effective and mutually reinforcing, and results are being 

efficiently achieved. However, our past work has found that relevant 

contributors were not always included in these reviews and accordingly 

we made recommendations to OMB, as described in table 6.32

 

31GAO, Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Views on the Progress and Plans for 

Addressing Government-wide Management Challenges, GAO-14-436T (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 12, 2014).

32GAO-14-526 and GAO, Managing for Results: Data-Driven Performance Reviews Show 

Promise But Agencies Should Explore How to Involve Other Relevant Agencies, 

GAO-13-228 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2013).
 

Page 25 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

Table 6: Status of GAO’s Recommendations Related to Involving Contributors in Reviews

Report Recommendation Status 

Managing for Results: OMB 

Should Strengthen Reviews of 

Cross-Agency Goals, 

GAO-14-526 (Washington, D.C.: 

Jun. 12, 2014)

In June 2014, we recommended that the 

Director of OMB should direct CAP goal 

leaders to identify all key contributors to the 

achievement of their goals.

In comments on a draft of the report, OMB staff 

generally agreed with this recommendation.

Managing for Results: Data-Driven 

Performance Reviews Show 

Promise But Agencies Should 

Explore How to Involve Other 

Relevant Agencies, GAO-13-228 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 

2013).

In February 2013, we recommended that 

the Director of the OMB should work with 

the Performance Improvement Council 

(PIC) and other relevant groups to identify 

and share promising practices to help 

agencies extend their quarterly 

performance reviews to include, as 

relevant, representatives from outside 

organizations that contribute to achieving 

their agency performance goals.

OMB staff generally agreed with this 

recommendation. As of October 2014, OMB and the 

PIC have taken some steps towards addressing this 

recommendation. According to staff from OMB and 

the PIC, meetings of the PIC Internal Reviews 

working group have been used to discuss the 

inclusion of representatives from external 

organizations in agency quarterly performance 

reviews, as appropriate. OMB staff told us they view 

quarterly performance reviews as internal agency 

management meetings, and therefore it may not be 

appropriate to include external representatives on a 

regular basis. The PIC continues to work with 

agencies to identify examples where agencies have 

included representatives from outside organizations 

in quarterly reviews, and to identify promising 

practices based on those experiences. Once 

examples and promising practices have been 

identified they plan to disseminate these through the 

PIC Internal Reviews working group, PIC meeting 

panels, summits, and other venues. We will continue 

to monitor progress.

Source: GAO, OMB, and PIC. |  GAO-15-83

OMB’s guidance does not direct agencies to identify in their inventories 

the performance goals to which each program contributes. Although not 

specifically required for the program inventory, GPRAMA requires 

agencies, in their annual performance plans, to identify the various 

organizations, program activities, and other activities that contribute to 

each performance goal.33 As noted in the Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs report that accompanied 

GPRAMA, this provision, among others, was intended to help describe 

the strategies to be used to achieve results and the resources to be 

applied to those strategies.34

 

3331 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(5)(C). 

This information can help Congress 

34Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, GPRA Modernization Act 

of 2010, S. Rep. No. 111-372 (2010), at 6. 
 

Page 26 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

understand and assess the relationship between the agency’s resources 

and results. Having a clear description of the strategies and resources an 

agency plans to use will allow Congress to assess the likelihood for an 

agency to achieve its intended results. The act also requires that agency 

performance goals and related information be available in a web-based 

format on Performance.gov.35 According to OMB staff, efforts to expand 

the site to include this information have not been possible given the 

available appropriations for the E-Government Fund, which supports 

Performance.gov and other electronic government requirements and 

initiatives.

OMB’s 2012 guidance directed agencies to work with key stakeholders, 

which can include Congress, state and local governments, third party 

service providers, and the public, to validate that their program 

inventories would be both internally and externally recognizable. 

According to OMB staff, they want to ensure that the inventories are 

useful and meaningful to the agencies and their stakeholders.

Although officials we spoke with or received written responses from at 

each of the 24 agencies told us that they involved internal stakeholders—

officials and staff from various bureaus/component agencies and offices 

within their respective department or agency—to validate their programs, 

most also shared that they saw no benefit to their agencies from 

developing the inventories. Many told us that they viewed it as a 

paperwork exercise, repackaging information available elsewhere with the 

resulting inventory not useful to their internal agency decision making. In 

a few instances, officials offered different views. For example, an official 

at DHS told us that her department’s approach to linking programs to 

performance information helped the department communicate the results 

it was achieving. She noted that DHS has maintained an external-facing, 

mission-oriented program structure since it was created. In addition, an 

official from SBA told us he thought the program inventories—once fully 

implemented as envisioned in OMB’s guidance for the 2014 update—

could help his agency identify instances to enhance their coordination and 

collaboration with other agencies to achieve common outcomes.

 

35Pub. L. No. 111-352, § 10. 

Agencies Did Not Take 

Steps to Ensure 

Inventories Provide Useful

Information for 

Stakeholders, including 

Congress
 

Page 27 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

Officials we spoke with or who provided written responses to our 

questions also told us that they did not solicit feedback on their 

inventories from external stakeholders, including Congress. In addition, 

none of them reported receiving any feedback on their inventories beyond 

that from OMB staff during development. In some instances, agency 

officials told us that they didn’t seek stakeholder input because their 

approach for defining their programs resulted in programs with which their 

stakeholders were already familiar. For example, officials at several 

agencies told us that using a budget approach resulted in programs that 

were recognizable to congressional appropriators. In other instances, 

agency officials told us they thought OMB staff were collecting feedback 

on the inventories, but they had not heard any results at the time of our 

interview. When we asked OMB staff about any feedback they had 

solicited or received, they told us they had briefed two congressional 

committees when the inventories were published in May 2013, but that 

they had not received any formal feedback from Congress or any other 

stakeholders, with the exception of the preliminary results of our review, 

which we published as part of a testimony before the Senate Committee 

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in March 2014.36

Our work over the years has shown the importance of involving 

stakeholders, especially Congress, in federal management and 

performance initiatives.

In 

addition, although Performance.gov has a mechanism for users to 

provide feedback on the website, OMB staff stated that they had not 

received any feedback on the program inventories from that venue.

37

 

36

In the case of the inventories, agency 

consultation with Congress is of particular importance given Congress’s 

power to create and fund programs. Moreover, the inventories, if properly 

implemented, could provide Congress an important oversight tool, with 

key program budget and performance information consolidated in a single 

location. However, OMB’s 2013 and 2014 updates to its guidance 

excluded directions to agencies to seek stakeholder feedback. Obtaining 

GAO-14-436T. 

37See, for example, GAO-13-518; GAO-13-174; GAO-12-621SP; GAO, Performance 

Budgeting: PART Focuses Attention on Program Performance, but More Can Be Done to 

Engage Congress, GAO-06-28 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28, 2005); Managing For Results: 

Enhancing the Usefulness of GPRA Consultations Between the Executive Branch and 

Congress, GAO/T-GGD-97-56 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 1997); and Executive Guide: 

Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-

118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996). 
 

Page 28 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

stakeholder input, and congressional input in particular, on program 

inventories and the information presented therein would provide OMB and 

agencies another opportunity to ensure they are presenting useful 

information for stakeholder decision making.

GPRAMA requires OMB to ensure that the inventory information provided 

by agencies and published on Performance.gov presents a coherent 

picture of all federal programs.38 As our annual reports on fragmentation, 

overlap, and duplication have stated, the federal program inventory could 

be a key tool for addressing crosscutting issues. For example, as 

highlighted in OMB’s guidance, the federal program inventory has the 

potential to facilitate coordination across programs by making it easier to 

find programs that may contribute to a shared goal. Moreover, in its 

memorandum regarding the inventory pilot project for trade, export, and 

competitiveness programs, OMB noted that duplicative programs make 

government less effective, waste taxpayer dollars, and make it harder for 

the public to navigate government services. It states that, in order to 

continue efforts to reduce duplication and overlap and improve program 

outcomes through better coordination across agencies, the executive 

branch must achieve greater transparency into all federal programs.

GPRAMA requires OMB to make publicly available a list of all federal 

programs identified by agencies. While the 24 agencies have begun 

implementing the inventory requirements, OMB has not defined plans for 

when this effort will be expanded beyond these agencies. As noted earlier 

in the report, the lack of such a comprehensive list makes it difficult to 

determine the scope of the federal government’s involvement in particular 

areas and, therefore, where action is needed to address crosscutting 

issues. 

In addition, OMB has not included all types of federal programs in its 

plans for the program inventory. OMB’s guidance identified 12 different 

types of federal programs, defined in table 7, for agencies to assign to 

 

3831 U.S.C. § 1122(d). 

Identifying All Federal 

Programs and 

Providing Sorting 

Capabilities Could 

Help Provide a More 

Coherent Picture of 

Federal Involvement 

in Particular Areas

OMB Has Not Defined 

Plans to Expand 

Inventories to Include All 

Federal Programs
 

Page 29 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

their programs.39

Table 7: OMB’s Inventory Program Types and Definitions

Agencies are to select one or more program type for 

each program in their inventories.

Program Type Definition

Direct Federal Programs Programs where services are provided primarily by employees of the federal government, 

such as the Department of State’s Consular Services program.

Direct Federal Benefits Programs Programs where the federal government provides benefits or other payments to 

individuals, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs’ disability payment program.

State-Administered Benefit Programs Programs where the federal government provides funding to states for benefits, 

reimbursements, or other payments to recipients. Program examples include the Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children and Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families. 

Competitive Grant Programs Programs that provide funds to state, local, and tribal governments, organizations, 

individuals, and other entities through a competitive process, such as Health Centers at the 

Department of Health and Human Services.

Block/Formula Grant Programs Programs that provide funds to state, local, and tribal governments and other entities by 

formula or block grant, such as the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance 

program. 

Regulatory-Based Programs Programs that accomplish their mission through rulemaking that implements, interprets or 

prescribes law or policy, or describes procedure or practice requirements, such as the 

Small Business Administration’s Size Standards program.

Capital Assets and Public Works 

Programs 

Programs that achieve their goals through development, acquisition, and operation of 

capital assets (e.g. land, structures, equipment) or the purchase of services (e.g. 

maintenance, and information technology). Program examples include Navy Shipbuilding 

and the Bonneville Power Administration.

Information Assets Programs Programs that achieve their goals through the development, acquisition, analysis, and/or 

dissemination of information. Program examples include the Census.

Service Acquisition Programs Programs that achieve their goals through the purchase of services (e.g. maintenance, and 

information technology).

Credit Programs Programs that provide support through loans, loan guarantees and direct credit, such as 

the Export-Import Bank’s Long Term Guarantees program.

Insurance Programs Programs where the federal government provides compensation against the risk of 

specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of premiums.

Research and Development Programs Programs that focus on knowledge creation or its application to the creation of systems, 

methods, materials, or technologies, such as the Department of Energy’s Solar Energy 

program.

Source: OMB. |  GAO-15-83

 

39OMB, Circular No. A-11, pt. 6, § 280.12 (2012). 
 

Page 30 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

However, OMB has not included tax expenditures as part of the inventory 

effort.40 GPRAMA does not specify that tax expenditures should be 

included in the program inventory, but they represent a substantial federal 

investment. If the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) estimates are 

summed, an estimated $1.1 trillion in revenue was forgone from the 169 

tax expenditures reported for fiscal year 2013, nearly the same as 

discretionary spending that year. Since 1994, we have recommended 

greater scrutiny of tax expenditures, as periodic reviews could help 

determine how well specific tax expenditures work to achieve their goals 

and how their benefits and costs compare to those of spending programs 

with similar goals. In addition, in our June 2013 report on initial GPRAMA 

implementation, we made several recommendations to OMB, described 

in table 8, to recognize the contributions of tax expenditures to the 

achievement of broad outcomes.41

 

40Tax expenditures are reductions in a taxpayer's tax liability that are the result of special 

exemptions and exclusions from taxation, deductions, credits, deferrals of tax liability, or 

preferential tax rates. For more information, see our key issues page on tax expenditures 

at http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/tax_expenditures. 

41GAO-13-518. 
 

Page 31 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

Table 8: Status of GAO’s June 2013 Tax Expenditure-related Recommendations

Report Recommendation Status 

Managing for Results: 

Executive Branch Should 

More Fully Implement the 

GPRA Modernization Act to 

Address Pressing 

Governance Challenges, 

GAO-13-518 (Washington, 

D.C.: Jun. 26, 2013).

In June 2013, we recommended that the 

Director of OMB take the following three actions 

to help ensure that the contributions made by 

tax expenditures toward the achievement of 

agency goals and broader federal outcomes are 

properly recognized:

1. Revise relevant OMB guidance to direct 

agencies to identify relevant tax 

expenditures among the list of federal 

contributors for each appropriate agency 

goal.

OMB staff agreed with the recommendation and took 

actions to implement it. In its July 2013 update to 

guidance for implementing the GPRAMA, OMB directs 

agencies, as appropriate, to identify tax expenditures 

among the list of federal contributors to each agency 

strategic objective. Strategic objectives reflect the 

outcomes or impacts the agency is intending to 

achieve and are to be tracked through a suite of 

performance goals and other indicators. According to 

the guidance, the agency’s set of strategic objectives 

should be comprehensive of all agency activity. As a 

result, we closed this recommendation.

2. Review whether all relevant tax 

expenditures that contribute to a CAP goal 

have been identified, and as necessary, 

include any additional tax expenditures in 

the list of federal contributors for each goal.

OMB staff agreed with these two recommendations. 

As of October 2014, OMB has not taken any actions 

to address them, according to information provided by 

OMB and PIC staff. OMB and PIC staff told us that as 

they work with the CAP goal leaders to develop and 

refine implementation plans and quarterly updates for 

the new CAP goals published in March 2014, they 

intend to identify tax expenditures as contributors to 

those goals over time. Once those tax expenditures 

are identified, which are expected to be published as 

part of a planned December 2014 update, OMB and 

PIC staff told us they plan to work with CAP goal 

leaders to determine the best approach to assess the 

contributions relevant tax expenditures are making 

towards goal achievement. We will continue to monitor 

progress.

3. Assess the contributions relevant tax 

expenditures are making toward the 

achievement of each CAP goal.

Source: GAO, OMB, and PIC. |  GAO-15-83

GPRAMA requires OMB to identify tax expenditures that contribute to the 

CAP goals.42

 

4231 U.S.C. § 1115(a)(2). 

In addition, OMB guidance directs agencies to identify tax 

expenditures that contribute to their strategic objectives and APGs. Our 

work reviewing GPRAMA implementation has found that OMB and 

agencies have not adequately identified the contributions of tax 
 

Page 32 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

expenditures to the CAP goals and APGs.43

OMB staff also told us that they continue to explore options for including 

tax expenditures in the inventory effort, but they had no specific plans as 

of May 2014. The federal program inventory is the primary tool for 

agencies to identify programs that contribute to their goals, according to 

OMB’s guidance. By including tax expenditures in the inventory, OMB 

could help ensure that agencies are properly identifying the contributions 

of tax expenditures to the achievement of their goals. In addition, doing so 

would also further OMB’s stated purposes of centralizing information from 

disparate sources, since a list of tax expenditures, along with related 

descriptions and estimated revenue effects, is included in the President’s 

Budget. Without including tax expenditures in the inventory, OMB forgoes 

an important opportunity to increase the transparency of tax expenditures 

and the outcomes to which they contribute.

OMB’s July 2013 guidance 

noted that it would work with Treasury and agencies to identify where tax 

expenditures align with their goals, and this information was to be 

included in updated agency strategic plans, performance plans, and on 

Performance.gov, published concurrently with the President’s Budget for 

Fiscal Year 2015 (March 2014). However, according to OMB staff, they 

did not begin to engage Treasury on this effort until after the plans were 

published and the website was updated.

As noted earlier, GPRAMA requires OMB to publish the federal program 

inventory on Performance.gov. While the inventories published in May 

2013 were individual agency documents, OMB’s guidance and staff have 

stated that eventually the inventory would move to a more dynamic, webbased approach—originally planned for the May 2014 update and now on 

hold. This web-based approach could make it easier to tag and sort 

related or similar programs. For instance, OMB’s plans to have agencies 

tag each of their programs by one or more program type in a future 

iteration of the inventory would provide a sorting capability for identifying 

the same type of program. By providing a sorting mechanism by program 

type, OMB could help address one of our open recommendations, 

described in the text box below, by identifying (1) all programs in a given 

 

43For our May 2012, June 2013, and June 2014 reports on CAP goals, see 

GAO-12-620R, GAO-13-518, and GAO-14-526, respectively. We reported on APGs in 

April 2013 and July 2014. See GAO-13-174 and GAO-14-639, respectively. 

The Ability to Find and 

Sort Similar Programs or 

Programs Contributing to 

Shared Outcomes Would 

Enhance the Usefulness 

of Inventories
 

Page 33 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

type, and (2) of those programs, any that have developed strategies to 

effectively overcome measurement challenges.

GAO Recommended OMB and the PIC Develop a Detailed Approach to Examine 

and Address Long-standing Performance Measurement Challenges

In our June 2013 report, Managing for Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully 

Implement the GPRA Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges

(GAO-13-518), we found that agencies continue to face common, long-standing 

difficulties in measuring the performance of various types of federal programs and 

activities—contracts, direct services, grants, regulations, research and development, 

and tax expenditures. We recommended the Director of OMB work with the PIC to 

develop a detailed approach to examine these difficulties across agencies, including 

identifying and sharing any promising practices from agencies that have overcome 

difficulties in measuring the performance of these program types. In commenting on a 

draft of the report, OMB staff agreed with this recommendation. As of July 2014, OMB 

and the PIC have taken some initial steps to address this recommendation. According to 

OMB staff, this includes efforts related to achieving several of the CAP goals. For 

example, the “Benchmark and Improve Mission-Support Operations” CAP goal involves 

developing common standards and benchmarks to measure the performance and cost 

of various agency administrative operations, such as information technology and 

acquisition management. In addition, PIC staff told us they have taken initial steps to 

address performance measurement issues in a few areas, including a pilot effort 

focused on acquisitions (contracts). PIC staff said they plan to expand the model to 

focus on other types of programs with performance measurement issues, such as grants 

and regulations. We will continue to monitor progress.

Source: GAO, OMB, and PIC. |  GAO-15-83

As highlighted in OMB’s guidance, the federal program inventory has the 

potential to facilitate coordination across programs by making it easier to 

find programs that may contribute to a shared goal or a common 

outcome. This could also help identify and address instances of 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. In its guidance for the 2014 

update before it was put on hold, OMB intended for agencies to link each 

program to the existing web pages on Performance.gov for strategic 

goals, strategic objectives, APGs, and CAP goals. According to OMB 

staff, once they move forward with the next inventory update and move to 

a web-based presentation, this would allow users to sort programs by the 

goals to which they contribute. This approach also would allow users to 

identify programs that contribute to broader themes on Performance.gov. 

The themes generally align with budget functions from the President’s 

Budget and include administration of justice; general science, space, and 

technology; national defense; and transportation, among others. 

Currently, the themes can be used to sort goals on Performance.gov that 

contribute to those broad themes.
 

Page 34 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

The coordinated efforts of multiple federal agencies, different levels of 

government, and sectors are generally needed to achieve meaningful 

results. This is underscored by our annual reports on fragmentation, 

overlap, and duplication, which to date have identified over 90 areas, 

each of which involves a patchwork of federal agencies, programs, and 

activities that attempt to address the same issue. Executive branch and 

congressional efforts to identify, manage, or resolve instances of 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication are hindered by the lack of a 

comprehensive list of all federal programs. Such a list, along with related 

budget and performance information, could help decision makers 

determine the scope of the federal government’s involvement, 

investment, and performance in a particular area, which in turn could help 

pinpoint where action is needed to better address or avoid fragmentation, 

overlap, and duplication. Therefore, effective implementation of 

GPRAMA’s federal program inventory requirements could provide 

decision makers with critical information that could be used to better 

address crosscutting issues, among other purposes.

The executive branch has taken some initial steps to develop program 

inventories with related budget and performance information. In 2012, 

OMB involved 11 agencies in a pilot program inventory effort for federal 

trade, export, and competiveness programs and subsequently developed 

guidance—based on lessons learned from the pilot—for broader 

implementation at 24 agencies. In May 2013, the 24 agencies published 

inventories, providing information about 1,524 programs they collectively 

identified. Despite these initial efforts, we have identified a number of 

areas where implementation should be improved.

OMB needs to take further actions to effectively meet GPRAMA’s 

requirement for the inventories to present a coherent picture of all federal 

programs. First, OMB’s guidance provides agencies with flexibility in how 

they defined their programs. As a result, agencies used different 

approaches to identify their programs, which, in turn, led to a lack of 

comparability for similar programs across agencies. This was illustrated 

by our analysis of agency inventories for STEM education and nuclear 

nonproliferation programs, in which we could only exactly match a small 

fraction of the programs covered by our past work on fragmentation, 

overlap, and duplication in those areas. According to OMB staff, the 

flexibility provided in guidance is derived from lessons learned from the 

pilot effort—that agencies are different for valid and legitimate reasons 

and a one-size-fits-all approach would not work for all agencies. While 

this may be true, OMB could do more to direct agencies to find common 

ground on similar programs. One of OMB’s stated purposes for the 

Conclusions
 

Page 35 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

inventories is to facilitate coordination across programs that contribute to 

similar outcomes. However, as we discovered through our interviews with 

agency officials involved with the inventory efforts, none of the agencies 

sought input from other agencies on how they defined and identified their 

programs. If agencies worked together to more consistently define their 

programs, it could also help them identify where they have programs that 

contribute to similar outcomes, and therefore opportunities to collaborate.

Second, OMB’s plans to date do not adequately ensure that the 

inventories include all federal programs. It has yet to provide firm plans on 

when implementation of GPRAMA’s inventory requirements will be 

expanded beyond the current 24 agencies. OMB’s guidance does not 

provide a clear time frame for how long activities must persist to be 

considered programs, which may have resulted in agencies excluding 

certain activities from their inventories. In addition, OMB did not include 

tax expenditures in the inventory effort. Although GPRAMA does not 

specify that tax expenditures should be included in the program inventory, 

our work over the past 20 years has shown the need for tax expenditures 

to be held to the same scrutiny as spending programs, given the sizeable 

federal investment they represent. The omission of these agencies, 

programs, and activities severely limits the usefulness of the inventory as 

a tool for addressing crosscutting issues.

In addition, other factors limit the usefulness of the inventory as a source 

of information for decision makers. To be useful, information must meet 

various users’ needs for accuracy, completeness, consistency, reliability, 

and validity, among other factors. Agency officials also told us they did 

not consult with external stakeholders, including Congress. Although 

OMB’s 2012 guidance instructed agencies to seek this input, none of 

them did. Subsequently, OMB has removed this direction from its 

guidance. By consulting with stakeholders to understand their needs, 

agencies would better ensure that the information provided in the 

inventories is useful for stakeholder decision making. Involving 

congressional stakeholders is of critical importance given Congress’s 

power to create and fund programs.

Our work also identified limitations with the performance information 

contained within the inventories. Agencies did not consistently identify the 

strategic goals, strategic objectives, agency priority goals, and crossagency priority goals that each program supports, as directed by OMB 

guidance. These omissions were not always identified during OMB’s 

review of each agency’s inventory. In addition, OMB’s guidance does not 

direct agencies to identify in their inventories the performance goals to 
 

Page 36 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

which each program contributes. Although not required for the 

inventories, GPRAMA requires this type of connection—albeit by 

performance goal rather than by program—in agency performance plans. 

This information can help Congress and others understand and assess 

the relationship between the agency’s resources and results. Without it, it 

will be difficult for Congress to assess the likelihood of the agency’s 

success in achieving intended results.

To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory 

requirements and to make the inventories more useful, we make the 

following eight recommendations to the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

To better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, we 

recommend the Director of OMB take the following five actions:

• revise relevant guidance to

• direct agencies to collaborate with each other in defining and 

identifying programs that contribute to common outcomes, and

• provide a time frame for what constitutes “persistent over time” 

that agencies can use as a decision rule for whether to include 

short-term efforts as programs;

• define plans for when additional agencies will be required to develop 

program inventories; and

• include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory effort by

• designating tax expenditure as a program type in relevant 

guidance, and

• developing, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, a 

tax expenditure inventory that identifies each tax expenditure and 

provides a description of how the tax expenditure is defined, its 

purpose, and related performance and budget information.

To help ensure that the information agencies provide in their inventories 

is useful to federal decision makers and key stakeholders, and to provide 

greater transparency and ensure consistency in federal program funding 

and performance information, we recommend the Director of OMB take 

the following three actions:

• revise relevant guidance to direct agencies to

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 37 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

• consult with relevant congressional committees and stakeholders 

on their program definition approach and identified programs 

when developing or updating their inventories, and

• identify in their inventories the performance goal(s) to which each 

program contributes; and

• ensure, during OMB reviews of inventories, that agencies consistently 

identify, as applicable, the strategic goals, strategic objectives, agency 

priority goals, and cross-agency priority goals each program supports.

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the Director 

of OMB and the 24 agencies that developed program inventories. 

In oral comments provided on October 15, 2014, staff from OMB’s Office 

of Performance and Personnel Management stated that they agreed with 

five of our eight recommendations and would consider how to implement 

those recommendations as they move forward with merging program 

inventory implementation with that of the DATA Act. For the other three 

recommendations—designating tax expenditures as a type of program, 

developing an inventory of tax expenditures, and directing agencies to 

identify how their programs contribute to their performance goals—OMB 

staff neither agreed nor disagreed. OMB staff told us that until they had 

firmer plans on how program inventory and DATA Act implementation 

would be merged, they could not determine if implementing these three 

recommendations would be feasible.

We also received technical comments from OMB, the Departments of 

Energy and State, and the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Director of OMB and the 

heads of the 24 agencies that developed program inventories as well as 

interested congressional committees and other interested parties. This 

report will also be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

Agency Comments
 

Page 38 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of our report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.

J. Christopher Mihm

Managing Director, Strategic Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope & Methodology

Page 39 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requires us to review 

implementation of the act at several critical junctures.1

To address all three objectives, we assessed the implementation of 

relevant GPRAMA requirements by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and the 24 agencies that developed program inventories, 

which were published on Performance.gov in May 2013.

This report is part 

of our response to that mandate. Our specific objectives for this report 

were to (1) assess how OMB and agencies defined and identified the 

programs contained in the inventories, (2) examine the extent to which 

the inventories provide useful information for federal decision makers, 

and (3) examine the extent to which the inventories provide a coherent 

picture of the scope of federal involvement in particular areas.

2

• an identification of how the agency defines the term “program,” 

consistent with OMB guidance, including program activities that were 

aggregated, disaggregated, or consolidated to be considered a 

program by the agency;

GPRAMA 

requires OMB to make publicly available on a central governmentwide 

website, a list of all federal programs identified by agencies. For each 

program, the agency is to provide to OMB for publication:

• a description of the purposes of the program and how the program 

contributes to the agency’s mission and goals; and

• an identification of funding for the current fiscal year and the previous 

2 fiscal years.3

GPRAMA also requires OMB to issue guidance to ensure that the 

information provided on the website presents a coherent picture of all 

federal programs.4

 

1

Pub. L. No. 111-352, § 15. For our report reviewing initial implementation of GPRAMA, 

see GAO-13-518. 

2 The 24 agencies directed by OMB to develop program inventories are the Departments 

of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, 

Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, 

Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the U.S. Agency for 

International Development, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Civil Works Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Office of Personnel 

Management, Small Business Administration, and Social Security Administration.

3

31 U.S.C. § 1122(a)(2). 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope & 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope & Methodology

Page 40 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

We also assessed program inventory implementation based on relevant 

OMB guidance (Circular No. A-11, Part 6) and related leading practices 

from our past work on managing for results, such as those related to 

involving Congress and stakeholders in performance management 

activities and ensuring performance information is useful to decision 

makers.5

Additionally, to address our first objective, we selected two areas of 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication from our annual reports—science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and nuclear 

nonproliferation programs—and compared the lists of programs 

developed by our work to those contained in agency inventories. To 

select these two areas, we first reviewed the existing body of 83 areas of 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication published in our 2011, 2012, and 

2013 annual reports,

In addition, we developed a structured set of questions and 

conducted interviews with, or received written responses from, officials 

involved in developing the inventories at the 24 agencies. We also 

interviewed staff from OMB’s Office of Performance and Personnel 

Management who led governmentwide implementation of these 

requirements and developed guidance for agencies.

6

We compared the lists of programs developed from our past work on 

STEM education and nuclear nonproliferation to those contained in the 

relevant agencies’ inventories.

and identified and eliminated from selection 23 

areas that focused on management functions, since they were unlikely to 

be captured in the program inventories. For the remaining 60 areas, we 

identified the number of agencies involved in the area as reported in our 

past worked, whether those agencies had developed and published an 

inventory in May 2013, and whether the area primarily involved domestic 

or foreign assistance/national security programs—to ensure diversity 

among the agencies and programs we reviewed. Finally, we sorted those 

lists to select the areas with the most agencies involved in them: STEM 

education for domestic programs and nuclear nonproliferation programs 

for foreign assistance/national security programs.

7

 

4

31 U.S.C. § 1122(d). 

We identified possible matches in two 

5

See, for example, GAO-12-621SP and GAO-05-927.

6

GAO-13-279SP, GAO-12-342SP, and GAO-11-318SP 

7

Both of these areas were highlighted in our 2012 annual report, GAO-12-342SP. In May 

2014, we updated our work on STEM education programs. See GAO-14-374. For 

additional information about nuclear nonproliferation programs identified in our past work, 

see GAO-12-71. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope & Methodology

Page 41 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

different manners. First, we identified instances in which program names 

exactly matched between the lists developed for our past work and the 

agency’s inventory. In addition, we also reviewed the program 

descriptions contained in the relevant inventories to determine if they 

would lead one to programs/activities related to STEM education or 

nuclear nonproliferation. For example, if the program description 

contained language such as “science education” or “technology 

education,” we included that program as a broader match. In some 

instances, we were also able to identify programs from our past work 

listed as activities within the program descriptions in relevant inventories. 

To ensure consistency in this analysis, the work to identify programs 

conducted by one analyst was reviewed and verified by another analyst.

Because the two selected areas are a non-generalizable sample of 

instances where fragmentation, overlap, and duplication exist, our results 

cannot be generalized more broadly. However, the results of our analysis 

illustrate how various approaches to defining programs can lead to

differences in how programs are identified.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2013 to October 2014 

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.
Appendix II: Staff Acknowledgments

Page 42 GAO-15-83 Federal Program Inventory

J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov

In addition to the above contact, Lisa M. Pearson (Assistant Director) and 

Benjamin T. Licht supervised this review and the development of the 

resulting report. Gerard Burke, Amy Bush, Virginia Chanley, A. Nicole 

Clowers, Karin Fangman, Heather Krause, and Steven Putansu made 

significant contributions to this report. Carole J. Cimitile, Dewi Djunaidy, 

Emily Gruenwald, Donna Miller, Leah Q. Nash, and Erinn L. Sauer also 

provided key contributions.

Appendix II: Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(451054)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.