ELECTRONIC 

GOVERNMENT ACT 

Agencies Have 

Implemented Most 

Provisions, but Key 

Areas of Attention 

Remain 

Report to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate 

September 2012 

GAO-12-782 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-782, a report to the

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

September 2012

ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT ACT

Agencies Have Implemented Most Provisions, but 

Key Areas of Attention Remain

Why GAO Did This Study

The E-Government Act of 2002 was 

enacted to promote the use of the 

Internet and other technologies to 

improve citizen access to government 

information and services, improve 

government decision making, and 

enhance accountability and 

transparency. The act established an 

Office of Electronic Government within 

OMB to oversee the act’s 

implementation and required executive 

branch agencies to take a number of 

actions aimed at, among other things, 

using technology to better organize, 

maintain, and make information about 

the operations of the federal 

government available. 

With the 10th

What GAO Recommends

anniversary of the act’s 

passage approaching, GAO was asked 

to (1) assess OMB’s and agencies’ 

efforts to fulfill the act’s requirements to 

establish leadership and organizational 

responsibilities and (2) evaluate 

agencies’ progress in meeting the act’s 

requirements to enhance public access 

to government information and 

services. To do this, GAO reviewed 

and analyzed the requirements of the 

act and OMB and agency reports on 

compliance with these requirements, 

administered a questionnaire to 

responsible officials at 24 major 

agencies, and interviewed agency and 

OMB officials.

GAO is recommending that OMB 

identify in its annual report to Congress 

the provisions of the act that are not 

included and why, establish a federal 

research and development repository 

and website, and issue guidance on 

agency participation in this site. In 

reviewing a draft of the report, OMB 

indicated that it had no comment. 

What GAO Found

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

steps to carry out leadership and organizational responsibilities as called for by 

the E-Government Act. Specifically, OMB’s Office of Electronic Government has 

issued key guidance for agencies on complying with the requirements of the act 

and coordinated annual reporting to Congress on agency compliance with the 

act. In addition, the Federal Chief Information Officers Council has taken actions, 

such as publicizing best practices and recommendations for more efficient use of 

information technology and assisting in the implementation of the act’s

requirements. Further, executive branch agencies have made significant 

progress in carrying out leadership responsibilities under the act, including 

designating officials with responsibility for ensuring compliance with the act, 

issuing internal policy and guidance, and developing performance measures. 

However, while OMB and agencies have reported annually on their compliance 

with the act as required, OMB did not always require agencies to report on all of 

the act’s provisions and has not been explicit in communicating to Congress 

provisions that it is not reporting on and the reasons why. For example, from 

fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2009, OMB did not require agencies to report on 

how they enhanced public participation by electronic means for development and 

issuance of regulations. OMB officials stated that each year’s reporting 

requirements reflected particular administration priorities and were tailored to 

reduce the reporting burden on agencies.

Agencies have taken numerous actions to address specific requirements for 

enhancing public access to government information. For example: 

• The General Services Administration has established, and agencies are 

using, a framework for electronic signatures.

• A federal Internet portal was established to provide a consolidated point of 

public access to government information, although challenges remain in 

streamlining federal web operations. 

• Agencies have taken steps to ensure the availability of government 

information and services to individuals with diminished access to the Internet 

and those with disabilities.

• A website was established to provide the public with information and the 

ability to comment on proposed federal regulations.

• OMB and agencies have taken steps to improve the accessibility, usability, 

and preservation of government information through, for example, organizing 

website content and electronic records management. 

• OMB has issued policies on protecting the privacy of individuals’ personal 

information on government websites.

However, OMB has yet to fully establish a repository and website for providing 

public access to information on government investments in research and

development as required or issued guidance to agencies on participating in the 

site. 

View GAO-12-782. For more information, 

contact Valerie C. Melvin at (202) 512-6304 or 

melvinv@gao.gov
Page i GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

Letter 1 

Background 2

OMB and Agencies Carried Out E-Government Leadership and 

Organizational Responsibilities, but Reporting Area Needs 

Attention 6

Federal Agencies Implemented Most Requirements for Promoting 

Use of the Internet and Other Technologies, but Continue to 

Work to Achieve the Act’s Purposes 16

Conclusions 34

Recommendations for Executive Action 35

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 35

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 38

Appendix II Comments from the National Archives 41

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Commerce 42

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of the Treasury 43

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 44

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 45

Tables

Table 1: E-Signature Requirements and Agency Responsibilities 17

Table 2: Websites Providing Government Information 20

Table 3: E-Gov Act Requirements Related to Disparate Access 23

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

Abbreviations

CIO Chief Information Officer

E-Gov Act Electronic Government Act of 2002

FOIA Freedom of Information Act

GSA General Services Administration

IT information technology

NARA National Archives and Records Administration

OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

OIRM Office of Information Resource Management

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

PKI Public Key Infrastructure

R&D research and 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-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

September 12, 2012

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Chairman

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Almost a decade has passed since the enactment of the Electronic 

Government Act (E-Gov Act) of 2002.1

With the act’s 10th anniversary approaching, you requested that we 

review its implementation. Specifically, as agreed with your offices, for 

selected Title I and II sections of the act, our objectives were to (1) 

assess OMB’s and agencies’ efforts to fulfill the act’s requirements to 

establish leadership and organizational responsibilities and (2) evaluate 

agencies’ progress in meeting the act’s requirements to enhance public 

access to government information and services.

The major purposes of the act 

include promoting the use of the Internet and emerging technologies to 

provide citizens with government information and services, improving 

decision making by policy makers, and making the government more 

transparent and accountable. Toward these ends, the act established the 

Office of Electronic Government within the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) to oversee the implementation of its provisions, and 

mandated specific actions for federal agencies to take, such as improving 

public access to agency information and allowing for electronic access to 

rulemaking proceedings. 

To address these objectives, we identified and reviewed selected 

requirements of the act relevant to each objective, along with their 

legislative history. To determine the extent to which OMB and agencies 

had met these requirements, we collected and reviewed documentation 

on OMB actions to meet leadership responsibilities and interviewed 

officials from OMB’s Office of Electronic Government, collected and 

reviewed documentation from the federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) 

 

1

Pub. L. No. 107-347 (Dec. 17, 2002).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

Council2 and interviewed a council co-chair, interviewed officials from the 

General Services Administration (GSA) and the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA), administered a questionnaire to and 

conducted follow-up interviews with responsible officials at 24 executive 

branch agencies,3

We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 to September

2012, 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. A more complete 

description of our objectives, scope, and methodology is provided in 

appendix I.

obtained and reviewed supporting documentation from 

these agencies, reviewed agencies’ annual E-Gov status reports, and 

reviewed prior GAO reports on the E-Gov Act and related subjects.

The E-Government Act defines “electronic government” (e-government) 

as the use by the government of the Internet and other information 

technologies, together with the processes and people needed to 

implement them, to enhance the delivery of information and services to 

the public and others to make improvements in government operations. 

The basic goals of the act are to use e-government to improve the 

effectiveness, efficiency, and quality of government service.

 

2

The federal CIO Council is comprised of the CIOs and Deputy CIOs of 28 agencies and 

is chaired by OMB’s Deputy Director for Management. It is the principal interagency forum 

for improving agency practices related to the design, acquisition, development, 

modernization, use, sharing, and performance of federal information resources. The CIO 

Council is responsible for developing recommendations for overall federal information 

technology management policy, sharing best practices, including the development of 

performance measures, and identifying opportunities and sponsoring cooperation in using 

information resources. 

3

The 24 agencies included in our study were 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; the Environmental Protection Agency, General Services 

Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science 

Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Small 

Business Administration, Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Agency for 

International Development.

Background 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

Prior to the E-Gov Act, federal agencies’ management of information and 

technology was largely governed by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.4

In February 2002, OMB issued its first E-Government Strategy

These two laws gave OMB and 

other federal agencies responsibility for overseeing information and 

information technology (IT) management in the federal government. In 

May 2000, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs established a 

website to gather public comments on ways to improve government 

through electronic means. Subsequently, in 2001, the chair of the 

committee introduced legislation requiring a variety of e-government 

initiatives, which ultimately became the E-Gov Act. In the same time 

period, OMB began working on an e-government strategy, primarily 

through its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and 

through the activities of the Associate Director for Information Technology 

and E-Government.

5

Title I of the E-Gov Act outlined leadership and organizational 

responsibilities for OMB. Specifically, it expanded OMB’s leadership role 

in the management of information and IT by establishing the Office of 

Electronic Government headed by a presidentially appointed 

Administrator (which replaced the position of Associate Director for 

Information Technology and E-Government). The E-Gov Administrator is 

responsible for assisting the Director and Deputy Director of OMB, and for 

working with the OIRA Administrator,

aimed at 

improving the quality of services to citizens, businesses, governments, 

and government employees, as well as the effectiveness and efficiency of 

the federal government through the use of IT. The strategy also 

designated 24 high-profile initiatives to lead the government’s 

transformation to e-government in areas such as regulatory rulemaking, 

tax filing, disaster assistance, and recruitment. When the E-Gov Act was 

signed into law on December 17, 2002, it reflected the experiences of 

both the committee and OMB in promoting e-government.

6

 

4

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and the Clinger-Cohen Act, 40 

U.S.C. 11101, et seq.

in setting strategic direction for e5

OMB, E-Government Strategy (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2002).

6

The OIRA Administrator also has responsibilities for overseeing federal agency 

management of information and information technology functions under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3504.
 

Page 4 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

government, overseeing the implementation of e-government consistent 

with related laws, and performing e-government functions, including

• advising the OMB Director on the resources and strategies needed for 

e-government,

• providing overall leadership and direction on e-government, and

• preparing an annual E-Gov Status Report for Congress.

Title I also codified the CIO Council,7

Title II of the act assigned responsibilities for the management and 

promotion of electronic government activities. These include the following 

responsibilities:

with the OMB Deputy Director for 

Management as the chair, and detailed its organizational structure and 

responsibilities. As required by the act, membership of the council 

includes CIOs from federal executive agencies, OMB’s Deputy Director 

for Management, the E-Government Administrator, and the OIRA 

Administrator. The E-Government Administrator is to lead the council on 

behalf of OMB’s Deputy Director for Management, who serves as the 

Council Chair. In addition, Title I established the E-Government fund for 

interagency projects. The fund is to be administrated by the GSA 

Administrator, with the assistance of the OMB E-Gov Administrator.

• OMB is to issue privacy guidelines for federal websites and conduct 

studies on integrated reporting and community technology centers.

• GSA is to develop a framework for the interoperable use of digital 

signatures.

• GSA also has the responsibility to develop and maintain an integrated 

federal Internet portal for public access to government information and 

to sponsor a study on disparities in Internet access and access to 

government information and services.

• OMB, NARA, and federal agencies are to ensure the accessibility, 

usability, and preservation of government information.

 

7

The council was established on July 16, 1996, by Executive Order 13011. 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

• Federal agency heads have the responsibility to lead their agencies in 

complying with the act, develop e-government performance 

measures, sponsor activities using IT, and develop an annual E-Gov 

status report.

• OMB is to develop a publicly accessible repository and website about 

research and development funded by the federal government.

We have previously reported on various aspects of federal agencies’ 

progress in implementing the E-Gov Act. Specifically, in December 2004, 

we reported that, in most cases, OMB and federal agencies had taken 

positive steps toward implementing selected provisions of Titles I and II of 

the act.8

We also reported actions that were in progress for other provisions of the 

act. Among these, we noted that GSA and other agencies were 

implementing requirements for using electronic signatures. Also, studies 

by OMB on integrated reporting and community technology centers were 

in progress. In addition, the federal courts and regulatory agencies were 

in the process of developing websites to provide information to the public.

For example, we noted OMB’s establishment of the Office of EGovernment and the issuance of its first annual report to Congress on 

implementation of the act. Further, we noted that the federal Internet 

portal had been established.

However, even with these accomplishments, we reported that not all 

requirements had been fully addressed. For example, OMB had not 

ensured that a study on using IT to enhance crisis preparedness and 

response had been conducted as required by the act, or ensured 

development and maintenance of a required repository and website of 

information about research and development funded by the federal 

government.

Accordingly, we made recommendations to the Director of OMB to take 

actions to ensure that the crises preparedness report and the 

development and maintenance of the research and development 

repository and website were carried out as required by the act. We 

 

8

GAO, Electronic Government: Federal Agencies Have Made Progress Implementing the 

E-Government Act of 2002, GAO-05-12 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 2004).

GAO Has Previously 

Reported on Progress in 

Implementing the E-Gov 

Act
 

Page 6 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

stressed that until these issues were addressed, the government risked 

not fully achieving the act’s objective to promote better use of the Internet 

and other information technologies to improve government services and 

enhance opportunities for citizen participation in government. OMB 

generally agreed with our recommendations and took actions to 

implement them.

OMB, the CIO Council, and federal agencies have taken actions to fulfill 

most of the leadership and organizational responsibilities required by the 

E-Gov Act. Specifically, OMB’s Office of Electronic Government, which 

was established to provide leadership and organizational direction, has 

issued key guidance on implementing the act’s requirements and taken 

other actions to provide leadership and direction. In addition, the CIO 

Council has provided best practices and other assistance to agencies 

consistent with the act’s requirements, and its current initiatives are 

focused on developing policies regarding newer technologies, such as 

mobile computing. Further, agencies have taken steps to fulfill leadership 

and organizational responsibilities, such as issuing policies and guidance, 

assigning responsibilities to designated officials, and developing 

performance measures that demonstrate progress toward agency 

strategic goals. However, although OMB has generally met the annual 

reporting requirement, it has not always reported on all of the provisions 

called for in the act, and it has not been explicit in identifying and 

explaining these omissions in its reports to Congress.

Since we last reported in 2004, OMB’s Office of E-Government has 

continued to take actions to provide leadership and organizational 

direction for agency e-government efforts. Specifically, the office has 

issued a variety of guidance for agencies aimed at assisting them in 

implementing provisions of the E-Gov Act and carrying out related 

activities. For example, each year, the office has issued implementation 

guidance on specific actions required under the act and responsibilities to 

support ongoing initiatives and new actions.

The guidance has covered specific provisions of the act, such as those 

related to electronic authentication, the management of agencies’ 

websites, and the implementation of privacy provisions of the act, among 

others. In addition, OMB has issued guidance on activities that, while not 

specifically called for by the act, are closely related to the goals of egovernment. These include guidance on improving public access to and 

dissemination of government information and using the Federal 

OMB and Agencies 

Carried Out EGovernment 

Leadership and 

Organizational 

Responsibilities, but 

Reporting Area Needs 

Attention

OMB’s Office of Electronic 

Government Has Taken 

Steps to Provide 

Leadership and 

Organizational Direction
 

Page 7 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

Enterprise Architecture’s data reference model; an Open Government 

directive calling for increased transparency, participation, and 

collaboration at federal agencies; and guidance on the use of social 

media and third-party websites and applications.

Further, the office is responsible for coordinating the annual reporting on 

implementation of the E-Gov Act’s requirements. It does this by issuing 

reporting instructions to agencies and providing a summary report of the 

agencies’ responses to Congress. In addition, the office has annually 

provided to Congress a report on the benefits of e-government initiatives 

more broadly. For example, the fiscal year 2012 report on e-government

benefits9

OMB’s recent efforts to promote the use of new technology to improve 

government information and services have focused on initiatives that go 

beyond the requirements of the E-Gov Act. For example, OMB has 

recognized that changes in technology provide opportunities but also 

present new challenges in making information and services accessible to 

the public and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the federal 

government. Specifically, in December 2010, OMB issued its 25 Point 

Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology 

Management,

contains descriptions of each e-government initiative and related 

objectives, costs, benefits, risks, and development status, as well as 

sources and distribution of e-government funding.

10

In April 2012, we reported on the progress OMB and key federal agencies 

had made on selected actions items in OMB’s plan.

which aimed to address some of these challenges, 

including leveraging the most effective and efficient available 

technologies.

11

 

9

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

Fiscal Year 2012.

We noted that OMB 

and key federal agencies had made progress on action items in the IT 

Reform Plan, but highlighted several areas where more remained to be 

done. We made recommendations to three agencies to complete key IT 

reform action items and to OMB to complete key action items, accurately 

10OMB, 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology 

Management (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2010).

11GAO, Information Technology Reform: Progress Made; More Needs to be Done to 

Complete Actions and Measure Results, GAO-12-461 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 2012).
 

Page 8 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

characterize the items’ status, and establish measures for IT reform 

initiatives. The three agencies generally agreed with our 

recommendations. However, while OMB agreed to complete key action 

items, it disagreed with the latter two recommendations, noting that the 

agency believed it was characterizing the items’ status correctly and that 

measures were not warranted. We maintained that these actions were 

necessary.

Further, in May 2012, OMB released a strategy for digital government, 

Digital Government: Building a 21rst Century Platform to Better Serve the 

American People, which emphasizes that emerging technologies such as 

cloud computing and the widespread use of mobile devices are changing 

expectations about how the government delivers digital information and 

services.12

• ensure access to digital government information anywhere, anytime, 

on any device;

This strategy outlines three objectives:

• procure and manage devices, applications, and data in smart, secure, 

and affordable ways; and

• spur innovation and improve the quality of services by enabling the 

public, entrepreneurs, and government programs to better leverage 

federal data.

To carry out these objectives, the strategy calls for managing information 

as discrete pieces of open data that can be presented in useful ways for 

the consumer of that information; using shared platforms within and 

across agencies to reduce costs, streamline development, and ensure 

consistency; creating, managing, and presenting data in a customercentric way; and ensuring that these services are provided safely and 

securely. For each of these areas, the strategy outlines milestone actions, 

responsible federal entities, and time frames of 1 to 12 months.

 

12OMB, Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the 

American People (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2012).
 

Page 9 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

The E-Gov Act codified the CIO Council as the principle interagency 

forum for improving agency practices on matters such as the design, 

modernization, use, sharing, and performance of agency information 

resources. The council’s responsibilities include developing 

recommendations for information and IT management policies, 

procedures, and standards; sharing management best practices; and 

working with the Office of Personnel Management to assess and address 

the needs of the federal government’s IT workforce. In addition, the act 

requires the CIOs of each of the 24 agencies to participate in the 

functions of the council and monitor the implementation of information 

technology standards for the federal government developed by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology and promulgated by the 

Secretary of Commerce, including common standards for 

interconnectivity and interoperability, categorization of federal government 

electronic information, and computer system efficiency and security.

The council helps to facilitate the exchange of IT management best 

practices for CIOs to effectively use IT. Through its website, 

http://www.cio.gov, the council provides guidance for the IT community 

from OMB, documents created by the council committees, and 

presentations given at council events. The website also includes 

information on e-government areas, such as citizen participation, 

accessibility, records management, and privacy. The council’s 

committees help to perform its activities. For example, the Best Practices 

Committee has published recommendations and experiences on the CIO 

Council’s website and contributed to the development of resources, such 

as guidance on establishing a federal privacy program. Further, the 

council’s Accessibility Committee has a best practices library, allowing 

agencies to share their best practices concerning the organization and 

implementation of Section 508 policies.13

In addition, all of the agencies in our study reported that their CIOs 

participate in the functions of the federal CIO Council. This is 

accomplished in a variety of ways: the agencies reported that their CIOs 

regularly attend the monthly meetings of the council, and chair or 

participate in its committees, subcommittees, working groups, and other 

 

13Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires federal agencies to ensure that 

their development, procurement, maintenance, or use of electronic and IT equipment 

takes into account the needs of people with disabilities to have access to and use of 

information that is comparable to that of individuals without disabilities. 

Federal CIO Council 

Carries Out 

Responsibilities Identified 

in Law, and Agency CIOs 

Actively Participate in 

Council Activities
 

Page 10 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

activities. Agency CIOs are also responsible for the approval of 

information security policy used to promulgate guidance, legislation, and 

directives from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, OMB, 

and Congress.

According to the act, agency heads are responsible for (1) complying with 

the requirements of the act and (2) ensuring that the information resource 

management policies and guidance established under the act by OMB 

are communicated promptly and effectively to all relevant officials within 

their agency.

All of the 24 agencies have taken various actions in response to the act’s 

requirements by, for example, issuing agencywide policy and guidance 

that addresses compliance with the E-Gov Act. Moreover, to ensure 

compliance with the act, agencies reported that they are integrating egovernment requirements and activities within their standard operating 

procedures, internal governance mechanisms (e.g., investment review 

boards, capital planning and investment control process, working groups, 

councils, and e-government project management offices), policies, and 

guidance. For example, one agency’s Office of the CIO works with its IT 

governance bodies, such as the CIO Executive Board, to disseminate 

guidance to its component CIOs on E-Gov Act implementation. Another 

agency ensured compliance by establishing an E-Gov Project 

Management Organization to manage the agency’s implementation of the 

act.

Further, agencies reported taking various approaches to assigning egovernment responsibilities. For example, one agency reported that its EGov Office is located within the Office of the CIO and serves in a 

coordinating role to facilitate the reporting of e-government-related 

accomplishments and to monitor the funding of selected e-government 

initiatives. Another agency’s e-government responsibilities are shared by 

its Office of Information Resource Management (OIRM), Division of 

Information Systems, Division of Administrative Services within OIRM, 

and the CIO. Further, one agency reported that its e-government 

responsibilities were dispersed between its Office of Environmental 

Information and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. In addition, many 

agencies appointed their CIO as the official responsible for addressing 

their E-Gov Act activities.

Agencies Took Actions to 

Carry Out Leadership 

Responsibilities 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

According to the act, agencies are to take various actions with regard to 

performance measures. Specifically, agencies are to

• develop performance measures that demonstrate how electronic 

government enables progress toward agency objectives, strategic 

goals, and statutory mandates;

• consider measuring performance in customer service, agency 

productivity, and adoption of innovative information technology; and

• link their performance goals as appropriate to key groups, including 

citizens, businesses, and other governments and to internal federal 

government operations.

Related to the requirements, OMB has instructed agencies that 

performance measures that are both citizen- and productivity-related 

must be linked with each agency’s Annual Performance Plan and its 

Strategic Plan, and be used to meet agency objectives, strategic goals, 

and statutory mandates in e-government and IT. Performance measures 

help agency officials to focus on mission and key activities, demonstrate 

the impact of their budget requests, demonstrate benefits to the public, 

and help to inform and support program-level management decisions.

All of the 24 agencies in our study reported developing performance 

measures to demonstrate how e-government initiatives enable progress 

toward meeting their mission (e.g., agency objectives, strategic goals, 

and statutory mandates). For example, agencies provided links to their 

enterprisewide IT goals, including e-government, within their agencywide 

and IT strategic plans. Specifically, one agency had performance 

measures for an e-government initiative that supported its goal to 

strengthen financial integrity and management and internal controls. This 

initiative is responsible for managing, reconciling, and delivering timely 

and accurate reporting of grant and financial accounting data for over 160 

grant appropriations. Another agency’s IT strategic priorities included 

strengthening IT management capabilities through its electronic 

government initiatives to provide IT tools, services, and repositories, 

along with worldwide access to information and systems, both internally 

and to external partners. Further, one agency reported that it had 

developed performance measures that demonstrate how e-government 

enables progress toward meeting its mission to expand disaster 

assistance resources and international trade data.

Agencies Established 

Performance Measures, but 

Challenges Remain 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

Additionally, to demonstrate how electronic government helped them to 

achieve agency goals, agencies were required to describe in their fiscal 

year 2011 E-Gov Act reports to OMB how they were reducing errors in 

electronic submissions through agency-sponsored e-government 

initiatives. For example, http://www.grants.gov is the federal government 

website that provides information on over 1,000 grant programs awarded 

by 26 grant-making agencies and other federal grant-making 

organizations. An agency reported that the website reduced application 

submission error rates by performing data validation checks, based on 

information in agencies’ application packages, to ensure that the required 

field in the application forms has been appropriately populated. Further, 

another agency reported that, through its electronic data collection 

system, it had reduced respondent burden and improved internal 

efficiencies by reducing the cost of printing, mailing, collecting, and data 

conversion of paper forms.

All 24 agencies also reported that they tracked customer satisfaction in a 

number of ways, including through the use of agency scorecards and the 

American Customer Satisfaction survey index.14

Twenty-three agencies reported that they had developed measures of 

agency productivity. For example, one agency reported examples of 

using technology for reducing the cost of transactions, improving 

compliance with government requirements (e.g., public health and 

safety), enhancing national security by facilitating the sharing of 

information among authorized agencies, and providing access to more 

accurate, complete, and timely information.

Specifically, one agency 

reported that it tracked measures related to customer service, including 

satisfaction with the quality and service of products and agency program 

enrollees’ satisfaction compared against its industry standard.

Further, 22 agencies reported that they had developed performance 

measures for the adoption of innovative IT, including the appropriate use 

of commercial best practices. One agency’s strategic plan included a goal 

describing technology and innovation focusing on accelerating the 

development and adoption of new, effective programs, processes, and 

strategies. Specifically, these included implementing technology to 

 

14The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) is an economic indicator that 

measures the satisfaction of consumers across the United States.
 

Page 13 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

connect customers to data, resources, experts, and peers; supporting 

research and development of technology and other innovations; and 

supporting the development of technology to enhance accessibility for 

citizens with disabilities. Three agencies also had incorporated research, 

design, and development of emerging technologies within IT policy, while 

5 others had related goals and strategy measures within their IT strategic 

plan.

Twenty-three agencies reported linking performance measures to key 

groups, including citizens, businesses, and other governments, and to 

internal federal government operations. Moreover, in its fiscal year 2011 

E-Gov Status Report, OMB highlighted agencies’ accomplishments that 

improve citizen engagement related to the administration’s Open 

Government initiative.15 The report stated that the Open Government 

initiative embodies the spirit of the E-Government Act by ensuring public 

trust and establishing a system of transparency, public participation, and 

collaboration.16

Eighteen agencies said they planned to continue to work on developing 

performance measures for e-government. For example, one agency 

reported that this was an ongoing process that required staying alert to 

changes and evolution in technology, programs, and processes. Another 

agency described the need for tools to provide accurate performance 

information in a consistent and timely manner. The agency will address 

this by collaborating internally and communicating with the public to 

improve customer service.

OMB provided a few highlights of executive agency 

accomplishments regarding initiatives that provide access to the citizens. 

The agencies described initiatives that targeted various groups, including 

consumers, researchers, veterans, and students.

Although agencies have made progress in this area, in September 2011 

we reported on challenges that agencies faced with establishing e-

 

15OMB, M-10-06, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: 

Open Government Directive (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 2009). 

16Agency Open Government initiatives include promoting increased access to and 

innovation in utilizing government data resources, improving responses to Freedom of 

Information Act requests, and promoting greater citizen participation and collaboration in 

mission activities through new media applications. 
 

Page 14 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

government initiative performance measures.17

The E-Gov Act requires each agency to compile and submit to the 

Director of OMB an annual report on the status of its implementation of egovernment initiatives, compliance with the E-Gov Act, and how egovernment initiatives of the agency improve performance in delivering 

programs to constituencies. Furthermore, the act requires the Director of 

OMB to submit to Congress an annual E-Government status report. This 

report is required to contain (1) a summary of the information reported by 

agencies on the status of their implementation of the act, (2) information 

on the operation of the E-Gov Fund, and (3) descriptions of federal 

government compliance with other goals and provisions of the act. OMB 

has the authority to determine when and how agencies are to submit their 

annual reports.

Specifically, we reported 

that four E-Gov Fund projects had defined performance metrics that 

aligned with many, though not all, of their major goals and intended 

benefits. Although the E-Government Administrator (who also serves as 

the Federal CIO) announced the termination of two of the projects 

reviewed in May 2011, the two ongoing projects did not yet have fully 

defined metrics that aligned with all of the major goals and intended 

benefits. Thus, managers and stakeholders could not effectively assess 

project results and provide credible evidence of progress, which is 

particularly important in a resource-constrained environment. We 

recommended that GSA ensure that performance metrics that align with 

all project goals be developed for ongoing e-government projects. GSA 

concurred with the recommendations and stated that it would work to 

align goals and performance measures for E-Gov Fund projects that 

lacked such measures.

All of the 24 agencies have submitted annual reports to OMB. For 

example, in their fiscal year 2011 reports, agencies provided information 

required by OMB, such as descriptions and status of their top three egovernment IT accomplishments and information on their compliance with 

goals and certain provisions of the act. Specifically, this included 

information on how agencies have implemented the use of electronic 

signatures, utilized management tools to improve the dissemination of 

 

17GAO, Electronic Government: Performance Measures for Projects Aimed at Promoting

Innovation and Transparency Can Be Improved, GAO-11-775 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 

23, 2011). 

Agencies and OMB Submitted 

Annual E-Gov Reports, but 

Reports Could Benefit from 

Greater Transparency 
 

Page 15 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

and access to agency information by the public, and complied with 

Section 508 requirements.

Fifteen of the agencies stated that their e-government reports had value. 

For example, 7 agencies felt that the reports helped to highlight their 

annual e-government accomplishments, 3 agencies used them to 

evaluate how they were addressing act requirements, and 1 agency used 

them to cite effective e-government practices. However, the remaining 9 

agencies questioned the value of preparing and submitting the annual 

reports to OMB. For example, 1 agency reported that it did not use the 

report for internal program evaluation or management. In addition, 3 of 

these 9 agencies noted that preparing the reports required dedicated 

resources and working within short time frames, and that the reports 

duplicated information they had already provided to OMB through other 

means.

For its part, OMB has submitted its reports to Congress annually, as 

required by the act. However, it has not consistently met all of the 

reporting requirements. Specifically, while its reports have included 

summaries of the information reported by agencies and information on 

the operations of the E-Gov Fund, they have not always addressed all 

goals and provisions of the act. For example, from fiscal year 2005 to 

fiscal year 2010, OMB did not report on agencies’ progress in promoting 

the use of electronic signatures. Further, the agencies were not required 

by OMB to report on how they enhanced public participation by electronic 

means for development and issuance of regulations from fiscal year 2006 

to fiscal year 2009, but were required to describe them from fiscal year 

2010 to fiscal year 2011. Moreover, since 2010, OMB did not fully 

address the accessibility, usability, and preservation of government 

information, including the organization and categorization of such 

information.

In discussing this matter, OMB officials said their guidance does not 

always require agencies to include all the provisions required by the act, 

and, accordingly, OMB does not fully report on these areas. Further, OMB 

officials stated that the reporting guidance they issue each year is 

determined by the administration’s priorities. For example, OMB has, in 

certain years, required the agencies to report on other accomplishments 

outside of the act, such as progress related to the administration’s Open 

Government initiative.

However, with the exception of fiscal year 2005, OMB did not include in 

its annual report to Congress any information to explain which particular 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

provisions of the act were not being addressed and why. In its fiscal year 

2005 E-Gov reporting instructions, OMB stated that to reduce the burden 

on agencies, it did not require agencies to report on certain provisions of 

the act related to privacy, since it could obtain the information through 

other means, such as agencies’ annual reporting on compliance with the 

Federal Information Security Management Act, which includes privacy 

reporting. Yet, OMB did not include such an explanation of its reporting 

for other years. Excluding such information limits the transparency of the 

E-Gov reports and, consequently, their value in informing Congress about 

actions taken to implement the act.

OMB, GSA, and other federal agencies have taken numerous actions to 

meet the E-Gov Act’s requirements for promoting the use of the Internet 

and other technologies for providing public access to government 

information and services. For example, agencies have been using GSA’s 

framework for electronic signatures and have contributed to the 

development and use of the federal Internet portal, http://www.USA.gov. 

In addition, OMB, GSA, and agencies have established mechanisms and 

published reports to identify disparities in Internet access and ways to 

provide such access to those who lack it. Further, agencies have 

addressed requirements for improving the transparency of and public 

involvement in the regulatory process. Agencies have also taken actions 

to improve the organization and categorization of government information 

by adhering to OMB guidance, following NARA guidance relating to 

government information on the Internet, sponsoring activities to engage 

the public in the development and implementation of policies and 

programs, and implementing OMB requirements for protecting the privacy 

of personal information collected through agency websites.

However, key areas of attention remain to accomplish the act’s purposes 

of promoting electronic government and use of other technologies. For 

example, while the federal government continues to take actions to 

improve transparency through various websites, we have reported on 

concerns with the accuracy and reliability of this information. Also, OMB 

has not met the act’s requirement for establishing a website and 

repository that are to provide information about research and 

development funded by the federal government, which would assist the 

public in tracking the government’s investment in basic research.

Federal Agencies 

Implemented Most 

Requirements for 

Promoting Use of the 

Internet and Other 

Technologies, but 

Continue to Work to 

Achieve the Act’s 

Purposes 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

The Senate Committee Report accompanying the E-Gov Act stressed the 

use of electronic signatures (e-signatures) to help promote access to 

government information by achieving the interoperable implementation of 

secure electronic transactions within government. An e-signature is a

method of signing a message that (1) identifies and authenticates a 

particular person as the source of the electronic message and (2) 

indicates that person’s approval of the information contained in the 

electronic message. The E-Gov Act directed the GSA Administrator, 

supported by the Director of OMB, to establish a framework that allows 

for efficient interoperability among executive agencies when using esignatures. It also authorized appropriations for GSA to ensure the 

development and operation of a federal bridge certification authority18

Table 1: E-Signature Requirements and Agency Responsibilities

for 

e-signature compatibility. Executive agencies were required to ensure 

that their methods for use and acceptance of e-signatures were 

compatible with the framework and related policies. Table 1 outlines 

these requirements and agency responsibilities.

Requirement

Agency 

responsibility

assigned 

Establish a framework to allow efficient interoperability among 

executive agencies when using electronic signatures, including 

processing of digital signatures.

GSA and 

OMB

Ensure the development and operation of a federal bridge certification 

authority for digital signature compatibility.

GSA

Ensure that methods for use and acceptance of electronic signatures 

are compatible with the relevant policies and procedures issued by the 

Director of OMB.

Executive 

agencies

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

GSA, OMB, and agencies have taken actions to address the 

requirements of this section of the act. Specifically, according to a GSA 

official, the agency established the Federal Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) 

in September 2002,19

 

18This refers to a unifying element to link otherwise unconnected agency certification 

authorities.

which included the federal bridge certification 

authority and common framework for e-signature compatibility authorized 

19Federal public key infrastructure uses a technique to authenticate users and data, 

protect the integrity of transmitted data, and ensure non-repudiation and confidentiality.

Agencies Are Using GSA’s 

Framework for Electronic 

Signatures and Have Plans 

for Expanding Their Use
 

Page 18 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

by the act. GSA has documented its efforts at 

http://www.idmanagement.gov, which provides information on electronic 

authentication, including links to information on the Federal PKI; the 

identity, credentialing, and access management initiative (formerly the eauthentication initiative); and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 

12.20

Through its fiscal year 2011 E-Gov report to Congress,21 OMB provided 

examples of how agencies were using e-signatures, which included 

processing travel documents, securing sensitive e-mail, and verifying 

information on financial disclosure forms. Additionally, one agency noted 

that it had ongoing efforts to implement provisions of the identity, 

credentialing, and access management initiative by accepting esignatures from other government agencies using the personal identity 

verification cards. Another agency indicated that it used an e-signature 

tool, developed and provided for free to the agency by GSA, in submitting 

comments for the Federal Register. Additionally, over half of the agencies 

in our study reported having plans to expand their use of e-signatures.

The E-Gov Act called for the establishment of a federal Internet portal to 

provide the public with consolidated access to government information 

and services from a single point, organized according to function, topic, 

and the needs of the public rather than agency jurisdiction. According to 

the act, to the extent practicable, the portal is to be designed and 

operated according to specific criteria. For example, the portal is to 

provide information and services directed to key groups (e.g., citizens, 

businesses, and other governments). It also is to make Internet-based 

services relevant to a given citizen activity available from a single point, 

and integrate information according to function or topic. Further, the portal 

is to consolidate access to federal information with Internet-based 

information and services provided by state, local, and tribal governments. 

Lastly, the act requires federal agency heads to support the efforts of 

GSA to develop, maintain, and promote an integrated Internet-based 

 

20This directive established a policy for a common identification standard for federal 

employees’ and contractors’ access to federal government buildings and IT systems.

21OMB, FY 2011 Report to Congress on the Implementation of The E-Government Act of 

2002 (Mar. 7, 2012). 

Federal Internet Portal Has 

Provided Benefits, but 

Challenges Remain
 

Page 19 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

system of delivering federal government information and services to the 

public via the federal Internet portal.

GSA and federal agencies have taken various actions to address this 

requirement. As we have previously reported,22

In January 2007, http://www.FirstGov.gov became http://www.USA.gov

because, according to GSA, it received feedback from the public that the 

website should have a name that was easier to understand and 

remember. Since that time, GSA has continued to maintain and promote 

the portal, adding increased functionality and new information. For 

example, it has expanded the search functionality on USA.gov and added 

information on mobile applications available for download that provide 

access to information on a variety of government services. According to 

GSA, USA.gov received over 55 million public visits in 2011 and currently 

is linked to over 13 million other sites.

OMB’s 2003 report to 

Congress identified http://www.FirstGov.gov as the federal Internet portal 

prescribed by the act, and we noted that it generally adhered to the 

criteria established by the act. The portal was launched in September 

2000 as an interagency initiative, managed by GSA and supported and 

assisted by OMB and federal agencies. With this support and assistance, 

GSA established the portal to provide the public with access to 

government information and services, and GSA has maintained and 

promoted it since that time. According to GSA, the portal was designed 

and organized according to online services rather than by agency. This 

allows the public to conduct business with the government via the Internet 

without having to know how the government is organized.

Almost all agencies in our review indicated that they use, maintain, and 

promote the use of USA.gov—a requirement of the act—primarily through 

links on their agency websites. GSA noted that it also works closely with 

staff in other agencies to push important information to the public through 

guest blog posts on http://www.Blog.USA.gov, targeted e-mail marketing, 

and the promotion of its most popular publications on 

http://www.Publications.USA.gov.

In addition to the effort to use and promote USA.gov, OMB has taken 

steps to improve transparency and participation through other federal 

 

22GAO-05-12. 
 

Page 20 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

websites. For example, in response to a Presidential memorandum 

issued on January 21, 2009, OMB issued an open government 

directive,23

http://www.data.gov

which, among other things, called for the transparency, 

participation, and collaboration of federal agencies in publishing 

government information online. As a result, citizens can now access 

consolidated government information through , 

http://www.itdashboard.gov, and http://www.USAspending.gov. While 

these websites can be accessed through USA.gov, they are not 

dependent on USA.gov. These websites are described in table 2.

Table 2: Websites Providing Government Information

Website Description

USA.gov The federal government’s official website that provides a centralized point of entry where the public can 

locate government information, benefits, and services. 

Data.gov This website is a platform that provides access to federal datasets, such as healthcare and unemployment. 

With a searchable data catalog, Data.gov helps the public find, access, and download non-sensitive 

government data and tools in a variety of formats.

IT Dashboard This website shows the government, the public, and other stakeholders how federal IT investments are being 

made by presenting information on the cost and schedule of agencies’ IT investments. By offering insight into 

the effectiveness of government technology programs, the IT Dashboard guides budget and policy decisions 

governing federal IT.

USAspending.gov This website provides information to the public largely from the Federal Procurement Data System, which 

contains information about federal contracts, and the Federal Assistance Award Data System, which 

contains information about federal financial assistance, such as grants, loans, insurance, and programs like 

Social Security.

Source: GAO analysis of USA.gov, Data.gov, the IT Dashboard, and USAspending.gov.

We have previously reported on federal websites and noted the benefits 

they provided by making additional federal government information 

available to the public, but also noted challenges that OMB and agencies 

faced related to them.24

www.itdashboard.gov

Specifically, in 2010 and 2011, we noted that the 

accuracy and reliability of data provided on www.USAspending.gov and 

needed to be improved and that OMB should 

 

23OMB, M-10-06.

24GAO, Electronic Government: Implementation of the Federal Funding Accountability and 

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

Technology: OMB Has Made Improvements to its Dashboard, but Further Work is Needed 

by Agencies and OMB to Ensure Data Accuracy, GAO-11-262 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 

15, 2011); and Electronic Government: Performance Measures for Projects Aimed at 

Promoting Innovation and Transparency Can Be Improved, GAO-11-775 (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 23, 2011).
 

Page 21 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

ensure complete reporting of information on these websites for a 

comprehensive view into the details of federal performance and spending 

for the public. We recommended that OMB and agencies take actions to 

ensure complete and accurate reporting of federal information on these 

websites. OMB and agencies generally concurred with our 

recommendations.

In addition, the federal government is facing challenges in managing 

federal agency websites. For example, according to a report published as 

part of the .gov Reform Initiative,25

The use of these websites illustrates how the Internet is allowing the 

public and government to access, deliver, and use services and 

information in ways that, while consistent with the goals of the E-Gov Act, 

are more varied than envisioned when the act was enacted. As the 

Internet evolves, individuals increasingly access information in multiple 

ways, such as through different search engines and links among sites. 

Altogether, these uses reflect a larger and more integrated network, and 

less reliance on a single portal for accessing government information.

56 agencies reported maintaining 

1,489 domains and an estimated 11,013 websites. The agencies 

acknowledged that by having fewer .gov domains, they could improve 

customer experience, promote consistency in design, eliminate 

duplication and clutter, and improve search results, thus providing easier 

access to information. The .gov Reform Initiative is aimed at addressing 

the state of federal websites by calling for agencies to improve customer 

service and manage their web operations more efficiently.

The E-Gov Act established two requirements aimed at enhancing the 

interoperability of information systems maintained by the federal 

government and reducing federal information collection burdens on the 

public. As a first requirement, the Director of OMB was to oversee a study 

and report to Congress on the integration of data elements collected

electronically by agencies under federal statutes that would increase 

interoperability, assist the public in electronically submitting information to 

agencies, and enable citizens to integrate information from different 

agencies. The second requirement called for OMB to designate up to five 

 

25This initiative was established as part of President Obama’s Campaign to Cut Waste 

and Executive Order 13571, Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer 

Service (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 27, 2011).

Report on Integrating 

Federal Information and 

Pilot Projects Completed 

by Deadline
 

Page 22 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

pilot projects to provide input for a study on describing progress toward 

integrating federal information systems across agencies.

OMB has taken actions to address these requirements. Specifically, in 

December 2005, OMB issued the results of its study, Report to Congress 

on Implementation of Section 212 of the E-Government Act of 2002, 

which described how it addressed the first requirement of this section of 

the act. For example, the report highlighted that the development and 

implementation of the Federal Enterprise Architecture26

The report also identified five lines of business that OMB stated served as 

the pilot projects to address the second requirement. These initiatives 

reflected President Bush’s goal to expand the use of electronic 

information in governmentwide functions: (1) case management, (2) 

federal health architecture, (3) grants management, (4) human resource 

management, and (5) financial management. The report highlighted the 

progress that the projects had made toward streamlining and improving 

data collection systems interoperability and public access to cross-agency 

information. Five separate agencies served as managing partners, with 

responsibility for providing leadership and management of the pilot 

projects. Other agencies served as participating members in the pilot 

projects and provided assistance through shared services. For example, 

they provided expertise in certain areas to peer agencies at rates lower 

than those of comparable private sector services.

has improved the 

exchange and use of data between multiple systems in order to enhance 

interoperability between agencies, assist the public in submitting 

electronic information to agencies, and enable people to integrate 

information from different agencies.

OMB provided updates to the five lines of business in its fiscal year 2012 

report to Congress on e-government benefits.27

www.grants.gov

For example, it noted that 

the grants management line of business had resulted in 

http:// , a single portal that enables the grants community 

 

26According to OMB, the Federal Enterprise Architecture is intended to facilitate 

governmentwide improvement through cross-agency analysis and identification of 

duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities for collaboration, interoperability, and 

integration within and across agency programs.

27OMB, Report to Congress on the Benefits of the President’s E-Government Initiatives, 

Fiscal Year 2012.
 

Page 23 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

to find and apply for grants, which has reduced or eliminated the need for 

separate systems across 26 agencies.

The E-Gov Act included requirements for OMB, GSA, and agencies to 

make government information more accessible to persons without access 

to the Internet and to persons with disabilities. Further, the act required 

OMB and GSA to complete studies on community technology centers and 

disparate access to government information on the Internet. Table 3 

identifies specific requirements in the act related to these areas.

Table 3: E-Gov Act Requirements Related to Disparate Access

E-Gov Act requirement Responsible agency

To the extent practicable, agency heads must consider the impact on persons without access to the Internet, 

ensure that the availability of government services and information has not been diminished for individuals 

who lack access to the Internet, and pursue alternate modes of delivery that would make the information and 

services more accessible to those who lack such access.

Federal agencies

All actions taken by agencies under the act are to be in compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies to ensure that their development, 

maintenance, and procurement of electronic and IT equipment takes into account the needs of people with 

disabilities to have access to and use of information that is comparable to that of individuals without 

disabilities. 

Federal agencies

The Administrator of the Office of E-Government is to ensure that a study is conducted to evaluate the best 

practices of community technology centers, which provide Internet access to the public, and submit a report 

to Congress on the findings of this study. 

OMB

The E-Gov Administrator, in consultation with other agencies, is to develop an online tutorial that explains 

how to access government information and services on the Internet.

OMB

GSA is to sponsor a study on disparities in Internet access for online government services. GSA

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.

Nearly all 24 agencies described actions they have taken when 

promulgating policies and implementing programs regarding government 

information and services over the Internet to (1) consider the impact on 

persons without access to the Internet, (2) ensure that the availability of 

government information and services was not diminished for individuals 

who lack access to the Internet, and (3) pursue alternate modes of 

delivery to individuals who do not own computers or lack access to the 

Internet. All of the agencies described actions they had taken to improve 

access to information, including the use of public events, television, 

telephone, newspapers, mail, and reading rooms for disseminating 

information about their programs, policy decisions, and activities. In 

addition, 12 agencies told us that they have plans to continue to improve 

access to the Internet for those who need it.

OMB, GSA, and Agencies 

Implemented 

Requirements to Address 

Access Limitations
 

Page 24 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

The E-Gov Act requires that all actions taken by agencies under the act 

be in compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies to ensure 

that the development, procurement, maintenance, or use of electronic 

and IT equipment takes into account the needs of people with disabilities. 

It also requires that agencies ensure that federal employees and 

members of the public with disabilities have access to and use of 

information and data that is comparable to the access of those without 

disabilities. For example, the act requires federal agencies developing 

websites to ensure that citizens with disabilities have equal access to the 

information on those websites.

In addition, in July 2010, OMB issued a memorandum to assist federal 

agencies with management and implementation of Section 508.28

All 24 agencies in our study provided examples of actions taken in 

accordance with Section 508. These include utilizing tools that improve 

accessibility of social media; documenting requirements for electronic 

documents; delivering Section-508-associated training; updating their 

websites; and developing agency-specific contract language to ensure 

accessibility is considered for IT projects. Six agencies also described 

having a Section 508 program office or coordinator to perform tasks, such 

as helping to ensure compliance with standards, exploring the 

implementation of technologies, and providing technical assistance to 

system developers. In addition, all 24 agencies reported using the 

standards developed by the United States Access Board for complying 

The 

purpose of this memorandum was to make agencies aware of existing 

resources and direct agencies to take stronger steps toward improving 

the acquisition and implementation of accessible technology. The 

memorandum stated that to ensure that persons with disabilities have 

equal access to their government, agencies must buy and use accessible 

electronic and IT equipment.

 

28OMB, Memorandum for Chief Acquisition Officers and Chief Information Officers: 

Improving the Accessibility of Government Information (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2010).

Agencies Implemented Actions 

to Ensure Accessibility of 

Information for Those with 

Disabilities
 

Page 25 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

with Section 508, and 18 responded that the standards ensured 

compliance and were adequate and helpful.29

The E-Gov Act required the Administrator of OMB’s Office of EGovernment to ensure that a study was conducted to evaluate the best 

practices of community technology centers, which provide computer and 

Internet access to the public, and submit a report to Congress on the 

findings of this study by April 2005. In addition, the act required the E-Gov 

Administrator, in consultation with other federal agencies, to develop an 

online tutorial that would explain how to access government information 

and services on the Internet.

To meet this requirement, OMB issued the results of its study, Section 

213 of the E-Government Act Report to Congress: Organizations 

Complementing Federal Agency Information Dissemination Programs, in 

April 2005. The report outlined promising practices of community 

technology centers and described their locations around the country. For 

example, the report noted that a promising practice adopted by some 

community technology centers was the implementation of programs 

providing comprehensive technology training and mentoring for high 

school students. Specifically, the report noted that students received 

intensive technology training in learning labs and worked in small teams 

to design, research, and complete multimedia projects. The report also 

identified a promising practice of creating summary performance reports 

of community technology centers that aligned with the goals of the act in 

providing access to government information. The report described 

successes and innovative practices as well as whether the centers met 

their goals.

Additionally, GSA launched nine online tutorials on December 4, 2007, on 

USA.gov, addressing the requirement to develop online tutorials that 

explain how to access government information and services on the 

Internet. According to OMB, each tutorial was specifically designed to 

teach visitors to the website how to access government information and 

 

29The United States Access Board is an independent federal agency devoted to 

accessibility for people with disabilities. Under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, the 

board was required to develop access standards for technology that will become part of 

the federal procurement regulations. In December 2000, the board issued these

standards, which include standards for making web pages accessible for persons with 

disabilities.

OMB Completed Study on 

Community Technology 

Centers, and Agencies Have 

Taken Actions to Promote 

Their Use
 

Page 26 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

services on the Internet. Examples of the tutorials that were launched 

include

• Get It Done Online with Government—provides instruction on how to 

complete government tasks online;

• Shop Government Auctions and Sales—gives directions on shopping 

for real estate, cars, gifts, and other items available from government 

auctions or stores;

• Find Government Benefits and Grants—offers information on finding 

government money available through benefits, grants, loans, and 

financial aid; and

• Locate In-Person Government Services Near You—provides 

instructions on finding contact information for local government 

offices.

The E-Gov Act required GSA to sponsor a study on disparities in Internet 

access for online government services. The study was to focus on the 

increase in online government services, and on whether the increase 

raised particular questions or concerns with respect to citizens who rely 

on government programs, but lack Internet access. GSA was to submit a 

report to Congress on the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of 

the study by December 2004.

Toward this end, GSA issued its report, Improving Access to the Internet: 

A Report to the Congress as required by the E-Government Act of 2002 

Section 215, in January 2005. The report discussed differences in 

Internet access and how these differences influenced the effectiveness of 

online government services. The report also provided recommendations 

focused on ensuring citizens’ access to government services and 

information, while supporting the benefits of online access to these

resources. According to GSA, after the report was issued, the Federal 

Communications Commission took over responsibility for this section of 

the act.

GSA Completed Study on 

Disparate Access 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

The E-Gov Act requires federal agencies, to the extent practicable, to 

electronically accept submissions of comments on proposed rules, among 

other things, and to make electronic dockets publicly available online.30

All of the agencies in our study have taken actions to address the 

requirements of this section by participating in 

Overall, this requirement is aimed at improving performance in the 

development of agency regulations by increasing access, accountability, 

and transparency, and enhancing public participation in the regulatory 

process.

http://www.regulations.gov. 

This website allows the public to search for and submit comments on 

proposed regulations and provides the public access to electronic 

dockets.31

www.regulations.gov

In its fiscal year 2011 E-Gov Report, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, as the managing partner for this initiative, stated that 

the public had submitted 505,000 comments through 

. 

In addition to using this federal governmentwide docket management 

system, OMB and certain agencies have taken other actions to improve 

the development and issuance of agency regulations and public 

participation in this process. For example,

• In April 2010, OMB issued a memorandum, Increasing Openness in 

the Rulemaking Process—Use of Regulation Identification Number, 

requiring agencies to use an identification number on all relevant 

documents throughout the entire life cycle of a rulemaking to make it 

easier for the public to find and view all online information relevant to 

the regulatory docket.

• In May 2010, OMB issued another memorandum, Increasing 

Openness in the Rulemaking Process—Improving Electronic Dockets, 

 

30The “regulatory” or “rulemaking” process refers to the procedures federal agencies 

follow under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) to develop, issue, 

and amend regulations (also called rules). Regulations are used to provide more details to 

implement statutory requirements. They generally are published as proposed rules for 

public notice and comment in the Federal Register, and when issued as final rules, have 

the force and effect of law. 

31A docket is a collection or repository of documents related to a rulemaking or other 

action.

Agencies Implemented 

Requirements to Improve 

Public Access to and 

Participation in the 

Development of 

Regulations 
 

Page 28 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

providing guidance to agencies for compiling and maintaining 

comprehensive electronic regulatory dockets on www.regulations.gov. 

• In November 2010, the eRulemaking Program32

www.regulations.gov

issued a best 

practices document for federal agencies. This best practices 

document is intended to improve public access to regulatory 

information and encourage public participation through 

. 

Lastly, the Department of Labor reported in its fiscal year 2011 E-Gov 

report that it has developed a new website that provides the public a 

central point to learn more about the regulatory process and specific 

Department of Labor regulatory activities and facilitates access to 

regulatory material.

The E-Gov Act requires the Director of OMB to issue policies directing 

agencies to use standards to enable the organization and categorization 

of government information; define categories of government information; 

and determine priorities and develop schedules for the initial 

implementation of the standards by agencies. Agencies are required to 

report to the Director of OMB on their compliance with these policies 

through their annual E-Gov reports.

To assist in the implementation of this requirement, OMB issued 

memorandum M-06-02 on December 16, 2005,33 which, among other 

things, required agencies to organize and categorize their information 

intended for public access, make it searchable across agencies, and 

describe how they use formal information models to assist with their 

dissemination activities. Accordingly, all of the agencies in our study 

provided examples of how they fulfilled the requirements of OMB’s 

memorandum in their 2006 annual E-Gov reports.34

 

32The eRulemaking Program is an interagency project based in the Environmental 

Protection Agency. The development and implementation of 

For example, one 

https://www.regulations.gov

is also the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

33OMB, M-06-02, Improving Public Access to and Dissemination of Government 

Information in Using the Federal Enterprise Architecture Data Reference Model

(Washington, D.C.: December 16, 2005).

34Three out of the 24 agencies’ fiscal year 2006 annual E-Gov Act reports were not 

available.

OMB Has Issued Policies 

on the Organization and 

Categorization of 

Government Information
 

Page 29 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

agency reported that it redesigned its website to provide the public with 

better access to information. Another agency reported that it organized 

available information in certain categories on its website and analyzed 

website usage and feedback to ensure the public is obtaining access to 

the information on the website in an efficient manner.

The act requires NARA to issue policies that call for agencies to apply the 

Federal Records Act35

Toward this end, NARA and all 24 agencies have taken actions to 

address these requirements. For example, NARA issued Bulletin 2006-

02

to government information on the Internet and to 

other electronic records. Additionally, agencies are required to report 

annually to OMB on compliance with the policies issued by NARA.

36 on December 15, 2005, which provided agencies an approach for 

improving the management of electronic records. According to the 

bulletin, agencies are to, among other things, identify and schedule37 all 

electronic records, and agencies must have NARA-approved records 

schedules for all records in their existing information systems.38

All of the 24 agencies have reported on their compliance with Bulletin 

2006-02 by describing NARA-approved records schedules, and providing 

a brief explanation of their progress implementing the bulletin. For 

example, one agency noted in its fiscal year 2011 E-Gov Act report that it 

had reported 85 electronic systems to NARA and that 9 of the systems 

were scheduled, while 2 had pending schedules.

 

35The Federal Records Act, largely codified in 44 U.S.C. Chapters 21, 29, 31, and 33, 

requires federal agencies to ensure the management and preservation of records needed 

to document their organization, operations, and other activities. NARA oversees agency 

compliance with the act, including by reviewing agency plans and schedules for 

preserving temporary and permanent records.

36NARA Bulletin 2006-02: NARA Guidance for Implementing Section 207(e) of the EGovernment Act of 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2005). 

37Scheduling is the process by which an agency obtains NARA approval for the 

disposition of agency records when agency business need for the records ceases.

38An electronic information system is a system that contains and provides access to 

computerized federal records and other information.

NARA and Agencies Have 

Implemented 

Requirements to Preserve 

Electronic Records
 

Page 30 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

However, as we have previously reported,39 electronic records from social 

media can create challenges in determining who has control over the 

information and how and when content should be captured for recordkeeping. We noted that NARA had not yet developed guidance on 

effectively capturing records from social media sites and recommended 

that NARA develop such guidance. The agency agreed with the 

recommendation.

The act requires the Director of OMB to promulgate guidance for agency 

websites to include direct links to descriptions of the mission and statutory 

authority of the agency; certain information made available to the public 

under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); information about the 

organizational structure of the agency; and the strategic plan of the 

agency. This also requires agencies to establish a process for 

determining which government information they intend to make publicly 

available through the Internet and by other means. Agencies were to, 

among other things, develop priorities and schedules for making 

government information available and accessible to the public. Further, 

the Director of OMB, working with agencies, is required to establish a 

public domain directory of federal government websites and post the 

directory on the Internet with a link to the federal Internet portal.

OMB and all of the agencies in our study have taken actions to address 

these requirements. For example, OMB issued memorandum M-05-04 on 

December 17, 2004,40

 

39GAO, Social Media: Federal Agencies Need Policies and Procedures for Managing and 

Protecting Information They Access and Disseminate, 

providing guidance for federal agency public 

websites. Among other guidance in this memorandum, OMB called for 

agencies to establish and maintain information dissemination product 

inventories, priorities, and schedules; ensure information quality; and 

establish and enforce agencywide linking policies describing 

management controls for linking to information within and beyond the 

agency. All 24 agencies complied with this requirement and provided links 

GAO-11-605 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 28, 2011).

40OMB, M-05-04: Policies for Federal Agency Public Websites (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 

17, 2004). 

OMB and Agencies 

Implemented 

Requirements for AgencySpecific Information on 

Websites
 

Page 31 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

to where this information could be found.41

Lastly, through 

In addition, in their 2006 EGov reports to OMB, one agency explained that it prioritized items to be 

published on its website based on the time sensitivity of the information 

and another agency formed a work group to help develop a standardized 

information architecture to support and enable the most effective and 

efficient delivery of agency information on the website.

www.USA.gov, GSA established a directory of public 

federal government websites. Specifically, the directory is organized 

alphabetically by each federal agency’s name, and the directory contains 

contact information for each agency, such as a link to the agency’s 

website, the agency’s phone number, and the agency’s physical address. 

OMB, GSA, and agency actions to fulfill these requirements have 

enhanced the public’s ability to find information about specific agencies’ 

mission and activities.

The act requires agencies to sponsor activities that use IT to engage the 

public in the development and implementation of policies and programs. 

Accordingly, all 24 agencies in our review reported sponsoring such 

activities. For example, 13 agencies reported expanding their use of 

social media to promote more dialogue with the public and to reach a 

larger audience of stakeholders. These included the use of external blogs 

with comments and other feedback tools that allow the public to provide 

input on agency policies and programs, Twitter accounts, or YouTube 

channels. Six agencies also used the GSA-sponsored IdeaScale42

website to solicit the public’s opinions on what information the 

government should make more publicly accessible as part of the 

President’s Open Government initiative.

 

41Examples of this information can be found at 

http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/about/inventory or 

http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/information_inventories_schedules.html. 

42IdeaScale is a social dialogue tool used to gather public responses for various electronic 

forums across the federal government. 

Agencies Sponsored 

Activities Using IT to 

Engage the Public in the 

Development and 

Implementation of Policies 

and Programs
 

Page 32 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

The act required the Director of OMB to develop guidance for privacy 

notices on agency websites used by the public and to issue guidance for 

agencies to translate privacy policies into a standardized machinereadable format.43

OMB has taken actions to meet these requirements. Specifically, in 

September 2003, it issued memorandum M-03-22 regarding the 

implementation of the act’s privacy provisions, which included privacy 

policies for agency websites.44

All of the 24 agencies in our study have posted privacy notices on their 

websites. For example, according to GSA, one agency has a 

comprehensive privacy policy that clearly explains how that agency will 

handle personal information collected over the Internet. Another agency 

has developed a web standards handbook that requires all of the 

agency’s websites, including those of components, to comply with laws 

and directives that require protection of the privacy of the agency’s 

website visitors.

Among the requirements outlined in this 

memorandum, OMB required agencies to inform website visitors 

whenever providing information is voluntary; how to grant consent for use 

of voluntary information; and how to grant consent to use mandatory

information for purposes other than statutorily mandated uses. This 

memorandum also required agencies to use machine-readable 

technology that alerts website users automatically about whether the 

website privacy practices match the user’s personal privacy preferences.

The act required the Director of OMB, in consultation with the President’s 

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and other relevant 

agencies, to ensure the development and maintenance of a repository 

that fully integrates, to the maximum extent feasible, information about 

research and development (R&D) funded by the federal government. It 

also calls for the development and maintenance of one or more websites 

upon which all or part of that repository is to be made available to and 

 

43Privacy policies in machine-readable formats are designed to be a simple, automated 

way for users to gain more control over the use of their personal information on websites 

they visit.

44OMB, M-03-22, OMB Guidance for Implementing the Privacy Sections of the EGovernment Act of 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 2003). 

OMB Has Issued Guidance 

on Privacy Notices for 

Agency Websites

OMB Has Not Fully 

Established a Required 

Research and 

Development Website
 

Page 33 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

searchable by federal agencies and the public. In addition, OMB is to 

issue guidance necessary to ensure that agencies provide all information 

for the repository.

However, OMB has not fully established the website for providing 

information on R&D funded by the government. In its fiscal year 2004 

annual E-Gov report, OMB reported that the federal government had 

funded two primary repositories for research and development 

information: RaDiUS and http://www.Science.gov. RaDiUS was intended 

to provide the public and agencies with information about federally funded 

R&D activities. Science.gov was to provide information on federal 

research through links to science websites and scientific databases. 

However, as we previously reported, RaDiUS and Science.gov were 

incomplete and not fully populated, in part, because OMB had not issued 

guidance to ensure that agencies had provided all information required for 

the repositories.45

In 2008, RaDiUS was decommissioned because, according to a senior 

official at the National Science Foundation, the data were incomplete, 

users had difficulty using it, and the database was built with antiquated 

technology. With regard to Science.gov, only 11 of the 24 agencies in our 

study46

In March 2012, OMB officials pointed to an R&D dashboard website being 

developed by OSTP as the site that is now expected to meet the act’s 

requirements. According to the OSTP Open Government Plan, the R&D 

dashboard website is expected to make it possible for anyone to track the 

government’s investment in basic research. Currently, the website 

provides information on federal investments in research and development 

from 2000 to 2009 for only two agencies.

reported providing research information to this site. Moreover, 2 

agencies in our study reported not being aware of any R&D repository.

47

 

45GAO, Information Security: Coordination of Federal Cyber Security Research and 

Development,

According to OMB, a timeline 

GAO-06-811 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2006).

46The Department of State, Department of the Treasury, General Services Administration, 

Office of Personnel Management, and the U.S. Agency for International Development 

reported that they do not fund research and development activities.

47The R&D dashboard currently provides information on federal investments in research 

and development from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science 

Foundation from 2000 to 2009.
 

Page 34 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

has not yet been developed for when all agencies are to provide 

information for the R&D dashboard being developed, and guidance has 

not been issued for agencies to upload their information into the website.

In the absence of an integrated website for providing the public with 

centralized access to the government’s investment in basic research and 

guidance to inform agencies about the website, the public does not have 

access to a fully integrated website with information on R&D investment 

funding, as intended by the act.

In the 10 years since enactment of the E-Gov Act, OMB, GSA, NARA, 

and federal agencies have taken many actions to implement its 

requirements to promote the use of the Internet and other information 

technologies to improve government service delivery and operations, and 

public participation in government. OMB and the federal CIO Council 

have provided leadership in implementing the act, such as issuing 

guidance, providing coordination, and disseminating knowledge. In 

addition, federal agencies have made organizational changes such as 

establishing e-government offices or positions, disseminating internal 

policy and guidance, and developing performance measures. In these 

respects, e-government activities have become integrated to a significant 

degree into agency business processes.

Nonetheless, while agencies and OMB have reported annually on 

implementation of the act’s requirements, these reports have not always 

included information on each provision of the act, and have sometimes 

included information on other, related initiatives, such as Open 

Government, that were higher administration priorities. While OMB’s 

actions reflect reasonable steps to help reduce the burden on agencies 

and highlight administration priorities, it has not been explicit in 

communicating to Congress about such changes in priorities and 

provisions that it is not reporting on and the reasons why, resulting in 

reduced transparency.

OMB, GSA, and agencies have also taken actions to implement most of 

the specific requirements of the act for promoting the use of the Internet 

and other information technologies, such as implementing the use of 

electronic signatures, maintaining and promoting USA.gov, implementing 

policies for improving the accessibility and usability of government 

electronic information, and facilitating public participation in the 

rulemaking process. As a result, the act has contributed to increased 

public access to government information and services, although 

Conclusions 
 

Page 35 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

challenges remain in providing consolidated access to government 

information and services, which the .gov Reform Initiative is aiming to 

address. Finally, because OMB has not established a timeline or provided 

guidance for reestablishing the required repository to integrate 

information on agency investments in research and development, the 

public’s access to centralized information about the government’s 

investment in it is not provided as called for by the act.

To further progress toward the E-Government Act’s goal of promoting 

better use of the Internet and other information technologies to improve 

government services to citizens, internal government operations, and

opportunities for citizens’ participation in government, we recommend that 

the Director of OMB direct the Administrator of the Office of EGovernment to take the following three actions:

• identify in its annual E-Gov reports to Congress the provisions of the 

act that are not discussed in the report, and the reasons why, 

including when certain activities may no longer be a priority;

• develop a timeline for reestablishing the research and development 

repository and website; and

• provide guidance to agencies on their participation in the research 

and development repository.

We provided copies of the draft report for review and comment by OMB, 

NARA, and the 24 executive branch agencies in our study. A paralegal 

specialist in OMB’s Office of General Counsel, responding via e-mail on 

behalf of the Office of E-Government and Information Technology, stated 

that the office had no comment regarding the draft report. Also, in a 

written response (reprinted in appendix II), the Archivist of the United 

States said that NARA had no comments on the draft report. Among the 

other agencies, 19 responded via e-mail that they had no comments 

regarding the draft report. One agency—the Department of Interior—

provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

Three of the agencies—the Departments of Commerce, the Treasury, 

and Housing and Urban Development—provided written comments on 

the report, while one agency—the Department of Agriculture—provided 

comments via e-mail. These comments are summarized below.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 36 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

• The Acting Secretary of Commerce stated that the department 

concurred with our findings as they apply to the requirements of 

the E-Gov Act and achievements of the department in meeting 

those requirements. Commerce’s comments are reproduced in 

appendix III. 

• Treasury’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information Systems 

and Chief Information Officer stated that the department had no 

comments on the report, but that it appreciated GAO’s efforts in its 

development. Treasury’s comments are reproduced in 

appendix IV. 

• HUD’s Chief Information Officer said that the department reviewed 

the draft report and had no comment. The official added that the 

department remains committed to the standards established by 

the E-Gov Act of 2002. HUD’s comments are reproduced in 

appendix V. 

• A management analyst in the Office of the Chief Information 

Officer wrote, on behalf of Agriculture, that the department 

concurred with the report’s findings. The department included 

examples of actions it is taking to implement the administration’s

digital strategy through a cross-functional team representing not 

only traditional IT lines of business but also web managers and 

digital communications personnel. To successfully meet the 

requirements, the department stated that it recognizes the 

importance of working not only with enterprise technology, 

architecture, and security, but with communications personnel 

who understand customer preferences and needs. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional 

committees, the Director of OMB, the Archivist of the United States, and 

the heads of the 24 executive branch agencies in our review. In addition, 

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

http://www.gao.gov. 
 

Page 37 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

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

contact me at (202) 512-6304 or by e-mail at melvinv@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs are on 

the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix VI. 

Valerie C. Melvin

Director

Information Management and Technology Resources Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

Our objectives were to (1) assess the Office of Management and 

Budget’s (OMB) and agencies’ efforts to fulfill the requirements of the EGovernment Act of 2002 (E-Gov Act) to establish leadership and 

organizational responsibilities and (2) evaluate agencies’ progress in 

meeting the act’s requirements to enhance public access to government 

information and services.

To address these objectives, we identified and reviewed selected 

requirements of the act relevant to each objective, along with their 

legislative history. Specifically, for our first objective, we identified 

requirements from Titles I and II of the act that address leadership and 

organizational responsibilities assigned to OMB, the federal Chief 

Information Officers (CIO) Council, and executive branch agencies. 

These requirements were found in sections 101 (Office of Electronic 

Government, CIO Council, and E-Government Report) and section 202 

(general responsibilities, performance integration, CIOs, and egovernment status reports) of the act. For our second objective, we 

identified selected sections of the act containing requirements aimed at 

enhancing public access to government information and services and the 

federal organizations responsible for meeting them. These requirements 

were found in Sections 202 (avoiding diminished access, accessibility to 

people with disabilities, and sponsored activities), 203 (electronic 

signatures), 204 (federal Internet portal), 206 (regulatory agencies), 207 

(accessibility, usability, and preservation of government information 

including categorizing of information, public access to electronic 

information, agency websites, and access to federally funded research 

and development), 208 (privacy protections on agency websites), 212 

(integrated reporting and pilot projects), 213 (community technology 

centers), and 215 (disparities in access to the Internet). We did not 

include certain provisions in our study, either because we had conducted 

relevant previous work, such as on the E-Gov Fund,1

To determine the extent to which OMB and agencies had met these 

requirements, we did the following:

or because the 

provision warranted a separate or more detailed analysis than could be 

included in this study, such as Section 205 on the federal courts.

 

1

GAO, Electronic Government: Performance Measures for Projects Aimed at Promoting 

Innovation and Transparency Can Be Improved, GAO-11-775 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 

23, 2011).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

• Collected and reviewed documentation on OMB actions to meet 

leadership responsibilities, such as OMB’s E-Gov implementation 

plan, policies and guidance, and annual OMB E-Gov reports 

submitted to Congress, and met with officials from OMB’s Office of 

Electronic Government to discuss actions the office has taken.

• Collected and reviewed documentation on federal CIO Council actions 

taken to meet its responsibilities, such as issuance of best practices 

and guidance to agencies on meeting requirements of the act, and 

met with the Co-Chair of the federal CIO Council to discuss actions 

that council has taken to meet its responsibilities.

• Interviewed the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Associate 

Administrator of E-Government to discuss specific E-Gov Act 

responsibilities of GSA, such as establishing a framework for the use 

of electronic signatures.

• Administered a questionnaire to officials tasked with E-Gov 

responsibilities at 24 major executive branch agencies,2

• Conducted semi-structured interviews with officials from the 24 

agencies to confirm responses to the questionnaire and obtain 

additional supporting documentation and information and analyzed 

officials’ responses to determine the agencies’ current status in 

implementing the requirements of the act.

requesting 

information and supporting documentation on actions taken to meet 

requirements of the act, including, among other requirements, 

developing e-government performance measures, avoiding 

diminished access, supporting the federal Internet portal, and 

developing and utilizing electronic signatures. We reviewed the 

documentation received. We also asked agencies to provide input and 

feedback on the support received from OMB, GSA, the National 

Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the CIO council in 

carrying out e-government activities.

 

2

These agencies were 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; the Environmental Protection Agency; General Services Administration; 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science Foundation; Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission; Office of Personnel Management; Small Business 

Administration; Social Security Administration; and the U.S. Agency for International 

Development.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

• Collected and analyzed the contents of available annual E-Gov status 

reports for each of the 24 agencies.

• Reviewed our 2004 report on the implementation of the act to obtain 

information on the status at that time of certain provisions included in 

the study.3 We also reviewed other relevant GAO reports related to egovernment, social media, and information technology management 

reform.4

• Interviewed officials from NARA’s records management office 

regarding actions taken to implement provisions of the act dealing 

with electronic records management.

Our study was aimed at determining whether the agencies in our review 

had complied with requirements of the act, and did not include a 

comprehensive assessment of all actions agencies may have taken to 

carry out e-government responsibilities.

We conducted our work from October 2011 to September 2012 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.

 

3

GAO, Federal Agencies Have Made Progress Implementing the E-Government Act of 

2002, GAO-05-12 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 2004).

4

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

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

Technology: OMB Has Made Improvements to its Dashboard, but Further Work is Needed 

by Agencies and OMB to Ensure Data Accuracy, GAO-11-262 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 

15, 2011); Social Media: Federal Agencies Need Policies and Procedures for Managing 

and Protecting Information They Access and Disseminate, GAO-11-605 (Washington, 

D.C.: June 28, 2011); and Electronic Government: Performance Measures for Projects 

Aimed at Promoting Innovation and Transparency Can Be Improved, GAO-11-775 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 2011).
Appendix II: Comments from the National 

Archives and Records Administration

Page 41 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

Appendix II: Comments from the National 

Archives and Records Administration
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 42 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Commerce
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of the Treasury

Page 43 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of the Treasury
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development

Page 44 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 45 GAO-12-782 E-Government Act of 2002 

Valerie C. Melvin (202) 512-6304, or melvinv@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, key contributions were made to 

this report by Cynthia J. Scott (assistant director), Virginia Chanley, James 

Crimmer, Jr., Nancy Glover, Ashfaq Huda, Lee McCracken, David 

Plocher, Eric Trout, and Christy Tyson 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(310974)
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.