Electronic Government: Success of the Office of Management and Budget's 25 Initiatives Depends on Effective Management and Oversight
Released: 2003-03-13T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Government agencies at all levels have already implemented a broad array of e-government applications: through the Internet, government agencies collect and disseminate information and forms; government and businesses order and pay for goods and services; and businesses and the public apply for licenses, grants, and benefits, and submit bids and proposals. Despite this substantial progress, the federal government has not yet taken full advantage of the potential that electronic government offers. As we have previously testified, the government faces significant challenges in this area, including sustaining executive leadership, protecting personal privacy, implementing appropriate security controls, using enterprise architectures effectively, and managing IT human capital.

Recognizing the magnitude of challenges facing the federal government, the Congress has enacted important legislation to guide the development of e-government. In 1998, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) was enacted, establishing a requirement that by October 21, 2003, federal agencies provide the public, when practicable, the option of submitting, maintaining, and disclosing required information electronically. More recently, the Congress passed the E-Government Act of 2002, which includes provisions to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide government services electronically; strengthen agency information security; and define how to manage the federal government’s growing IT human capital needs. In addition, this act established an Office of Electronic Government within OMB to provide strong central leadership and full-time commitment to promoting and implementing e-government.

The executive branch has also acted to enhance and accelerate the development of electronic government. The President made e-government expansion one of five top priorities in his fiscal year 2002 management agenda, which outlines a number of specific electronic government projects. For example, the FirstGov Web portal—which is intended to serve as a single consolidated source for government services to citizens— was targeted for expansion and improvement to offer services better organized according to citizens’ needs. Also targeted for enhancement was the FedBizOpps portal, designed to be a single point of entry for information about federal government procurement opportunities. Further, the agenda endorsed the establishment of a federal public key infrastructure to ensure that electronic transactions with and within the federal government would be private and secure.

A major element of the President’s management agenda was establishment of the Quicksilver Task Force, which was charged with identifying (1) systematic barriers that had blocked the deployment of e-government advances and (2) electronic government projects that could deliver significant productivity and performance gains across government.

Together, the federal government’s e-government initiatives are expected to provide high-quality customer services regardless of whether the citizen contacts the agency by phone, in person, or on the Web; reduce the expense and difficulty of doing business with the government; cut government operating costs; provide citizens with readier access to government services; increase access for persons with disabilities to agency Web sites and E- government applications; and make government more transparent and accountable.

The 25 E-Government Initiatives Address a Broad Range of Electronic Services

In its e-government strategy, released in 2002, OMB stated that the 25 e- government initiatives were selected on the basis of (1) value to citizens, (2) potential improvement in agency efficiency, and (3) likelihood of deploying within 18 to 24 months. The selected initiatives would achieve their results by simplifying and unifying agency work processes and information flows, providing one-stop services to citizens, and enabling information to be collected on line once and reused, rather than being collected many times.

The initiatives are aimed at providing a wide variety of services. For example, some are focused on setting up Web sites or portals that channel information more effectively to citizens, businesses, or other government entities. Recreation One-Stop is one such example, a Web portal for a single point of access to information about parks and other recreation venues at the federal, state, and local levels. One-Stop Business Compliance provides an analogous service to businesses, giving them a single Web site to consult regarding the multitude of government regulations that may affect their activities. Other initiatives strive for more ambitious services that may not necessarily rely on the Internet for delivery. SAFECOM, for example, seeks to impose order and standards on wireless communications among emergency responders across all levels of government. The e-Payroll initiative is intended to consolidate the federal government’s many incompatible payroll systems into just two that would service all government employees.

As shown in figure 1, OMB has divided these efforts into five broad categories that reflect the different customer groups targeted by each of the initiatives: 1. government to individual citizens, 2. government to business, 3. government to government, 4. internal efficiency and effectiveness, and 5. cross cutting.

Government to individual citizens. One of the major benefits of on-line and Internet-based services is that they provide opportunities for greater citizen access to and interaction with the federal government. An example is GovBenefits.gov, a Web site designed to assist users in locating and determining potential eligibility for government benefits and services. Other initiatives in this category aim to improve customer service. USA Services, for example, is intended to deploy tools, such as call centers and coordinated E-mail systems linked to the FirstGov Web site, that will enable citizens to ask questions and receive responses from the federal government without having to know in advance which specific departments or bureaus have responsibilities related to their areas of interest.

Government to business. Initiatives in this category seek to reduce the reporting burden on businesses by adopting processes that eliminate redundant data collection, provide one-stop access to information, and enable communication using electronic business standards, such as the Extensible Markup Language. The Expanding Electronic Tax Products for Businesses initiative, for example, seeks to reduce the number of tax- related forms businesses must file. The Federal Asset Sales initiative aims to create a single electronic interface for businesses to find and buy government assets.

Government to government. The primary goal of these initiatives is to enable federal, state, and local governments to more easily work together to better serve citizens within key lines of business. For example, Geospatial One-Stop seeks to provide a single portal for accessing standardized and coordinated federal, state, and local geospatial data. The Disaster Management initiative seeks to provide federal, state, and local emergency managers on-line access to disaster management information, planning, and response tools.

Internal efficiency and effectiveness. The initiatives in this category seek to improve the performance and reduce the costs of federal government administration by using e-business best practices. For example, the Integrated Acquisition Environment initiative seeks to consolidate business processes and information to facilitate cost-effective acquisition of goods and services across the federal government. Lastly, e-Travel is planned to streamline the administration of government travel by creating a governmentwide Web-based travel management process.

Cross-cutting initiative. The e-Authentication initiative is to develop common interoperable authentication techniques to support all the other initiatives. Authentication refers to the critical process of confirming the identity of the participants in an electronic transaction. Without a means to satisfactorily establish identities, e-government transactions are too risky, and the potential of e-government to transform citizen services remains severely constrained. The initiative plans to provide authentication services through an electronic “gateway,” which will offer different assurance levels to meet the varying needs of the other projects.

Management Issues Highlight the Need for Oversight

While several of the projects have already achieved tangible results, not all of them are making the same degree of progress. For example, some have had major management changes—management of the SAFECOM initiative, for example, was transferred from Treasury to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Major management changes such as this have led to delays in project milestones and changes in objectives.

We believe that fluctuations such as these indicate a need for oversight to ensure that the larger goal—to realize the full potential of e-government— is not jeopardized. When we reviewed project-planning documentation collected by OMB from each of the initiatives, we found indications that important aspects of some of the initiatives had not been addressed and that, for many of them, funding strategies and milestones were in a state of flux. These findings add urgency to our concern that the initiatives be carefully monitored to ensure that implementation challenges are identified and addressed as quickly as possible. I would like to go through some of the specific results of our analysis now.

Many Initial Business Cases Omitted Critical Elements

As part of OMB’s selection process, the Quicksilver task force screened over 350 project ideas during the summer of 2001 and selected 34 potential project proposals for more in-depth consideration. In September 2001, task force members developed brief (or “mini”) business cases for each of the 34 proposals. According to OMB officials, these mini business cases were to include all the information necessary to enable sound selection decisions. The task force reviewed the mini business cases and the final selections were made in October.

We analyzed the mini business cases, which were prepared for 23 of the 25 initiatives, to determine whether they were complete. To conduct our analysis, we first identified e-government business case “best practices” as cited by federal agencies, private sector and academic researchers, and state and local governments. From these sources, we compiled the most frequently cited elements of a complete business case, such as a description of the proposed concept for improved future processes and a discussion of the benefits of implementing it. We also included elements identified by OMB as important to e-government business cases—whether an initiative is driven by identified customer needs and whether it contains a strategy for successful collaboration.

As shown in figure 2, our analysis of the mini business cases showed that although they addressed some of the required elements, the majority of them did not include some key elements identified by OMB and best practice guidance.

All the business cases we reviewed included a discussion of the expected benefits of the proposed initiative, and all but one included a discussion of the initiatives’ objectives and planned future conditions. However, only 9 of the 23 initiatives’ business cases discussed how customer needs were to be identified and addressed, and only 8 addressed collaboration among agencies and other government entities, even though OMB considered these elements fundamental to its e-government strategy.

Mr. Chairman, addressing how a proposed project links to the needs of its potential customers is key to the success of that project, and should be discussed in the project’s business case. Without a plan to assess users’ needs, there is a greater risk that the project will focus too heavily on issues that customers do not consider important or disrupt processes that are already working well and accepted by users. In the case of the e- government initiatives, the result could be that the Internet sites and services created might not be useful to those customers they are intended to serve.

Collaboration across agencies and other organizations is likewise a key component of most of the initiatives, and therefore a discussion of strategies for collaboration is essential to a complete e-government business case. As the government attempts to integrate services across organizations—particularly in cases where federal agencies overlap in providing similar services to customers—the issue of how agencies collaborate can determine an initiative’s success or failure. To help mitigate the risk of failure, the business case needs to provide a convincing argument that collaboration can be accomplished and a plan for how collaboration will be carried out.

Let me point out that the initial “mini” business cases that we reviewed are not the latest ones in existence for the 25 initiatives. More extensive business cases were developed for each of the projects in fall 2002, in conjunction with the fiscal year 2004 budget process. We have not yet had an opportunity to review these documents.

Spring 2002 Project Plans Revealed Cost and Schedule Uncertainties

OMB required the managing partners of the e-government initiatives to prepare and submit work plans and funding plans in May 2002. We assessed the completeness of these plans, which provided the most up-to- date cost and schedule information available at the time of our review. To conduct our analysis, we identified best practices from GAO and OMB guidance for the effective oversight and implementation of IT projects and compared those best practice elements to the information contained in the May 2002 plans. In addition, several months later, we obtained updated status information from 23 of the initiatives’ project managers.

According to the guidance we reviewed, project implementation documents should include components such as cost estimates, a schedule with milestones, identification of project deliverables, and an overall strategy for obtaining needed funding and staff resources.

As shown in figure 3, four of the five best practice elements we identified were included in a majority of the project plans. Plans for all but two of the initiatives contained a schedule with milestones, and all the plans identified project deliverables. However, other best practice elements were not included in some of the plans. For example, only 9 identified a strategy for obtaining needed funds, and only 16 contained information about how staffing commitments would be obtained.

In addition to the findings shown in figure 3, our analysis of the plans showed uncertainties about milestones for many of the initiatives. Ten of the 24 did not identify a final completion date for the initiatives, resulting in inadequate information to determine whether they were moving forward in a timely manner. Further, 6 of the initiatives were not planned to be completed within the 18 to 24 month time frame originally established by OMB as a criterion for inclusion in its e-government effort.

Accurate cost information was also generally lacking. The updated information we obtained from project managers in September 2002 on estimated costs revealed significant changes—changes of more than 30 percent—for about half of the initiatives. These changes, occurring within such a short period of time, rendered the funding plans outdated soon after they were developed. This uncertainty about how much the initiatives would cost, combined with the fact that only 9 of the 24 plans identified a strategy for obtaining these needed funds, led us to conclude that OMB was not receiving adequate information to properly oversee the e-government projects and ensure that they would have the resources to meet their objectives efficiently and economically.

Given the challenges we’ve identified, OMB’s oversight role takes on critical importance. Each of the e-government initiatives needs a well- thought-out strategy for directly addressing its biggest challenges, such as getting relevant government agencies to effectively collaborate. And each also needs detailed and stable project plans, so that they can be held accountable for achieving realistic results within budget and according to schedule. Accordingly, in our report, we recommended that OMB take steps as overseer of the e-government initiatives to reduce the risk that the projects would not meet their objectives. Specifically, we recommended that OMB ensure that the managing partners for all the initiatives focus on customers by soliciting input from the public and conducting user needs assessments, work with partner agencies to develop and document effective provide OMB with adequate information to monitor the cost, schedule, and performance of the e-government initiatives.

In following up on our recommendations, we requested from OMB updated business cases that were submitted as part of the fiscal year 2004 budget process. These updated business cases should provide not only indications of whether key topics such as collaboration and customer focus are now being addressed, but also updated cost and schedule information. As noted in our report, OMB agreed to provide us this information once it was updated after release of the 2004 budget. However, we have not yet received this information. OMB officials (from the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) stated earlier this week that the business cases still needed to be reviewed before they could be released to us.

In summary, e-government offers many opportunities to better serve the public, make government more efficient and effective, and reduce costs. Legislation such as GPEA and the E-Government Act of 2002 have laid a strong foundation for building on these opportunities, and the federal government continues to make strides in taking advantage of them. Overall, few can argue that the 25 e-government projects are not worthy initiatives with commendable objectives. Nevertheless, many critical details remain to be fully addressed before the promise of e-government is fully realized.

Because the 25 projects represent such a broad range of activities, it is difficult to gauge their progress collectively. Some of their objectives may be much easier to attain than others. However, our review of the initial planning documents associated with the projects led us to conclude that important aspects—such as collaboration and customer focus—had not been thought out for all the projects, and major uncertainties in funding and milestones were not uncommon. Priority should now be given to ensuring that the agencies managing these initiatives tackle these issues and gain cost and schedule stability so that they can ultimately succeed in achieving their potential. We believe that careful oversight—on the part of OMB as well as the Congress—is crucial to ensuring this success.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have at this time.

Contact and Acknowledgements

If you should have any questions about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-6222 or via E-mail at willemssenj@gao.gov. Other major contributors to this testimony included Shannin Addison, Barbara Collier, Felipe Colón, Jr., John de Ferrari, Neha Harnal, and Elizabeth Roach.

Attachment I. E-Government Initiatives

Description Provides citizens with a single point of access to a Web- based resource, offering information and access to government recreational sites in a user-friendly format.

OMB-reported performance metrics Number of partners sharing data via Recreation.gov (target: 35 partners added) in Recreation.gov (target: 25% increase)

Provides a single point of access for citizens to locate and determine potential eligibility for government benefits and services.

Hits to site per month (target: 350,000) partner benefit sites (target: 10% increase) benefits and determine eligibility (target: 20 minutes or less)

Creates a single point of access for citizens to locate loans.

Description Develops and deploys governmentwide citizen customer service using industry best practices that provides citizens with timely, consistent responses about government information and services.

OMB-reported performance metrics Average time to respond to inquiries through Firstgov.gov and Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC) (target: 100% of inquiries responded to within 24 hours) inquiries through Firstgov.gov and FCIC wide inquiries that call center and E-mail systems can handle (target: 3.3M calls per year and 150,000 emails peryear)

Customer satisfaction Percentage of coverage of tax filing public (target: minimum of 60%)

Creates a single point of access to free on-line preparation and electronic tax filing services. Allows citizens to access and participate in the rulemaking process through a cross- agency front-end Web application. electronically (target: 15% increase)

Description Reduces the number of tax- related forms that businesses must file, provides timely and accurate tax information to businesses, increases the availability of electronic tax filing, and models simplified federal and state tax employment laws. Creates a single, one-stop access point for businesses to find and buy government assets. Makes it easy for small and medium enterprises (SME) to obtain the information and documents needed to conduct business abroad.

OMB-reported performance metrics Burden reduction for corporations per return, application filed, or both federal government per return filed Employer Identification Number (EIN)—interim EIN granted immediately tax-related transactions (all forms)

Description Reduces the burden on businesses by making it easy to find, understand, and comply with relevant laws and regulations at all levels of government.

OMB-reported performance metrics Time savings for business compliance and filing (target: 50% reduction) savings through transition to compliance from enforcement through automated processes (target: 25% increase) for issuing permits and licenses permits and licenses (target: within 24 hours) page views (target: 10– 20% increase)

Adopts a portfolio of existing health information interoperability standards enabling all agencies in the federal health enterprise to communicate based on common enterprisewide business and information technology architectures. Provides federal and state agencies with a single point of access to map- related data, enabling consolidation of redundant data.

Description Creates a single, on-line portal for all federal grant customers to access and apply for grants.

Provides federal, state, and local emergency managers on-line access to disaster management- related information and planning and response tools.

Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, the Interior, Labor, State, the Treasury, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs; Appalachian Regional Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Communications Commission, General Services Administration, Interstate Commerce Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S. Postal Service, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Small Business Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geological Survey (target: reduce by 15%) planning capability (target: improve by 25%) responders using disaster management information system tools (target: increase by 10%)

Description Provides interoperable wireless solutions for federal, state, and local public safety organizations and ensures they can communicate and share information as they respond to emergency incidents. Establishes common electronic processes for federal and state agencies to collect, process, analyze, verify and share birth and death record information. Also promotes automating how deaths are registered with the states. Provides a single point of on-line training and strategic human capital development solutions for all federal employees.

Time for state to report death to Social Security Administration (target: 15 days)

Time to verify birth and death entitlement factors (target: 24 hours)

Description Outsources delivery of USAJOBS Federal Employment Information System to deliver state-of- the-art on-line recruitment services to job seekers that include intuitive job searching, on-line resume submission, applicant data mining, and on-line feed-back on status and eligibility. Streamlines and automates the exchange of federal employee human resources information. Replaces official paper employee records.

Streamlines and improves the quality of the current security clearance process.

Description Consolidates 22 federal payroll systems to simplify and standardize federal human resources/payroll policies and procedures to better integrate payroll, human resources, and finance functions. Provides a common governmentwide end-to-end travel service that rationalizes, automates, and consolidates the travel process in a self-service Web- centric environment, covering all aspects of travel planning, from authorization and reservations to expense reporting and reimbursement.

OMB-reported performance metrics Payroll cost per transaction per employee (target: in line with industry averages) disbursements, post payroll interfaces, and periodic reporting trip (target: in line with industry averages)

Creates a secure business environment that will facilitate and support cost- effective acquisition of goods and services by agencies, while eliminating inefficiencies in the current acquisition environment.

Description Provides policy guidance to help agencies to better manage their electronic records, so that records information can be effectively used to support timely and informed decision making, enhance service delivery, and ensure accountability.

Minimizes the burden on businesses, public and government when obtaining services on line by providing a secure infrastructure for on- line transactions, eliminating the need for separate processes for the verification of identity and electronic signatures.

Attachment II. Selected GAO Products Related to Electronic Commerce and Electronic Government

Electronic Commerce

Internet Gambling: An Overview of the Issues. GAO-03-89. Washington, D.C.: December 2, 2002.

International Electronic Commerce: Definitions and Policy Implications. GAO-02-404. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2002.

Electronic Commerce: Small Business Participation in Selected On-line Procurement Programs. GAO-02-1. Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2001.

On-Line Trading: Investor Protections Have Improved but Continued Attention Is Needed. GAO-01-858. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2001.

Internet Pharmacies: Adding Disclosure Requirements Would Aid State and Federal Oversight. GAO-01-69. Washington, D.C.: October 19, 2000.

Sales Taxes: Electronic Commerce Growth Presents Challenges; Revenue Losses Are Uncertain. GGD/OCE-00-165. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2000.

Commodity Exchange Act: Issues Related to the Regulation of Electronic Trading Systems. GGD-00-99. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2000.

Trade with the European Union: Recent Trends and Electronic Commerce Issues. GAO/T-NSIAD-00-46. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 1999.

Electronic Banking: Enhancing Federal Oversight of Internet Banking Activities. GAO/T-GGD-99-152. Washington, D.C.: August 3, 1999.

Electronic Banking: Enhancing Federal Oversight of Internet Banking Activities. GAO/GGD-99-91. Washington, D.C.: July 6, 1999.

Securities Fraud: The Internet Poses Challenges to Regulators and Investors. GAO/T-GGD-99-34. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 1999.

Retail Payments Issues: Experience with Electronic Check Presentment. GAO/GGD-98-145. Washington, D.C.: July 14, 1998.

Identity Fraud: Information on Prevalence, Cost, and Internet Impact is Limited. GAO/GGD-98-100BR. Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1998.

Electronic Banking: Experiences Reported by Banks in Implementing On-line Banking. GAO/GGD-98-34. Washington, D.C.: January 15, 1998.

Electronic Government— Agency-Specific Initiatives

IRS’s 2002 Tax Filing Season: Returns and Refunds Processed Smoothly; Quality of Assistance Improved. GAO-03-314. Washington, D.C.: December 20, 2002.

Tax Administration: Electronic Filing’s Past and Future Impact on Processing Costs Dependent on Several Factors. GAO-02-205. Washington, D.C.: January 10, 2002.

GSA On-Line Procurement Programs Lack Documentation and Reliability Testing. GAO-02-229R. Washington, D.C.: December 21, 2001.

U.S. Postal Service: Update on E-Commerce Activities and Privacy Protections. GAO-02-79. Washington, D.C.: December 21, 2001.

Computer-Based Patient Records: Better Planning and Oversight By VA, DOD, and IHS Would Enhance Health Data Sharing. GAO-01-459. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2001.

USDA Electronic Filing: Progress Made, But Central Leadership and Comprehensive Implementation Plan Needed. GAO-01-324. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2001.

Information Security: IRS Electronic Filing Systems. GAO-01-306. Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2001.

U.S. Postal Service: Postal Activities and Laws Related to Electronic Commerce. GAO/GGD-00-188. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2000.

U.S. Postal Service: Electronic Commerce Activities and Legal Matters. GAO/T-GGD-00-195. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2000.

Defense Management: Electronic Commerce Implementation Strategy Can Be Improved. GAO/NSIAD-00-108. Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2000.

Food Stamp Program: Better Use of Electronic Data Could Result in Disqualifying More Recipients Who Traffic Benefits. GAO/RCED-00-61. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2000.

National Archives: The Challenge of Electronic Records Management. GAO/T-GGD-00-24. Washington, D.C.: October 20, 1999.

National Archives: Preserving Electronic Records in an Era of Rapidly Changing Technology. GAO/GGD-99-94. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 1999.

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure: Status of Labor’s Efforts to Develop Electronic Reporting and a Publicly Accessible Database. GAO/HEHS-99-63R. Washington, D.C.: March 16, 1999.

Acquisition Reform: NASA’s Internet Service Improves Access to Contracting Information. GAO/NSIAD-99-37. Washington, D.C.: February 9, 1999.

Tax Administration: Increasing EFT Usage for Installment Agreements Could Benefit IRS. GAO/GGD-98-112. Washington, D.C.: June 10, 1998.

Electronic Government— General

Electronic Government: Selection and Implementation of the Office of Management and Budget’s 24 Initiatives. GAO-03-229. Washington, D.C.: November 22, 2002.

Electronic Government: Proposal Addresses Critical Challenges. GAO-02- 1083T. Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2002.

Information Management: Update on Implementation of the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments. GAO-02-493. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2002.

Information Technology: OMB Leadership Critical to Making Needed Enterprise Architecture and E-government Progress. GAO-02-389T. Washington, D.C.: March 21, 2002.

Electronic Government: Challenges to Effective Adoption of the Extensible Markup Language. GAO-02-327. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002.

Information Resources Management: Comprehensive Strategic Plan Needed to Address Mounting Challenges. GAO-02-292. Washington, D.C.: February 22, 2002.

Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation. GAO-02-3. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.

Electronic Government: Better Information Needed on Agencies’ Implementation of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. GAO-01- 1100. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001.

Electronic Government: Challenges Must Be Addressed With Effective Leadership and Management. GAO-01-959T. Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2001.

Electronic Government: Selected Agency Plans for Implementing the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. GAO-01-861T. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2001.

Information Management: Electronic Dissemination of Government Publications. GAO-01-428. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2001.

Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments. GAO-01-378. Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2001.

Regulatory Management: Communication About Technology-Based Innovations Can Be Improved. GAO-01-232. Washington, D.C.: February 12, 2001.

Electronic Government: Opportunities and Challenges Facing the FirstGov Web Gateway. GAO-01-87T. Washington, D.C.: October 2, 2000.

Electronic Government: Government Paperwork Elimination Act Presents Challenges for Agencies. GAO/AIMD-00-282. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2000.

Internet: Federal Web-based Complaint Handling. GAO/AIMD-00-238R. Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2000.

Federal Rulemaking: Agencies’ Use of Information Technology to Facilitate Public Participation. GAO/GGD-00-135R. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2000.

Electronic Government: Federal Initiatives Are Evolving Rapidly But They Face Significant Challenges. GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-00-179. Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2000.

Information Technology: Comments on Proposed OMB Guidance for Implementing the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. GAO/AIMD- 99-228R. Washington, D.C.: July 2, 1999.

Electronic Signatures

Bank Regulators’ Evaluation of Electronic Signature Systems. GAO-01- 129R. Washington, D.C.: November 8, 2000.

Electronic Signature: Sanction of the Department of State’s System. GAO/AIMD-00-227R. Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2000.

Internet

Internet Management: Limited Progress on Privatization Project Makes Outcome Uncertain. GAO-02-805T. Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2002.

Telecommunications: Characteristics and Competitiveness of the Internet Backbone Market. GAO-02-16. Washington, D.C.: October 16, 2001.

Telecommunications: Characteristics and Choices of Internet Users. GAO-01-345. Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2001.

Telecommunications: Technological and Regulatory Factors Affecting Consumer Choice of Internet Providers. GAO-01-93. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2000.

Department of Commerce: Relationship with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. GAO/OGC-00-33R. Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2000.

Privacy

Internet Privacy: Implementation of Federal Guidance for Agency Use of “Cookies.” GAO-01-424. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2001.

Record Linkage and Privacy: Issues in Creating New Federal Research and Statistical Information. GAO-01-126SP. Washington, D.C.: April 2001.

Internet Privacy: Federal Agency Use of Cookies. GAO-01-147R. Washington, D.C.: October 20, 2000.

Internet Privacy: Comparison of Federal Agency Practices with FTC’s Fair Information Principles. GAO-01-113T, Washington, D.C.: October 11, 2000.

Internet Privacy: Comparison of Federal Agency Practices with FTC’s Fair Information Principles. GAO/AIMD-00-296R. Washington, D.C.: September 11, 2000.