Government Transparency: Efforts to Improve Information on Federal Spending
Published: 2012-07-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: It is important to ensure the transparency of information detailing how the federal government spends more than $1 trillion annually in the form of contracts, grants, loans, and other awards. Toward this end, the government has multiple initiatives under way to increase such transparency, including publicly accessible websites providing information on federal spending, such as http://www.USAspending.gov and http://www.Recovery.gov. While these efforts have increased the amount of information available, challenges have been identified to better ensure the quality of data on these sites.
GAO was asked to provide a statement addressing (1) the status of efforts to improve the quality of publicly available data on government awards and expenditures and (2) lessons that can be learned from the operation of Recovery.gov that can contribute to other spending transparency efforts. In preparing this statement, GAO relied on its previous work in these areas, as well as discussions with OMB officials and officials from the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other federal agencies have taken steps to improve federal spending data available on USAspending.gov. This effort to publicly display comprehensive data arose from the federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which required OMB to establish a free, publicly accessible website containing data on federal awards and subawards. OMB launched USAspending.gov in December 2007 to meet these requirements. As GAO reported in 2010, while OMB had satisfied most of the requirements associated with the act, such as establishing the site with required data elements and search capability, it had only partially satisfied the requirement to establish a pilot program to test the collection and display of subaward data and had not met the requirements to include subaward data by January 2009, or to report to Congress on the sites usage. Also, GAO found that from a sample of 100 awards on USAspending.gov, each award had at least one data error and that USAspending.gov did not include information on grants from programs at 9 agencies for fiscal year 2008. Subsequently, OMB and agencies have taken steps to improve the site and the quality of its data through increased agency-level accountability and government-wide improvements. These efforts include directing agencies to appoint a senior-level official to be accountable for the quality of federal spending information disseminated on public websites, and increasing the use of automated tools. However, OMB has not yet implemented plans to create a data quality dashboard on USAspending.gov and has produced only one of the required annual reports to Congress on usage of the site.
OMB, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, federal agencies, and funding recipients addressed several challenges in managing reporting under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Recovery.gov was established in 2009 to provide public access to information on Recovery Act spending. Specifically, it was to provide timely information on projects or activities funded by federal grants, contracts, or loans provided to recipients, such as state or local governments. The transparency envisioned by the act was unprecedented for the federal government, and GAO identified a number of lessons learned from the operation of Recovery.gov:
OMB and the Recovery board used two-way communication with recipients to refine and clarify guidance.
Training and other assistance was provided to recipients to clarify reporting requirements and address early system problems.
After early reporting and quality issues were identified, OMB required agencies to ensure data accuracy and completeness.
Recipients made errors in reporting data, but these could be reduced through pre-populating data fields and other refinements to the reporting process.
Recent legislative proposals and a newly created executive branch board aim to expand and improve upon the transparency of federal spending. The challenges and lessons learned from implementing the existing reporting tools should help inform current and future efforts. In particular, attention should be given to stakeholder involvement, the effort required for reporting and oversight, and the need for clear objectives and priorities.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO previously made several recommendations to improve these transparency efforts, including that OMB clarify guidance on reporting award data and develop a procedure to ensure agencies report required information. While GAO is not making new recommendations at this time, it underscores the importance of fully implementing its prior recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss federal efforts to increase the  transparency of information detailing federal awards and expenditures. As  you know, the federal government makes more than $1 trillion in awards  annually in forms that include contracts, grants, loans, and other awards.  Since 2006, several efforts have been initiated to provide the public with  more specific information on these awards. For example, the government  currently operates several websites that provide access to detailed  information on federal spending, including http://www.USAspending.gov  (USAspending.gov) and http://www.Recovery.gov (Recovery.gov).  However, as you noted in a recent request to us to evaluate spending  transparency, while these sites represent important advances in  government transparency, challenges have been identified to better  ensure the quality of data on these sites.
My testimony today will address two topics: (1) the status of efforts to  improve the quality of publicly available data on government awards and  expenditures and (2) lessons that can be learned from the operation of  Recovery.gov that can contribute to other spending transparency efforts.  The statement is based on our prior work on USAspending.gov and  Recovery.gov. We also reviewed reports by the Office of Management  and Budget (OMB) and federal departments and agencies and discussed  spending transparency with officials from OMB and the Recovery  Accountability and Transparency Board. We conducted our work in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards or  with our quality assurance framework, as appropriate. Those standards  require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate  evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on  our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: OMB and Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve Federal Spending Data
paragraphs: The first federal effort to publicly display comprehensive data on federal  awards was USAspending.gov. Among other things, the Federal Funding  Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) required OMB to  establish a free, publicly accessible website containing data on federal  awards no later than January 1, 2008. In addition, OMB was required to  include data on subawards by January 1, 2009. The act specified a  number of required data fields, including the recipient’s name, funding  agency, amount of award, and a descriptive title. The act also authorized  OMB to issue guidance and instructions to federal agencies for reporting  award information and requires agencies to comply with that guidance.  OMB launched USAspending.gov to meet the act’s requirements, relying  primarily on federal sources of information.
In 2010, we reported on compliance with FFATA’s requirements. In that  report we presented several key findings, including:    OMB had satisfied six of the act’s nine requirements we reviewed and  partially satisfied another, but did not satisfy two requirements (see  appendix II for details). For example, OMB established the publicly  searchable website–USAspending.gov–in December 2007. The site  included the required data elements and search capabilities, and  OMB guidance required periodic updates from agencies consistent  with the act’s requirement for timeliness. OMB partially satisfied the  act’s requirement to establish a pilot to test the collection of subaward  data. Although it started pilots at two agencies, they were initiated  after the date provided for in the act. Also, OMB had not satisfied the  provision requiring the inclusion of subaward data on the website by  January 2009 or the provision regarding periodic reporting to  Congress.   Although USAspending.gov included required grant information from  29 agencies for fiscal year 2008, it did not include grant information  from 15 programs at 9 other agencies. The unlisted awards were  made by large agencies, including the Department of the Treasury  and General Services Administration, and smaller agencies such as  the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and Japan-U.S. Friendship  Commission. We reported that incomplete reporting by agencies was  due in part to OMB not implementing a process to identify agencies  that did not report required award information and stated that without  such a process, it risked continued data gaps that limited the  usefulness of the site.
In a sample of 100 awards from USAspending.gov that we reviewed,  each had at least one data error in a required field, consisting of either  a blank data field, an inconsistency between the USAspending.gov  data and agency records, or a lack of sufficient agency information to  determine consistency. In 73 of the sampled awards, 6 or more of the  17 required data fields exhibited an error. Agency officials attributed  the lack of sufficient information, in part, to procedures and systems  that did not include documenting all of the data required by FFATA.  For those awards where we had enough information to judge  sufficiency, the data field with the most inconsistencies was the award  title, which often lacked necessary specificity. This weakness was  attributed, in part, to the lack of specific guidance from OMB and to  the lack of tools to identify incomplete reports. We reported that until  OMB addressed these issues, the ability of the public to find  requested information and of OMB to correct errors would be limited.
To address these findings, we made several recommendations to the  Director of OMB. For example, we recommended that OMB revise its  guidance to agencies to clarify that award titles should describe the  purpose of each award and how agencies should validate and document  their submitted data. We also recommended that OMB develop and  implement a plan to collect and report subaward data, as well as a  procedure to regularly ensure that agencies report required award  information. OMB generally agreed with our findings and  recommendations.
Since we last evaluated FFATA compliance, OMB has taken steps to  improve USAspending.gov and the quality of its data through increased  agency-level accountability and government-wide improvements. First, in  OMB’s 2009 Open Government Directive, agencies were directed to  designate a high-level senior official to be accountable for the quality of,  and internal controls over, federal spending information disseminated on  public websites. A list of the agency-designated officials appears on  USAspending.gov. Subsequently, in an April 2010 memorandum to senior  accountable officials, OMB required agencies to establish a data quality  framework for federal spending information, including a governance  structure, risk assessments, control activities, and monitoring program.  Agencies were directed to submit plans for addressing these  requirements to OMB. To address government-wide weaknesses, OMB  issued guidance to agencies on improving the quality of data in the  Federal Procurement Data System, a contract database that is one of the  main sources of USAspending.gov data. In addition, OMB’s April 2010  memo established a deadline for the agency collection of subaward data  and announced technical improvements to USAspending.gov, including a  move to a cloud computing environment, and a control board to  coordinate policies and systems that support the collection and  presentation of federal spending data. One result of these efforts is the  current availability of subaward data on USAspending.gov.
Agencies have also reported taking steps to improve their  USAspending.gov data. For example, automated tools have been  developed through interagency electronic government initiatives that are  expected to improve the quality of data on grants and cooperative  agreements by making it easier for agencies to regularly report their  awards. Additionally, individual agencies reported efforts to improve data  quality in open government plans released earlier this year. For example,  the Department of Commerce established a formal process to ensure that  all grant offices are reporting awards in a timely manner, and the General  Services Administration developed an "Information and Data Quality  Handbook" that contains a framework for consistent data management.  Agencies also reported ongoing efforts to improve data quality. For  example, the Department of Homeland Security plans to improve the  accuracy and timeliness of data posted on USAspending.gov by  promulgating best practices, and the Department of Transportation is  working with its components to develop memorandums of understanding  to ensure they meet quality assurance reporting guidelines.
While the steps discussed above could contribute to improvements in the  quality of spending data, their impact is not yet known because OMB’s  recent reporting on data quality and user feedback has been limited.  Specifically:    Previously available information on the timeliness and completeness  of agency-submitted data is no longer provided on USAspending.gov.  We previously reported that OMB maintained a page at  USAspending.gov that addressed the completeness of the agency- submitted data by field. That information is no longer available on the  site.
In its April 2010 memo, OMB discussed the creation of a dashboard  on USAspending.gov to track the timeliness, completeness, and  accuracy of agencies’ reported data. After establishing a baseline,  these data were to be updated quarterly. However, the  USAspending.gov site does not currently include such a dashboard.    OMB has produced only one of the required annual reports to  Congress that were to include data on usage of the site and public  feedback on its utility. In July 2010, OMB reported that  USAspending.gov had been used extensively by the public, and that it  had adopted or planned improvements based on user feedback.  However, OMB has not produced any subsequent reports, as required  by FFATA.
On July 13, 2012, officials with OMB’s Office of Federal Financial  Management told us that OMB no longer plans to rely on a public  dashboard to improve data quality. Instead, the officials said, OMB is  pursuing several other efforts, including ensuring the implementation of  the data quality framework established through its prior guidance and  identifying best practices for improving data quality. As we initiate work to  address your recent request on spending transparency, we will reassess  the quality of data on USAspending.gov, including the extent to which  agencies report award data, the accuracy of the data that are reported,  and the quality assurance processes used by agencies.
section_title: OMB and the Recovery Board Addressed Several Implementation Challenges with Recovery Act Recipient Reporting
paragraphs: As Congress and the administration crafted the American Recovery and  Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), they built into it provisions to  increase transparency and accountability over spending. It required  recipients of Recovery Act funds, including grants, contracts, or loans, to  submit quarterly reports with information on each project or activity,  including the amount and use of funds and an estimate of the jobs  created or retained. Similar to FFATA, the Recovery Act called for the  establishment of a website through which the public could gain easy  access to this information. Initial establishment of the website was to take  place 30 days after the Recovery Act’s enactment. The Recovery.gov site  was launched in 2009 to fulfill these requirements, and a second site— http://www.FederalReporting.gov—was established for recipients to report  their data. Recipients first reported in early October 2009 on the period  from February through September 2009, and reporting has continued for  each quarter since then.
The transparency envisioned under the Recovery Act for tracking  spending and results was unprecedented for the federal government.  Tracking billions of dollars disbursed to thousands of recipients promised  to be an enormous effort. Further, the need to get a system developed  and operating quickly added to the challenge, as did the fact that the  public would be able to access the system and form its own views as to  the system’s transparency. The system also needed to be operational  quickly for a variety of programs, across which even the basic question of  what constituted a project could differ. Given this daunting task, OMB and  the Recovery Board implemented an iterative process involving many  stakeholders that can provide insight into challenges and solutions for  establishing procedures to increase spending transparency.
As part of our oversight of the Recovery Act and in response to a  mandate to comment quarterly on recipient reporting, we issued a  number of reports addressing procedures related to recipient reporting  and the quality of data on Recovery.gov, and we made several  recommendations for improvements. Initially, we reported that a range of  significant reporting and data quality issues needed to be addressed; our  later reports, however, documented both progress and further  refinements needed, and progress in making them. Our  recommendations included that OMB clarify the definition of full-time  equivalent (FTE) jobs and encourage federal agencies to provide or  improve program-specific guidance for recipients. In general, OMB and  agencies acted upon our recipient reporting-related recommendations  and implemented changes in guidance and procedures.
subsections: section_title: OMB and Recovery Board Procedures and Guidance Evolved with Input from Recipients
paragraphs: Throughout the development of guidance and the early months of  implementing recipients reporting, OMB and the Recovery Board used  several opportunities for two-way communication with recipients. Early  on, OMB and Recovery Board officials held weekly conference calls with  state and local representatives to hear comments and suggestions from  them and share decisions made. State and local governments, with their  difficult fiscal situations, were concerned about being able to meet the  added reporting requirements, and the tight timeframes made this  particularly difficult. Federal officials heard the concerns and made  changes to their plans and related guidance in response.
For example, initial guidance in February 2009 began to lay out  information that would be reported on Recovery.gov and steps needed to  meet reporting requirements, such as including recipient reporting  requirements in grant awards and contracts. In response to requests for  more clarity, OMB, with input from an array of stakeholders, issued more  guidance in June 2009. The June guidance clarified requirements on  reporting jobs, such as which recipients were required to report and how  to calculate jobs created and retained. In December 2009, responding to  concerns regarding the calculation of FTEs, including some we  expressed, OMB issued further changes in guidance resulting in  simplified jobs-reporting guidance.
section_title: Assistance Was Available as Recipients Became Familiar with Reporting Procedures and Addressed Early System Problems
paragraphs: Recipients of Recovery Act funds needed to quickly learn reporting  requirements and develop procedures for meeting them. This was  particularly difficult for entities that had not previously received federal  funding and were not familiar with federal reporting requirements.  Outreach from OMB and the Recovery Board, including conference calls,  webinars, and websites, along with guidance were instrumental in  bringing recipients up to speed. In addition, agencies provided information  and training on reporting for their specific programs through conference  calls and webinars. States, as the prime recipients in many cases,  ensured that their own agencies and departments and their subrecipients  were informed as well by using various means of communications,  including conference calls, webinars, and websites. Finally, the Recovery  Board also maintained a help desk during the reporting period.
Even so, given the uncertainties and ongoing development of the new  systems, there were instances of systems going down and data rejections  that frustrated recipients. Some extensions were allowed and provisions  made for recipients to report and make adjustments to the data, except  for FTEs, after reporting closed.
section_title: With OMB Oversight, Agencies Took on the Key Role of Ensuring Data Accuracy and Completeness
paragraphs: After we reported that initially there were significant reporting and quality  issues, OMB issued guidance to federal agencies that incorporated  lessons learned from the first reporting period and addressed  recommendations we had made. Specifically, in December 2009, OMB  required agencies to identify significant errors, particularly in award  amounts, FTEs, federal award numbers, and recipient name. OMB also  provided guidance in identifying instances where recipients did not report.  As a result, federal agencies that awarded Recovery Act funds to states  generally developed internal policies and procedures for reviewing data  quality, as OMB required. At the ground level, agencies addressed  recipients’ quarterly reporting when performing their oversight of  Recovery Act recipients. Further, agencies also reviewed data centrally  and performed tests of reasonableness on recipient data by program.
OMB also required agencies to provide lists each quarter of those  recipients who did not report. Our discussions with agencies indicated  that agencies worked with these recipients to identify reasons they did not  report. Lists of those who did not report each quarter continue to be  available on Recovery.gov.
In our work evaluating recipient reporting under specific programs, we  found that agencies put considerable effort into ensuring accuracy and  completeness, but while the public transparency of Recovery Act  spending improved, the agencies often did not benefit much from such  recipient-reported data. Agency officials told us they already had much of  the information; their own systems provided information on award  amounts, funds disbursed, and, to varying degrees, progress being made  by grant recipients. However, officials at one agency, the Department of  Education, noted that the information obtained through recipient reporting  did provide them a useful indication of jobs funded for education  programs under the Recovery Act, information they otherwise did not  have.
Our work also identified some concerns with ensuring that descriptions of  awarded projects were adequately detailed in the information that  recipients reported. Data collected for Recovery.gov included narrative  information that provided the public with details such as the overall  purpose of the award and expected results. We found, for example, that  an estimated 25 percent of the descriptions of selected infrastructure- related awards met our transparency criteria of having sufficiently clear  and complete information on the award’s purpose, scope, and nature of  activities; location; cost; outcomes; and status of work. Another 68  percent partially met the criteria; and an estimated 7 percent provided  little or none of this information. In its September 2010 guidance, OMB  added a requirement for agencies to review the narrative fields of  recipient reports to better ensure transparency.
section_title: Additional Approaches Could Streamline Reporting and Oversight
paragraphs: Our analysis of the quality of recipient-reported data showed that  recipients made errors in reporting award identification numbers, amount  of awards, and other data that agencies already had, and that if those  items had been pre-populated for recipients, errors might have been  reduced. The award identification number was a particularly key data  element, since it was part of the mechanism to link awards across  quarters, yet recipient errors as small as leaving out a hyphen could result  in information not being able to be linked. Agencies identified other errors,  such as incorrect award amounts, by comparing data recipients reported  with data they had. It was time-consuming both to perform those  comparisons and to follow up with recipients to get them to fix the errors.  The Recovery Board eventually enabled recipients to “copy forward”  information reported in previous rounds and modify it as needed, which  helped prevent some errors. However, some agency officials suggested  that pre-populating these fields with agency data before recipients began  their reporting would have reduced the number of errors.
In addition, our work indicated that recipients sometimes were required to  report similar information into both agency reporting systems and  FederalReporting.gov. Agencies required more data in some cases to  manage their programs than was required on recipient reports and made  available on Recovery.gov. For example, Environmental Protection  Agency officials said that they needed project details that were not  available in Recovery.gov data for their Recovery Act water programs.  Similarly, the Department of Transportation preferred using its own data  because they were more detailed, and were reported monthly—more  frequently than the Recovery.gov data. While the time constraints of  implementing Recovery Act reporting made it difficult to consolidate data  collection and prevent collecting similar data from recipients more than  once, if more planning time was available to solve this issue, the burden  on recipients may have been reduced.
section_title: Initiatives to Improve Transparency Can Benefit from Lessons Learned
paragraphs: There are initiatives under way in Congress and the administration that  look to build on these two transparency efforts now in place. For example,  legislation has been passed in the House of Representatives and  introduced in the Senate to improve the accountability and transparency  of federal spending. In addition, in June 2011 the President issued an  executive order establishing the Government Accountability and  Transparency Board to provide strategic direction for, among other things,  enhancing the transparency of federal spending.
There are lessons from the implementation of both USAspending.gov and  Recovery.gov that can be applied to these new initiatives. Foremost,  consideration needs to be given to what objectives are to be achieved  and in what priority. As we have seen with both existing systems, success  hinges upon ensuring the data’s completeness and accuracy. Because it  is resource-intensive to ensure all data are reported and correct, it is  imperative to limit the data collected to only those essential elements.  Clear objectives are helpful in guiding such focus.
In addition, the input of federal agencies, recipients, and subrecipients  should be considered early in the development of both the system and its  procedures. Also, as the system is implemented, communicating  impending changes as soon as possible allows for better planning.   Finally, as a system rolls out, recipients will need help to learn how to  fulfill their reporting responsibilities.
Further related to the issue of involving all stakeholders is the need to  recognize the increased reporting and oversight effort required of  recipients and federal agencies, and to identify approaches that minimize  that effort.  For example, pre-populating data from federal agencies to  reduce the need for recipients to input those data could help with  accuracy, although agencies likely will need to continue to play a key role  in checking data quality.  - - - - -  In conclusion, there have been great strides in increasing the  transparency of federal awards since 2006. The USAspending.gov and  Recovery.gov websites offer the public a wealth of information on how  federal funds are spent. However, it is important that ongoing efforts to  improve the data provided to the public continue to evolve. We believe  having a strategic vision, ensuring data quality, allowing for input of ideas,  helping those who have to report, and minimizing reporting burdens can  improve the chances of success.
Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the  Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to  answer any questions that you may have.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Stanley J.  Czerwinski at (202) 512-6808 or czerwinskis@gao.gov or David A.  Powner at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. In addition, contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals who made key  contributions to this testimony are Carol Patey and James R. Sweetman,  Jr., Assistant Directors, Lee McCracken, and Kevin Walsh.
section_title: Appendix I: GAO Products Related to Recipient Reporting
paragraphs: Recovery Act: As Initial Implementation Unfolds in States and Localities,  Continued Attention to Accountability Issues Is Essential. GAO-09-580.  Washington, D.C.: April 23, 2009.
Recovery Act: States’ and Localities’ Current and Planned Uses of Funds  While Facing Fiscal Stresses. GAO-09-829. Washington, D.C.: July 8,  2009.
Recovery Act: Funds Continue to Provide Fiscal Relief to States and  Localities, While Accountability and Reporting Challenges Need to Be  Fully Addressed. GAO-09-1016. Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2009.
Recovery Act: Recipient Reported Jobs Data Provide Some Insight into  Use of Recovery Act Funding, but Data Quality and Reporting Issues  Need Attention. GAO-10-223. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2009.
Recovery Act: Status of States’ and Localities’ Use of Funds and Efforts  to Ensure Accountability. GAO-10-231. Washington, D.C.: December 10,  2009.
Recovery Act: One Year Later, States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds and  Opportunities to Strengthen Accountability. GAO-10-437. Washington,  D.C.: March 3, 2010.
Recovery Act: States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds and Actions Needed  to Address Implementation Challenges and Bolster Accountability. GAO- 10-604. Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2010.
Recovery Act: Increasing the Public’s Understanding of What Funds Are  Being Spent on and What Outcomes Are Expected. GAO-10-581.  Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2010.
Recovery Act: States Could Provide More Information on Education  Programs to Enhance the Public’s Understanding of Fund Use. GAO-10- 807. Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2010.
Recovery Act: Opportunities to Improve Management and Strengthen  Accountability over States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds. GAO-10-999.  Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2010.
Participants in SBA’s Microloan Program Could Provide Additional  Information to Enhance the Public’s Understanding of Recovery Act Fund  Uses and Expected Outcomes. GAO-10-1032R. Washington, D.C.:  September 29, 2010.
Recovery Act: Opportunities Exist to Increase the Public’s Understanding  of Recipient Reporting on HUD Programs. GAO-10-966. Washington,  D.C.: September 30, 2010.
Recovery Act: Head Start Grantees Expand Services, but More  Consistent Communication Could Improve Accountability and Decisions  about Spending. GAO-11-166. Washington, D.C.: December 15, 2010.
Recovery Act: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant  Recipients Face Challenges Meeting Legislative and Program Goals and  Requirements. GAO-11-379. Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2011.
Recovery Act: Funding Used for Transportation Infrastructure Projects,  but Some Requirements Proved Challenging. GAO-11-600. Washington,  D.C.: June 29, 2011.
Recovery Act: Funds Supported Many Water Projects, and Federal and  State Monitoring Shows Few Compliance Problems. GAO-11-608.  Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2011.
Recovery Act Education Programs: Funding Retained Teachers, but  Education Could More Consistently Communicate Stabilization Monitoring  Issues. GAO-11-804. Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2011.
Recovery Act:  Progress and Challenges in Spending Weatherization  Funds. GAO-12-195. Washington, D.C.: December 16, 2011.
Recovery Act: Housing Programs Met Spending Milestones, but Asset  Management Information Needs Evaluation. GAO-12-634. Washington,  D.C.: June18, 2012.
section_title: Appendix II: FFATA Requirements and GAO’s Assessment of Compliance as Reported in 2010
paragraphs: GAO’s assessment of compliance  Met  OMB launched USAspending.gov, a free,  publicly available website, in December  2007.  Met  The site captured information on all  required data elements, such as the entity  receiving the award and the award  amounts.  Met  The site allowed searches of data by all  required data elements and provided totals  for awards made as well as downloadable  data.  Met  The site included data for federal awards  made in fiscal year 2007 and later, as well  as limited data from previous years.  Met  To facilitate timeliness of data available on  the website, OMB guidance required  agencies to submit award data on the 5th  and 20th of each month.  Met  The site included a contact form for public  comments and suggestions.  Partially met  OMB commissioned two pilot programs for  collecting subaward data, one at the  General Services Administration that ran  from April 2008 to December 2008, and  one at the Department of Health and  Human Services that ran from October  2008 to November 2008. Both pilots were  begun after the July 2007 date specified in  the act.
FFATA Requirement Include subaward data no later than  January 1, 2009 (An 18-month extension  can be granted for subaward recipients that  receive federal funds through state, local,  or tribal governments if OMB determines  that compliance would impose an undue  burden on the subaward recipient.)
GAO’s assessment of compliance  Not met  Subaward data (e.g., subcontracts and  subgrants) were not yet available for  searching on USAspending.gov. FFATA  allows OMB to extend the deadline by 18  months for some subaward recipients.  However, according to OMB, there was no  official extension in place for reporting  subaward data at this time. In addition, as  of November 2009, OMB had not  developed a specific plan for collecting and  reporting subaward data.  Not met  OMB had not submitted the required  annual report to Congress containing (1)  data on the usage of and public feedback  on the site, (2) an assessment of the  reporting burden on award recipients, and  (3) an explanation of any extension of the  subaward deadline. According to OMB  officials, it was gathering the necessary  information and planned to issue a report in  2010.
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.