GOVERNMENT 

TRANSPARENCY 

Efforts to Improve 

Information on Federal 

Spending 

Statement of Gene L. Dodaro 

Comptroller General of the United States 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U. S. Senate 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT 

July 18, 2012 

GAO-12-913T 
 United States Government Accountability Office 

Highlights of GAO-12-913T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 

July 18, 2012 

GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY

Efforts to Improve Information on Federal Spending

Why GAO Prepared This 

Testimony 

It is important to ensure the 

transparency of information detailing 

how the federal government spends 

more than $1 trillion annually in the 

form of contracts, grants, loans, and 

other awards. Toward this end, the 

government has multiple initiatives 

under way to increase such 

transparency, including publicly 

accessible websites providing 

information on federal spending, such 

as http://www.USAspending.gov and 

http://www.Recovery.gov. While these 

efforts have increased the amount of 

information available, challenges have 

been identified to better ensure the 

quality of data on these sites. 

GAO was asked to provide a statement 

addressing (1) the status of efforts to 

improve the quality of publicly available 

data on government awards and 

expenditures and (2) lessons that can 

be learned from the operation of 

Recovery.gov that can contribute to 

other spending transparency efforts. In 

preparing this statement, GAO relied 

on its previous work in these areas, as 

well as discussions with OMB officials 

and officials from the Recovery 

Accountability and Transparency 

Board. 

What GAO Recommends 

GAO previously made several 

recommendations to improve these 

transparency efforts, including that 

OMB clarify guidance on reporting 

award data and develop a procedure to 

ensure agencies report required 

information. While GAO is not making 

new recommendations at this time, it 

underscores the importance of fully 

implementing its prior 

recommendations. 

What GAO Found 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other federal agencies have 

taken steps to improve federal spending data available on USAspending.gov. 

This effort to publicly display comprehensive data arose from the Federal 

Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which required OMB to 

establish a free, publicly accessible website containing data on federal awards 

and subawards. OMB launched USAspending.gov in December 2007 to meet 

these requirements. As GAO reported in 2010, while OMB had satisfied most of 

the requirements associated with the act, such as establishing the site with 

required data elements and search capability, it had only partially satisfied the 

requirement to establish a pilot program to test the collection and display of 

subaward data and had not met the requirements to include subaward data by 

January 2009, or to report to Congress on the site’s usage. Also, GAO found that 

from a sample of 100 awards on USAspending.gov, each award had at least one 

data error and that USAspending.gov did not include information on grants from 

programs at 9 agencies for fiscal year 2008. Subsequently, OMB and agencies 

have taken steps to improve the site and the quality of its data through increased 

agency-level accountability and government-wide improvements. These efforts 

include directing agencies to appoint a senior-level official to be accountable for 

the quality of federal spending information disseminated on public websites, and 

increasing the use of automated tools. However, OMB has not yet implemented 

plans to create a data quality dashboard on USAspending.gov and has produced 

only one of the required annual reports to Congress on usage of the site. 

OMB, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, federal agencies, 

and funding recipients addressed several challenges in managing reporting 

under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Recovery.gov was 

established in 2009 to provide public access to information on Recovery Act 

spending. Specifically, it was to provide timely information on projects or activities 

funded by federal grants, contracts, or loans provided to recipients, such as state 

or local governments. The transparency envisioned by the act was 

unprecedented for the federal government, and GAO identified a number of 

lessons learned from the operation of Recovery.gov: 

 OMB and the Recovery board used two-way communication with recipients 

to refine and clarify guidance. 

 Training and other assistance was provided to recipients to clarify reporting 

requirements and address early system problems. 

 After early reporting and quality issues were identified, OMB required 

agencies to ensure data accuracy and completeness. 

 Recipients made errors in reporting data, but these could be reduced through 

pre-populating data fields and other refinements to the reporting process. 

Recent legislative proposals and a newly created executive branch board aim to 

expand and improve upon the transparency of federal spending. The challenges 

and lessons learned from implementing the existing reporting tools should help 

inform current and future efforts. In particular, attention should be given to 

stakeholder involvement, the effort required for reporting and oversight, and the 

need for clear objectives and priorities. 

View GAO-12-913T. For more information, 

contact Stanley J. Czerwinski at (202) 512-

6808 or czerwinskis@gao.gov or David A. 

Powner at (202) 512-9286 or 

pownerd@gao.gov
Page 1 GAO-12-913T 

Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the 

Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss federal efforts to increase the 

transparency of information detailing federal awards and expenditures. As 

you know, the federal government makes more than $1 trillion in awards 

annually in forms that include contracts, grants, loans, and other awards. 

Since 2006, several efforts have been initiated to provide the public with 

more specific information on these awards. For example, the government 

currently operates several websites that provide access to detailed 

information on federal spending, including http://www.USAspending.gov

(USAspending.gov) and http://www.Recovery.gov (Recovery.gov). 

However, as you noted in a recent request to us to evaluate spending 

transparency, while these sites represent important advances in 

government transparency, challenges have been identified to better 

ensure the quality of data on these sites. 

My testimony today will address two topics: (1) the status of efforts to 

improve the quality of publicly available data on government awards and 

expenditures and (2) lessons that can be learned from the operation of 

Recovery.gov that can contribute to other spending transparency efforts. 

The statement is based on our prior work on USAspending.gov1

 and 

Recovery.gov.2

 We also reviewed reports by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) and federal departments and agencies and discussed 

spending transparency with officials from OMB and the Recovery 

Accountability and Transparency Board. We conducted our work in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards or 

with our quality assurance framework, as appropriate. 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. 

 

1

See GAO, Electronic Government: Implementation of the Federal Funding Accountability 

and Transparency Act of 2006, GAO-10-365 (Washington, D.C.; Mar. 12, 2010). 

2

For a list of GAO products that addressed recipient-reported data available on 

Recovery.gov, see appendix I. For additional GAO reports related to the recovery efforts, 

see http://gao.gov/recovery. 
Page 2 GAO-12-913T 

OMB and Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve Federal 

Spending Data 

The first federal effort to publicly display comprehensive data on federal 

awards was USAspending.gov. Among other things, the Federal Funding 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA)3

 required OMB to 

establish a free, publicly accessible website containing data on federal 

awards no later than January 1, 2008. In addition, OMB was required to 

include data on subawards4

 by January 1, 2009. The act specified a 

number of required data fields, including the recipient’s name, funding 

agency, amount of award, and a descriptive title. The act also authorized 

OMB to issue guidance and instructions to federal agencies for reporting 

award information and requires agencies to comply with that guidance. 

OMB launched USAspending.gov to meet the act’s requirements, relying 

primarily on federal sources of information. 

In 2010, we reported on compliance with FFATA’s requirements. In that 

report we presented several key findings, including: 

 OMB had satisfied six of the act’s nine requirements we reviewed and 

partially satisfied another, but did not satisfy two requirements (see 

appendix II for details). For example, OMB established the publicly 

searchable website–USAspending.gov–in December 2007. The site 

included the required data elements and search capabilities, and 

OMB guidance required periodic updates from agencies consistent 

with the act’s requirement for timeliness. OMB partially satisfied the 

act’s requirement to establish a pilot to test the collection of subaward 

data. Although it started pilots at two agencies, they were initiated 

after the date provided for in the act. Also, OMB had not satisfied the 

provision requiring the inclusion of subaward data on the website by 

January 2009 or the provision regarding periodic reporting to 

Congress. 

 Although USAspending.gov included required grant information from 

29 agencies for fiscal year 2008, it did not include grant information 

from 15 programs at 9 other agencies. The unlisted awards were 

made by large agencies, including the Department of the Treasury 

 

3

Pub. L. No. 109-282, §§ 1 to 4, Sept. 26, 2006, as amended Pub. L. No. 110-252, § 

6202(a), June 30, 2008 (31 U.S.C. § 6101 Note). 

4

OMB guidance defines a subaward as a monetary award made as a result of a federal 

award to a grant recipient or contractor to a sub-recipient or sub-contractor respectively. 
Page 3 GAO-12-913T 

and General Services Administration, and smaller agencies such as 

the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and Japan-U.S. Friendship 

Commission. We reported that incomplete reporting by agencies was 

due in part to OMB not implementing a process to identify agencies 

that did not report required award information and stated that without 

such a process, it risked continued data gaps that limited the 

usefulness of the site. 

 In a sample of 100 awards from USAspending.gov that we reviewed, 

each had at least one data error in a required field, consisting of either 

a blank data field, an inconsistency between the USAspending.gov 

data and agency records, or a lack of sufficient agency information to 

determine consistency. In 73 of the sampled awards, 6 or more of the 

17 required data fields exhibited an error. Agency officials attributed 

the lack of sufficient information, in part, to procedures and systems 

that did not include documenting all of the data required by FFATA. 

For those awards where we had enough information to judge 

sufficiency, the data field with the most inconsistencies was the award 

title, which often lacked necessary specificity. This weakness was 

attributed, in part, to the lack of specific guidance from OMB and to 

the lack of tools to identify incomplete reports. We reported that until 

OMB addressed these issues, the ability of the public to find 

requested information and of OMB to correct errors would be limited. 

To address these findings, we made several recommendations to the 

Director of OMB. For example, we recommended that OMB revise its 

guidance to agencies to clarify that award titles should describe the 

purpose of each award and how agencies should validate and document 

their submitted data. We also recommended that OMB develop and 

implement a plan to collect and report subaward data, as well as a 

procedure to regularly ensure that agencies report required award 

information. OMB generally agreed with our findings and 

recommendations. 

Since we last evaluated FFATA compliance, OMB has taken steps to 

improve USAspending.gov and the quality of its data through increased 

agency-level accountability and government-wide improvements. First, in 

OMB’s 2009 Open Government Directive,5

 agencies were directed to 

designate a high-level senior official to be accountable for the quality of, 

and internal controls over, federal spending information disseminated on 

public websites. A list of the agency-designated officials appears on 

 

5

OMB, Open Government Directive, M-10-06 (Washington D.C.: Dec. 8, 2009). 
Page 4 GAO-12-913T 

USAspending.gov. Subsequently, in an April 2010 memorandum to senior 

accountable officials, OMB required agencies to establish a data quality 

framework for federal spending information, including a governance 

structure, risk assessments, control activities, and monitoring program.6

Agencies were directed to submit plans for addressing these 

requirements to OMB. To address government-wide weaknesses, OMB 

issued guidance to agencies on improving the quality of data in the 

Federal Procurement Data System, a contract database that is one of the 

main sources of USAspending.gov data.7

 In addition, OMB’s April 2010 

memo established a deadline for the agency collection of subaward data 

and announced technical improvements to USAspending.gov, including a 

move to a cloud computing environment, and a control board to 

coordinate policies and systems that support the collection and 

presentation of federal spending data. One result of these efforts is the 

current availability of subaward data on USAspending.gov. 

Agencies have also reported taking steps to improve their 

USAspending.gov data. For example, automated tools have been 

developed through interagency electronic government initiatives that are 

expected to improve the quality of data on grants and cooperative 

agreements by making it easier for agencies to regularly report their 

awards.8

 Additionally, individual agencies reported efforts to improve data 

quality in open government plans released earlier this year. For example, 

the Department of Commerce established a formal process to ensure that 

all grant offices are reporting awards in a timely manner, and the General 

Services Administration developed an "Information and Data Quality 

Handbook" that contains a framework for consistent data management. 

Agencies also reported ongoing efforts to improve data quality. For 

example, the Department of Homeland Security plans to improve the 

accuracy and timeliness of data posted on USAspending.gov by 

promulgating best practices, and the Department of Transportation is 

working with its components to develop memorandums of understanding 

to ensure they meet quality assurance reporting guidelines. 

 

6

OMB, Open Government Directive – Federal Spending Transparency (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 6, 2010). 

7

OMB, Improving Acquisition Data Quality for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 (Washington, 

D.C.: Oct. 7, 2009). 

8

OMB, Report to Congress on the Benefits of the President’s E-Government Initiatives, 

Fiscal Year 2012 (Mar. 19, 2012). 
Page 5 GAO-12-913T 

While the steps discussed above could contribute to improvements in the 

quality of spending data, their impact is not yet known because OMB’s 

recent reporting on data quality and user feedback has been limited. 

Specifically: 

 Previously available information on the timeliness and completeness 

of agency-submitted data is no longer provided on USAspending.gov. 

We previously reported that OMB maintained a page at 

USAspending.gov that addressed the completeness of the agencysubmitted data by field. That information is no longer available on the 

site. 

 In its April 2010 memo, OMB discussed the creation of a dashboard 

on USAspending.gov to track the timeliness, completeness, and 

accuracy of agencies’ reported data. After establishing a baseline, 

these data were to be updated quarterly. However, the 

USAspending.gov site does not currently include such a dashboard. 

 OMB has produced only one of the required annual reports to 

Congress that were to include data on usage of the site and public 

feedback on its utility. In July 2010, OMB reported that 

USAspending.gov had been used extensively by the public, and that it 

had adopted or planned improvements based on user feedback. 

However, OMB has not produced any subsequent reports, as required 

by FFATA. 

On July 13, 2012, officials with OMB’s Office of Federal Financial 

Management told us that OMB no longer plans to rely on a public 

dashboard to improve data quality. Instead, the officials said, OMB is 

pursuing several other efforts, including ensuring the implementation of 

the data quality framework established through its prior guidance and 

identifying best practices for improving data quality. As we initiate work to 

address your recent request on spending transparency, we will reassess 

the quality of data on USAspending.gov, including the extent to which 

agencies report award data, the accuracy of the data that are reported, 

and the quality assurance processes used by agencies. 
Page 6 GAO-12-913T 

OMB and the Recovery Board Addressed Several Implementation 

Challenges with Recovery Act Recipient Reporting 

As Congress and the administration crafted the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act),9

 they built into it provisions to 

increase transparency and accountability over spending. It required 

recipients of Recovery Act funds, including grants, contracts, or loans, to 

submit quarterly reports with information on each project or activity, 

including the amount and use of funds and an estimate of the jobs 

created or retained.10 Similar to FFATA, the Recovery Act called for the 

establishment of a website through which the public could gain easy 

access to this information. Initial establishment of the website was to take 

place 30 days after the Recovery Act’s enactment. The Recovery.gov site 

was launched in 2009 to fulfill these requirements, and a second site—

http://www.FederalReporting.gov—was established for recipients to report 

their data. Recipients first reported in early October 2009 on the period 

from February through September 2009, and reporting has continued for 

each quarter since then. 

The transparency envisioned under the Recovery Act for tracking 

spending and results was unprecedented for the federal government. 

Tracking billions of dollars disbursed to thousands of recipients promised 

to be an enormous effort. Further, the need to get a system developed 

and operating quickly added to the challenge, as did the fact that the 

public would be able to access the system and form its own views as to 

the system’s transparency. The system also needed to be operational 

quickly for a variety of programs, across which even the basic question of 

what constituted a project could differ. Given this daunting task, OMB and 

the Recovery Board implemented an iterative process involving many 

stakeholders that can provide insight into challenges and solutions for 

establishing procedures to increase spending transparency. 

As part of our oversight of the Recovery Act and in response to a 

mandate to comment quarterly on recipient reporting, we issued a 

number of reports addressing procedures related to recipient reporting 

and the quality of data on Recovery.gov, and we made several 

recommendations for improvements. Initially, we reported that a range of 

 

9

Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (Feb. 17, 2009). 

10Recovery Act, div. A, § 1512. Neither individuals nor recipients receiving funds through 

entitlement programs, such as Medicaid, or tax programs are required to report. 
Page 7 GAO-12-913T 

significant reporting and data quality issues needed to be addressed; our 

later reports, however, documented both progress and further 

refinements needed, and progress in making them. Our 

recommendations included that OMB clarify the definition of full-time 

equivalent (FTE) jobs and encourage federal agencies to provide or 

improve program-specific guidance for recipients. In general, OMB and 

agencies acted upon our recipient reporting-related recommendations 

and implemented changes in guidance and procedures. 

OMB and Recovery Board Procedures and Guidance Evolved with Input from 

Recipients 

Throughout the development of guidance and the early months of 

implementing recipients reporting, OMB and the Recovery Board used 

several opportunities for two-way communication with recipients. Early 

on, OMB and Recovery Board officials held weekly conference calls with 

state and local representatives to hear comments and suggestions from 

them and share decisions made. State and local governments, with their 

difficult fiscal situations, were concerned about being able to meet the 

added reporting requirements, and the tight timeframes made this 

particularly difficult. Federal officials heard the concerns and made 

changes to their plans and related guidance in response. 

For example, initial guidance in February 2009 began to lay out 

information that would be reported on Recovery.gov and steps needed to 

meet reporting requirements, such as including recipient reporting 

requirements in grant awards and contracts. In response to requests for 

more clarity, OMB, with input from an array of stakeholders, issued more 

guidance in June 2009. The June guidance clarified requirements on 

reporting jobs, such as which recipients were required to report and how 

to calculate jobs created and retained. In December 2009, responding to 

concerns regarding the calculation of FTEs, including some we 

expressed,11 OMB issued further changes in guidance resulting in 

simplified jobs-reporting guidance. 

 

11GAO, Recovery Act: Recipient Reported Jobs Data Provide Some Insight into Use of 

Recovery Act Funding, but Data Quality and Reporting Issues Need Attention, GAO-10-

223 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19, 2009). 
Page 8 GAO-12-913T 

Assistance Was Available as Recipients Became Familiar with Reporting Procedures and 

Addressed Early System Problems 

Recipients of Recovery Act funds needed to quickly learn reporting 

requirements and develop procedures for meeting them. This was 

particularly difficult for entities that had not previously received federal 

funding and were not familiar with federal reporting requirements. 

Outreach from OMB and the Recovery Board, including conference calls, 

webinars, and websites, along with guidance were instrumental in 

bringing recipients up to speed. In addition, agencies provided information 

and training on reporting for their specific programs through conference 

calls and webinars. States, as the prime recipients in many cases, 

ensured that their own agencies and departments and their subrecipients 

were informed as well by using various means of communications, 

including conference calls, webinars, and websites. Finally, the Recovery 

Board also maintained a help desk during the reporting period. 

Even so, given the uncertainties and ongoing development of the new 

systems, there were instances of systems going down and data rejections 

that frustrated recipients. Some extensions were allowed and provisions 

made for recipients to report and make adjustments to the data, except 

for FTEs, after reporting closed. 

With OMB Oversight, Agencies Took on the Key Role of Ensuring Data Accuracy and 

Completeness 

After we reported that initially there were significant reporting and quality 

issues, OMB issued guidance to federal agencies that incorporated 

lessons learned from the first reporting period and addressed 

recommendations we had made.12 Specifically, in December 2009, OMB 

required agencies to identify significant errors, particularly in award 

amounts, FTEs, federal award numbers, and recipient name. OMB also 

provided guidance in identifying instances where recipients did not report. 

As a result, federal agencies that awarded Recovery Act funds to states 

generally developed internal policies and procedures for reviewing data 

quality, as OMB required. At the ground level, agencies addressed 

recipients’ quarterly reporting when performing their oversight of 

Recovery Act recipients. Further, agencies also reviewed data centrally 

and performed tests of reasonableness on recipient data by program. 

 

12GAO-10-223. 
Page 9 GAO-12-913T 

OMB also required agencies to provide lists each quarter of those 

recipients who did not report. Our discussions with agencies indicated 

that agencies worked with these recipients to identify reasons they did not 

report. Lists of those who did not report each quarter continue to be 

available on Recovery.gov. 

In our work evaluating recipient reporting under specific programs, we 

found that agencies put considerable effort into ensuring accuracy and 

completeness, but while the public transparency of Recovery Act 

spending improved, the agencies often did not benefit much from such 

recipient-reported data. Agency officials told us they already had much of 

the information; their own systems provided information on award 

amounts, funds disbursed, and, to varying degrees, progress being made 

by grant recipients. However, officials at one agency, the Department of 

Education, noted that the information obtained through recipient reporting 

did provide them a useful indication of jobs funded for education 

programs under the Recovery Act, information they otherwise did not 

have. 

Our work also identified some concerns with ensuring that descriptions of 

awarded projects were adequately detailed in the information that 

recipients reported. Data collected for Recovery.gov included narrative 

information that provided the public with details such as the overall 

purpose of the award and expected results. We found, for example, that 

an estimated 25 percent of the descriptions of selected infrastructurerelated awards met our transparency criteria of having sufficiently clear 

and complete information on the award’s purpose, scope, and nature of 

activities; location; cost; outcomes; and status of work. Another 68 

percent partially met the criteria; and an estimated 7 percent provided 

little or none of this information.13 In its September 2010 guidance, OMB 

added a requirement for agencies to review the narrative fields of 

recipient reports to better ensure transparency. 

Additional Approaches Could Streamline Reporting and Oversight 

Our analysis of the quality of recipient-reported data showed that 

recipients made errors in reporting award identification numbers, amount 

of awards, and other data that agencies already had, and that if those 

items had been pre-populated for recipients, errors might have been 

 

13See GAO, Recovery Act: Increasing the Public’s Understanding of What Funds Are 

Being Spent on and What Outcomes Are Expected, GAO-10-581 (Washington, D.C.: May 

27, 2010). 
Page 10 GAO-12-913T 

reduced. The award identification number was a particularly key data 

element, since it was part of the mechanism to link awards across 

quarters, yet recipient errors as small as leaving out a hyphen could result 

in information not being able to be linked. Agencies identified other errors, 

such as incorrect award amounts, by comparing data recipients reported 

with data they had. It was time-consuming both to perform those 

comparisons and to follow up with recipients to get them to fix the errors. 

The Recovery Board eventually enabled recipients to “copy forward” 

information reported in previous rounds and modify it as needed, which 

helped prevent some errors. However, some agency officials suggested 

that pre-populating these fields with agency data before recipients began 

their reporting would have reduced the number of errors. 

In addition, our work indicated that recipients sometimes were required to 

report similar information into both agency reporting systems and 

FederalReporting.gov. Agencies required more data in some cases to 

manage their programs than was required on recipient reports and made 

available on Recovery.gov. For example, Environmental Protection 

Agency officials said that they needed project details that were not 

available in Recovery.gov data for their Recovery Act water programs. 

Similarly, the Department of Transportation preferred using its own data 

because they were more detailed, and were reported monthly—more 

frequently than the Recovery.gov data. While the time constraints of 

implementing Recovery Act reporting made it difficult to consolidate data 

collection and prevent collecting similar data from recipients more than 

once, if more planning time was available to solve this issue, the burden 

on recipients may have been reduced. 

Initiatives to Improve Transparency Can Benefit from Lessons Learned 

There are initiatives under way in Congress and the administration that 

look to build on these two transparency efforts now in place. For example, 

legislation has been passed in the House of Representatives14 and 

introduced in the Senate15 to improve the accountability and transparency 

of federal spending. In addition, in June 2011 the President issued an 

executive order establishing the Government Accountability and 

 

14Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2012, H.R. 2146, 112th Cong. 

(introduced June 13, 2011 by Rep. Issa). 

15Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2011, S. 1222, 112th Cong. (introduced 

June 16, 2011 by Sen. Warner). 
Page 11 GAO-12-913T 

Transparency Board to provide strategic direction for, among other things, 

enhancing the transparency of federal spending.16 

There are lessons from the implementation of both USAspending.gov and 

Recovery.gov that can be applied to these new initiatives. Foremost, 

consideration needs to be given to what objectives are to be achieved 

and in what priority. As we have seen with both existing systems, success 

hinges upon ensuring the data’s completeness and accuracy. Because it 

is resource-intensive to ensure all data are reported and correct, it is 

imperative to limit the data collected to only those essential elements. 

Clear objectives are helpful in guiding such focus. 

In addition, the input of federal agencies, recipients, and subrecipients 

should be considered early in the development of both the system and its 

procedures. Also, as the system is implemented, communicating 

impending changes as soon as possible allows for better planning. 

Finally, as a system rolls out, recipients will need help to learn how to 

fulfill their reporting responsibilities. 

Further related to the issue of involving all stakeholders is the need to 

recognize the increased reporting and oversight effort required of 

recipients and federal agencies, and to identify approaches that minimize 

that effort. For example, pre-populating data from federal agencies to 

reduce the need for recipients to input those data could help with 

accuracy, although agencies likely will need to continue to play a key role 

in checking data quality. 

- - - - - 

In conclusion, there have been great strides in increasing the 

transparency of federal awards since 2006. The USAspending.gov and 

Recovery.gov websites offer the public a wealth of information on how 

federal funds are spent. However, it is important that ongoing efforts to 

improve the data provided to the public continue to evolve. We believe 

having a strategic vision, ensuring data quality, allowing for input of ideas, 

helping those who have to report, and minimizing reporting burdens can 

improve the chances of success. 

Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the 

Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions that you may have. 

 

16The Government Accountability and Transparency Board was created by Executive 

Order 13576 in June 2011. 
Page 12 GAO-12-913T 

Contacts and Acknowledgments 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Stanley J. 

Czerwinski at (202) 512-6808 or czerwinskis@gao.gov or David A. 

Powner at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. In addition, contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals who made key 

contributions to this testimony are Carol Patey and James R. Sweetman, 

Jr., Assistant Directors, Lee McCracken, and Kevin Walsh. 
Page 13 GAO-12-913T 

Appendix I: GAO Products Related to Recipient Reporting 

Recovery Act: As Initial Implementation Unfolds in States and Localities, 

Continued Attention to Accountability Issues Is Essential. GAO-09-580. 

Washington, D.C.: April 23, 2009. 

Recovery Act: States’ and Localities’ Current and Planned Uses of Funds 

While Facing Fiscal Stresses. GAO-09-829. Washington, D.C.: July 8, 

2009. 

Recovery Act: Funds Continue to Provide Fiscal Relief to States and 

Localities, While Accountability and Reporting Challenges Need to Be 

Fully Addressed. GAO-09-1016. Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2009. 

Recovery Act: Recipient Reported Jobs Data Provide Some Insight into 

Use of Recovery Act Funding, but Data Quality and Reporting Issues 

Need Attention. GAO-10-223. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2009. 

Recovery Act: Status of States’ and Localities’ Use of Funds and Efforts 

to Ensure Accountability. GAO-10-231. Washington, D.C.: December 10, 

2009. 

Recovery Act: One Year Later, States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds and 

Opportunities to Strengthen Accountability. GAO-10-437. Washington, 

D.C.: March 3, 2010. 

Recovery Act: States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds and Actions Needed 

to Address Implementation Challenges and Bolster Accountability. GAO10-604. Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2010. 

Recovery Act: Increasing the Public’s Understanding of What Funds Are 

Being Spent on and What Outcomes Are Expected. GAO-10-581. 

Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2010. 

Recovery Act: States Could Provide More Information on Education 

Programs to Enhance the Public’s Understanding of Fund Use. GAO-10-

807. Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2010. 

Recovery Act: Opportunities to Improve Management and Strengthen 

Accountability over States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds. GAO-10-999. 

Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2010. 

Participants in SBA’s Microloan Program Could Provide Additional 

Information to Enhance the Public’s Understanding of Recovery Act Fund 

Uses and Expected Outcomes. GAO-10-1032R. Washington, D.C.: 

September 29, 2010. 
Page 14 GAO-12-913T 

Recovery Act: Opportunities Exist to Increase the Public’s Understanding 

of Recipient Reporting on HUD Programs. GAO-10-966. Washington, 

D.C.: September 30, 2010. 

Recovery Act: Head Start Grantees Expand Services, but More 

Consistent Communication Could Improve Accountability and Decisions 

about Spending. GAO-11-166. Washington, D.C.: December 15, 2010. 

Recovery Act: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant 

Recipients Face Challenges Meeting Legislative and Program Goals and 

Requirements. GAO-11-379. Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2011. 

Recovery Act: Funding Used for Transportation Infrastructure Projects, 

but Some Requirements Proved Challenging. GAO-11-600. Washington, 

D.C.: June 29, 2011. 

Recovery Act: Funds Supported Many Water Projects, and Federal and 

State Monitoring Shows Few Compliance Problems. GAO-11-608. 

Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2011. 

Recovery Act Education Programs: Funding Retained Teachers, but 

Education Could More Consistently Communicate Stabilization Monitoring 

Issues. GAO-11-804. Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2011. 

Recovery Act: Progress and Challenges in Spending Weatherization 

Funds. GAO-12-195. Washington, D.C.: December 16, 2011. 

Recovery Act: Housing Programs Met Spending Milestones, but Asset 

Management Information Needs Evaluation. GAO-12-634. Washington, 

D.C.: June18, 2012.
Page 15 GAO-12-913T 

Appendix II: FFATA Requirements and GAO’s Assessment of 

Compliance as Reported in 2010 

 

FFATA Requirement GAO’s assessment of compliance 

Establish a free, publicly available website 

by January 1, 2008 

Met 

OMB launched USAspending.gov, a free, 

publicly available website, in December 

2007. 

Capture specific data elements for each 

award 

Met 

The site captured information on all 

required data elements, such as the entity 

receiving the award and the award 

amounts. 

Allow searches by each required data 

element, provide total dollars awarded by 

recipient, and provide downloadable data 

Met 

The site allowed searches of data by all 

required data elements and provided totals 

for awards made as well as downloadable 

data. 

Include awards made in fiscal year 2007 

and after 

Met 

The site included data for federal awards 

made in fiscal year 2007 and later, as well 

as limited data from previous years. 

Ensure that information on awards is added 

to the site within 30 days of the award 

Met 

To facilitate timeliness of data available on 

the website, OMB guidance required 

agencies to submit award data on the 5th 

and 20th of each month. 

Allow for public input about the site’s utility 

and suggestions for improvement 

Met 

The site included a contact form for public 

comments and suggestions. 

Commence a pilot program to test 

collection of subaward data and determine 

how to implement a subaward reporting 

program across the federal government, 

beginning no later than July 1, 2007, and 

ending no later than January 1, 2009 

Partially met 

OMB commissioned two pilot programs for 

collecting subaward data, one at the 

General Services Administration that ran 

from April 2008 to December 2008, and 

one at the Department of Health and 

Human Services that ran from October 

2008 to November 2008. Both pilots were 

begun after the July 2007 date specified in 

the act. 
Page 16 GAO-12-913T 

FFATA Requirement GAO’s assessment of compliance 

Include subaward data no later than 

January 1, 2009 (An 18-month extension 

can be granted for subaward recipients that 

receive federal funds through state, local, 

or tribal governments if OMB determines 

that compliance would impose an undue 

burden on the subaward recipient.) 

Not met 

Subaward data (e.g., subcontracts and 

subgrants) were not yet available for 

searching on USAspending.gov. FFATA 

allows OMB to extend the deadline by 18 

months for some subaward recipients. 

However, according to OMB, there was no 

official extension in place for reporting 

subaward data at this time. In addition, as 

of November 2009, OMB had not 

developed a specific plan for collecting and 

reporting subaward data. 

Submit an annual report to the specified 

congressional committees 

Not met 

OMB had not submitted the required 

annual report to Congress containing (1) 

data on the usage of and public feedback 

on the site, (2) an assessment of the 

reporting burden on award recipients, and 

(3) an explanation of any extension of the 

subaward deadline. According to OMB 

officials, it was gathering the necessary 

information and planned to issue a report in 

2010.a

Source: GAO analysis. 

a

As noted in our statement, OMB issued a report to Congress in July 2010. 

(311273) 
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.
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 (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 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: 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.