Electronic Government: Funding of the Office of Management and Budget's Initiatives
Released: 2005-05-25T00:00:00

Letter

Background

E-government is seen as promising a wide range of benefits based largely on harnessing the power of the Internet to facilitate interconnections and information exchange between citizens and their government. A variety of actions have been taken in recent years to enhance the government’s ability to realize the potential of e-government. The President designated e-government as one of five priorities in his fiscal year 2002 management agenda for making the federal government more focused on citizens and results. According to the agenda, e-government is 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.

As the lead agency for implementing the President’s management agenda, OMB developed a governmentwide strategy for expanding e-government, which it published in February 2002. In its strategy, OMB organized the 25 selected e-government initiatives into five portfolios: “government to citizen,” “government to business,” “government to government,” “internal efficiency and effectiveness,” and “cross-cutting.” Figure 1 provides an overview of this structure.

For each initiative, OMB designated a specific agency to be the initiative’s “managing partner,” responsible for leading the initiative, and assigned other federal agencies as “partners” in carrying out the initiative. Partner responsibilities can include making contributions of funding or in-kind resources (e.g., staff time). Most of the initiatives do not have direct appropriations but rely instead on a variety of alternative funding strategies. Table 1 summarizes the funding strategies employed by the 25 OMB-sponsored e-gov initiatives in fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

A common strategy used in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 was to reach agreement among the participating agencies on monetary contributions to be made by each—10 of the 25 initiatives used this strategy. Initiatives used different approaches in determining how much an agency should contribute. For example, some adopted complex allocation formulas based on agency size and expected use of the initiative’s resources, while others decided to have each agency contribute an equal share. In most cases, the funding strategy and allocation formula adopted for an initiative was determined by its governing board, with input from partner agencies and OMB. To further reinforce the strategy of having partner agencies make financial contributions, OMB generally reflected planned agency allocations in its annual budget guidance to partner agencies, known as passback instructions.

The remaining 15 initiatives used other funding approaches. Specifically, for 7 of the 15, the managing partner contributed all necessary funds. Seven others used a combination of managing partner funding and other sources, such as charging fees for services provided, or received support from the E-Government Fund, established by the E-Government Act of 2002.

The E-Government Fund was intended to be used to support projects that enable the federal government to expand its ability to conduct activities electronically. The Director of OMB, supported by the E-Government Administrator, is responsible for determining which projects are to receive support from the E-Government Fund. Table 2 summarizes support from the E-Government Fund given to the 25 OMB-sponsored initiatives in fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

As shown in table 2, $5.4 million of the available $8 million in the E-Government Fund was spent on, among other things, 4 of the 25 initiatives. In addition to its use for the e-gov initiatives, OMB also used the E-Government Fund to support development of its “lines of business” initiatives (a total of $1.9 million) in fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

Although Agencies Generally Contributed Amounts as Planned, Shortfalls Nevertheless Occurred

For fiscal years 2003 and 2004, agencies generally made funding contributions in the amounts originally planned by the managing partners of the 10 initiatives that relied on funding contributions. Table 3 shows the specific numbers of partner agencies that made such contributions as planned.

Although most contributions were made in the amounts planned, 6 of the 10 initiatives experienced funding shortfalls from their planned budgets in fiscal year 2003, and 9 experienced shortfalls in fiscal year 2004. Shortfalls in fiscal year 2003 totaled approximately $31 million (22 percent) of a planned budget of $138.7 million. In fiscal year 2004, shortfalls totaled approximately $25.4 million (20 percent) of a planned $124.2 million. The rationale provided by agencies for contributions that were less than planned included (1) substitution of in-kind resources in lieu of funds, (2) lack of budget guidance from OMB reflecting the original planned amounts, (3) inability to obtain congressional approval to reprogram funds from other accounts, and (4) organizational realignments associated with creation of DHS in fiscal year 2003. Figure 2 shows the shortfalls in contributions for each fiscal year and the primary rationale provided by agencies for those shortfalls.

As shown in figure 2, in some cases partner agencies negotiated with the initiatives’ managing partners for reductions in monetary contributions, which often included an agreement for transfer of in-kind resources. For example, in fiscal year 2004, the Social Security Administration provided in-kind resources in lieu of requested funding to the e-Authentication initiative, managed by GSA. Specific details of all initiative shortfalls and associated agency explanations can be found in appendix II.

Most of the shortfalls that occurred in each fiscal year were concentrated in one or two of the initiatives. For example, shortfalls in fiscal year 2003 experienced by the Project SAFECOM initiative—which is to serve as the umbrella program within the federal government to help local, tribal, state, and federal public safety agencies improve public safety response through more effective and efficient interoperable wireless communications— accounted for 57 percent of the total shortfall in that year. According to program officials, these shortfalls resulted from two major causes: (1) the inability of the Departments of Justice and the Interior to obtain congressional approval to reprogram funds from other accounts and (2) the impact of organizational realignments associated with the creation of DHS in fiscal year 2003. SAFECOM officials reported that the fiscal year 2003 shortfalls resulted in delays in the development of standards and architecture efforts related to communications interoperability. For example, the timeline for development of a methodology for assessing communications interoperability nationwide was postponed until sufficient funding could be made available.

In fiscal year 2004, shortfalls experienced by the e-Rulemaking and Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) initiatives accounted for nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the total shortfall. The e-Rulemaking initiative, managed by EPA, received only $5,850,208 (51 percent) of its planned fiscal year 2004 budget of $11,505,000 in partner agency contributions. Although the initiative’s funding plan had called for an expanded number of funding partners (from 9 to 35) over the previous fiscal year, OMB did not reflect that plan with passback instructions to the new funding partners. According to OMB officials, the disconnect between the initiative’s funding strategy and OMB’s passback instructions represented a “timing problem,” in that the passback instructions were based on the previously defined project scope of 9 partners. However, according to e-Rulemaking’s funding plan for fiscal year 2004, the project’s scope had already been broadened at the time OMB issued its passback instructions. Without passback instructions in fiscal year 2004, planned partner agencies did not make contributions, except in a few instances. E-Rulemaking officials reported that the resulting shortfall in funds, compounded with delays in reaching agreements regarding contributions from other agencies, required them to significantly scale back agency migration to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), the centerpiece of the initiative. Specifically, the number of agencies planned to migrate to the system in its first phase of implementation was reduced from 10 to 5, and 2 of those represented only component organizations rather than entire agencies.

In IAE’s case, the shortfall in fiscal year 2004 also resulted in part from OMB passback instructions to the Department of Energy not reflecting the amount originally planned by GSA. According to OMB and GSA officials, the passback instructions did not reflect the planned amount due to an administrative error. IAE officials reported that as a result of this shortfall, implementation of several planned systems applications was postponed indefinitely. In addition, IAE received a smaller than anticipated contribution in fiscal year 2004 from the Department of Defense, because Defense provided in-kind resources in lieu of the originally planned funding contribution.

Contributions Were Often Made Late in the Fiscal Year

Although initiatives generally received funding contributions from federal agencies in the amounts planned, in most cases, funds were contributed in the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year. Specifically, seven of the initiatives reported that they had finalized half or more of their agreements with partner agencies in the third or fourth quarter of the fiscal year. In providing a rationale for contributions made late in the fiscal year, officials from both managing and funding partner agencies reported that the administrative burden associated with drafting, negotiating, and signing interagency agreements, as well as the timing of appropriations bill enactment, contributed to these delays.

For illustrative purposes, figure 3 shows the timing of funding obligations for one of the initiatives, IAE. As the figure shows, most funding obligations were finalized in the last quarter of the fiscal year.

Both managing and funding partner agencies reported that the extended process of drafting, negotiating, and signing interagency agreements contributed significantly to the timing of funding contributions in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Officials from 5 of the 10 initiatives that relied on funding contributions from partner agencies specifically cited the administrative burden as a factor in interagency agreements being reached in the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year. Officials from the Geospatial One-Stop initiative, managed by Interior, reported that potential partner agencies that could have provided modest funding contributions were sometimes not invited to do so because the resource investment required to reach interagency agreements was prohibitively high.

In addition to the administrative burden associated with finalizing interagency agreements, managing and funding partner agencies also attributed the timing of contributions to the enactment of appropriations bills relatively late in the fiscal year. For example, in fiscal year 2003, appropriations were not enacted for most agencies until February 20, 2003, almost 5 months into the fiscal year. Further, managing partner agencies did not begin the process of establishing memorandums of understanding with partner agencies until after relevant appropriations had been enacted. Although OMB instructed agencies in fiscal year 2004 to make their funding obligations to managing partner agencies within 45 days of enactment of appropriations, agencies reported that this deadline was rarely achieved.

According to OMB officials overseeing the initiatives, partner agencies should make every effort to provide promised contributions as early as possible within a funding cycle because of the benefits in facilitating implementation of the initiatives. However, for both fiscal years, agency officials generally did not report that obtaining funds late in the fiscal year caused their initiatives to suffer significant setbacks in executing planned tasks or achieving planned goals. Further, several agency officials noted that the process of drafting and negotiating memorandums of understanding among agencies had improved over time and was becoming more efficient in fiscal year 2005, for example, than in the two fiscal years we examined. These officials attributed the greater efficiency to increased knowledge and experience among officials involved in managing the e-gov initiatives.

Conclusions

Most e-gov initiative partner agencies made contributions as planned to the 10 initiatives that relied on such contributions in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, although shortfalls occurred for a variety of reasons. In fiscal year 2004, the e-Rulemaking and IAE initiatives experienced shortfalls when OMB did not reflect the initiatives’ funding plans in budget guidance to partner agencies. Without corresponding budget guidance from OMB, partner agencies generally did not make planned contributions, and as a result, officials had to delay implementation of elements of the planned initiatives.

Agreements on contributions often were not finalized until late in the fiscal year, in large part because the administrative burden in obtaining funds through interagency agreements was cumbersome. However, managing partners generally did not report significant disruptions in their planned milestones and objectives, and several commented that the interagency agreement process was becoming more efficient over time.

Recommendation for Executive Action

In order to avoid errors and to better assist the managing partner agencies in obtaining funds to execute the OMB-sponsored e-gov initiatives, we recommend that the Director of OMB take steps to ensure that OMB’s budget guidance to partner agencies correctly reflects the funding plans of each of the initiatives that rely on funding contributions.

Agency Comments

We received oral comments on a draft of this report from representatives of OMB’s Office of E-Government, including the Associate Administrator for E-Government and Information Technology. These representatives generally agreed with the content of our draft report and our recommendation and provided technical comments, which have been incorporated where appropriate.

OMB officials stated that, while there had been some problems in administering the funding of the e-government initiatives in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, agencies had made substantial progress in fiscal year 2005 in executing memorandums of understanding as early as possible. Specifically, OMB officials reported that as of April 8, 2005, about 80 percent of fiscal year 2005 funding commitments had been finalized. Although we did not evaluate fiscal year 2005 as part of our review, we noted in the report that the process of drafting and negotiating memorandums of understanding among agencies had reportedly improved over time. As described in the report, agency officials attributed the greater efficiency to increased knowledge and experience among officials involved in managing the e-gov initiatives.

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 provide a copy of this report to the Director of OMB. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

Should you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6240 or John de Ferrari, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-6335. We can also be reached by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov and deferrarij@gao.gov, respectively. Other key contributors to this report included Barbara Collier; Felipe Colón, Jr.; Wilfred Holloway; Sandra Kerr; Frank Maguire; and Jamie Pressman.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were, for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, to (1) determine whether federal agencies made contributions in the amounts planned to the 10 e-gov initiatives that relied on such contributions, and (2) determine the timing of these contributions and reasons for any contributions made late in each fiscal year.

To determine whether federal agencies made monetary contributions to OMB-sponsored e-gov initiatives for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 in the amounts planned, we analyzed detailed funding data and supporting documentation from both managing partner and funding partner agencies. This documentation included the initiative’s agreed-upon funding plans for both fiscal years, as well as signed interagency agreements for each contribution. We also held follow-up discussions with agency officials to clarify the timing and amounts of contributions. For example, to determine shortfalls, we compared planned contributions with amounts obligated by funding partner agencies in their signed agreements and obtained rationale from agency officials regarding any differences.

We determined the timing of partner agency contributions based on when in the fiscal year funds were obligated—the dates on which formal agreements such as memorandums of understanding and/or interagency agreements were signed by both managing and funding partner agencies. We also obtained rationale from agency officials regarding the major reasons why monetary contributions were made late in the fiscal year.

Our work was conducted in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, from September 2004 to April 2005, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying on Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies

Disaster Management

Managing partner agency: Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Purpose: Provide federal, state, and local emergency managers online access to disaster management–related information, planning, and response tools.

Funding: Disaster Management project officials reported that their fiscal year 2003 and 2004 funding plans were developed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and communicated to partner agencies through passback instructions. In fiscal year 2003, seven of nine partner agencies were to make equal contributions totaling approximately $1.5 million each, with DHS contributing a larger share than the others. In fiscal year 2004, for most partners the per-partner contribution was decreased to $681,250, again with DHS contributing a larger share. The decrease was due to a rescoping of the initiative that cancelled plans to develop new tool sets and reduced funding for the Disaster Management Web portal. Table 4 details contributions to the initiative for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

Funding shortfalls occurred that were related to two funding partner agencies: Interior did not make planned fiscal year 2003 or fiscal year 2004 contributions, and Commerce did not make its planned fiscal year 2004 contribution. Interior officials stated that their request to reprogram funds in 2004 to support Disaster Management was not approved by Congress. Commerce officials reported that they did not make their fiscal year 2004 contribution because Commerce’s appropriations bill included a restriction preventing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the principal Commerce participant for Disaster Management, from contributing fiscal year 2004 funds to any of the e-gov initiatives.

DHS officials reported that the late timing of contributions was predominantly the result of agencies having to reformulate internal financial plans to meet the unforeseen e-government requirement. For example, Justice and two agencies transferred from Transportation made their fiscal year 2003 contributions in fiscal year 2004 for a variety of reasons. Justice officials reported that they were not permitted to reprogram the required funds during fiscal year 2003. Instead, they negotiated with OMB to make their fiscal year 2003 contribution in fiscal year 2004. A portion of Transportation’s fiscal year 2003 contribution was delayed by the transfer of key organizations—the Coast Guard and Transportation Security Administration—to DHS.

According to Disaster Management officials, interruptions caused by late funding contributions and shortfalls included a delay in adding new responder groups to Disaster Management Interoperability Services (DMIS), delays in holding meetings and workshops with the emergency management community (including first responders) to facilitate development of interoperability standards, and delays in implementing an alternative site to ensure continuity of operations for the DMIS and DisasterHelp.gov servers.

Managing partner agency: General Services Administration (GSA)

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

Funding: In fiscal year 2003, e-Authentication had 14 funding partner agencies, and the funding plan called for $25 million in agency contributions to be divided among these partners based on criteria such as expected transaction volume and agency size. For fiscal year 2004, the total funding requirement was divided equally among the partner agencies ($377,000 per partner), with GSA contributing a larger amount ($600,000). On June 29, 2004, the e-Authentication project manager sent a memorandum out to members of the Executive Steering Committee explaining that the new federated identity architecture approach that the initiative had decided to adopt could be completed at a lower cost ($1.86 million less) than the original approach (developing an e-authentication gateway), and therefore, the initiative was reducing expected fiscal year 2004 agency contributions from $377,000 to $244,361. Table 5 details contributions to the initiative for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

GSA officials reported that five agencies did not make their full monetary contributions as planned in fiscal year 2003 and two agencies did not do so in fiscal year 2004. In each of these instances, reductions were negotiated between GSA and the funding partner agency and generally included a provision for in-kind resources (e.g., staff time) in lieu of the full monetary amount. For example in fiscal year 2003, in lieu of the $2.3 million contribution planned for EPA, GSA agreed to a $350,000 cash transfer; a $125,000 grant to be funded, administered, and managed by EPA; and various in-kind contributions. As another example, the Department of Education agreed to lead a proof-of-concept effort to test the use of its federal student aid personal identification number identity credential through the planned E-Authentication gateway in lieu of providing the full requested monetary amount. Project officials reported that NASA, the Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development’s contributions were reduced because these agencies simply did not have the funds available to contribute the planned amounts. In fiscal year 2004, the Social Security Administration provided in-kind resources in lieu of its planned funding contribution. Finally, in fiscal year 2004, Commerce did not make its full planned contribution because a stipulation in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill prohibited NOAA from spending any fiscal year 2004 appropriations on the OMB-sponsored e-government initiatives.

GSA officials reported that the administrative burden associated with the memorandum of understanding process and appropriations enacted late in the fiscal year contributed to the late timing of contributions in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. For example, the officials noted that in some cases proposed memorandums of understanding that had already been signed by GSA officials were lost in the process of traversing partner agency offices, resulting in the need to obtain signatures from high-level officials multiple times.

Managing partner agency: Department of Education Purpose: Create a single point of access for citizens to locate information on federal loan programs, and improve back-office loan functions.

Funding: Although the funding allocation for each of the e-Loans initiative’s five partners is very simple ($397,000 per agency for both fiscal years), the initiative is somewhat unusual in that the managing partner does not centrally manage all the funds or activities of the initiative. Rather, the initiative is divided into four work streams with partner agencies taking the lead on specific work streams. The lead agencies used their own funding up to $397,000 per fiscal year, and if planned costs exceeded that amount, they obtained contributions from other funding partner agencies. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development manages one of the four work streams and used its own fiscal year 2003–2004 funds to support it, as well as receiving contributions from Agriculture in 2003 and 2004 and from Veterans Affairs in 2004. Table 6 details monetary contributions to the e-Loans initiative for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

Two shortfalls from planned amounts were associated with the Small Business Administration (SBA); however, both instances represent negotiated reductions. In fiscal year 2003, as a result of e-Loans budget negotiations between SBA and OMB and the expected contract cost of work stream deliverables, SBA’s fiscal year 2003 contribution was reduced. Education officials stated that this decision was supported by the partner agencies. In fiscal year 2004, SBA originally intended to spend $300,000 of its $397,000 commitment for activities that SBA subsequently determined could be supported under an existing contract at no additional cost. Accordingly, SBA reallocated the funds to support other e-gov work.

Education officials noted that all partner agencies were affected by the enactment of appropriations late in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, which affected agencies’ ability to transfer or make funds available. Nevertheless, the officials reported that despite the timing of appropriations, partner agencies made their contributions in a timely manner.

Managing partner agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Purpose: Allow citizens to easily access and participate in the rulemaking process. Improve access to, and quality of, the rulemaking process for individuals, businesses, and other government entities while streamlining and increasing the efficiency of internal agency processes.

Funding: In fiscal year 2003, the e-Rulemaking project management office requested $100,000 apiece from nine partner agencies to support the initiative’s activities. These allocations were reflected in OMB’s passback instructions to the agencies. In addition, the Department of Transportation—the former managing partner of the initiative—was asked to transfer $5 million to EPA. For fiscal year 2004, the initiative’s funding workgroup developed a plan allocating a budget of $11.5 million among 35 anticipated funding partners, based on criteria such as agency budget size and average number of rules issued per year. OMB, however, issued passback instructions to only eight of the nine agencies that had funded the initiative in fiscal year 2003 and DHS. Table 7 details contributions to the initiative for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

E-Rulemaking officials reported that the combination of shortfalls and late contributions negatively affected the initiative, specifically in fiscal year 2004. In fiscal year 2003, two agencies, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Transportation, did not make their full contributions as planned. Although OMB’s passback to NRC for fiscal year 2003 included the $100,000 amount allocated to each partner, NRC asserted that it was not subject to OMB’s budget guidance because it derives most of its budget from user fees. Accordingly, NRC did not make its planned contribution. Transportation, the former managing partner of the initiative, provided monetary funds and in-kind support in lieu of its full planned contribution in fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year 2004, Transportation did not make its full contribution because it believed the amount should be reduced because of the transfer of the Transportation Security Administration and the Coast Guard to DHS in fiscal year 2003. However, based on subsequent discussions between E-Rulemaking and Transportation officials, Transportation officials told us that they have agreed to pay the remaining fiscal year 2004 balance in fiscal year 2005. Additionally, the Department of Energy did not make its full contribution as planned because the OMB passback did not reflect the planned amount. This occurred because OMB erroneously assessed the Department of Energy at the same total contribution to e-gov initiatives in the passback as it had the Department of Education (the two departments have similar abbreviations).

In fiscal year 2004, although e-Rulemaking requested funds from 35 agencies based on the budget workgroup’s funding plan, OMB issued passback instructions to just nine agencies, resulting in a shortfall of $5.6 million, nearly half of the initiative’s planned budget. Of the agencies that did not receive passback instructions, only three agencies contributed monetary resources in fiscal year 2004, and one agency contributed in-kind resources in lieu of funds. E-Rulemaking officials reported that they were not provided with an explanation as to why OMB did not issue passback instructions to all 35 agencies as had been planned. According to OMB officials, the disconnect between the initiative’s funding strategy and OMB’s passback instructions represented a “timing problem,” in that the passback instructions were based on the previously defined project scope of nine partners. The OMB officials did not state that the planned expansion of e-Rulemaking was inappropriate, noting that fiscal year 2005 passback instructions did reflect the larger number of partners. However, without passback instructions in fiscal year 2004, planned partner agencies did not make contributions, except in a few instances. E-Rulemaking officials reported that the resulting shortfall in funds, compounded with delays in receiving funds from other agencies, required them to scale back agency migration to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), the centerpiece of the initiative. Specifically, although the initiative planned to migrate 10 agencies to the FDMS in its first phase of implementation, the revised schedule now includes only 5 agencies, 2 of which are component agencies of larger departments.

Geospatial One-Stop

Managing partner agency: Department of the Interior Purpose: Provide federal and state agencies with a single point of access to map-related data to enable consolidation of redundant data.

Funding: Planned contributions to the Geospatial One-Stop initiative were initially distributed among the agencies that were major federal geospatial data producers or were members of the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Partner agency concurrence in both fiscal years was obtained at a meeting hosted by the Interior. Partners willing to contribute more than the minimum $100,000 agency allocation indicated their intention to do so. Table 8 details funding for the initiative for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

Although the Geospatial One-Stop initiative experienced no shortfalls from its overall planned budget in fiscal year 2003, one agency, Transportation, contributed less than planned because in-kind resources were provided in lieu of the full requested amount. In fiscal year 2004 there were two shortfalls. Geospatial One-Stop officials reported that shortfall from Interior arose because its fiscal year 2004 requested increase was not funded by Congress and an agreement was made for Interior to provide $200,000 of in-kind resources in lieu of monetary funds. Additionally, there was a shortfall of $200,000 from Commerce because of the prohibition on NOAA contributing funds to e-government projects in fiscal year 2004.

Project officials stated that extensive paperwork and staff time were invested in getting agreements drafted, reviewed, finalized, and signed.

Some potential partners who could have participated at a lower level of funding were not invited because of the high overhead required to establish interagency agreements. The project officials stated their belief that the considerable amount of staff time required for managing the cross-agency approach to funding could be more effectively used carrying out the actual work of the project. They also stated that the burden of the administrative overhead to administer agreements made it infeasible to allocate costs fairly among partner agencies.

Managing partner agency: Department of Labor Purpose: Provide a single point of access for citizens to locate and determine potential eligibility for government benefits and services.

Funding: Planned funding partner contributions for the GovBenefits initiative were based on a funding plan developed in October 2002 that placed each of the 10 partner agencies, including Labor, into one of three categories based on the anticipated volume of benefit program information each agency would generate for the GovBenefits Web site. The same approach was used in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. As managing partner, Labor contributed the largest share. Table 9 details GovBenefits funding for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

The GovBenefits initiative received all planned contributions from funding partners in fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year 2004, only one agency, DHS, failed to make its contribution as planned, resulting in a $491,000 shortfall. According to OMB officials, the planned allocation for GovBenefits was erroneously not included in its annual budget guidance to DHS. GovBenefits project officials reported that funding partner agencies transferred funds as soon as memorandums of understanding were agreed upon.

Managing partner agency: Health and Human Services Purpose: Create a single portal for all federal grant customers to find, apply for, and ultimately manage grants online.

Funding: Planned contributions for Grants.gov’s 11 partner agencies were allocated based on a fiscal year 2002–2004 funding algorithm that classified grant-making agencies by size. In addition to the 11 partner agency requests, OMB identified development, modernization, and enhancement funds in specific agencies’ budgets for Grants.gov funding. Health and Human Services also received contributions in fiscal year 2004 from the Department of Energy and GSA. Table 10 details funding for Grants.gov for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

Grants.gov received all of its planned partner contributions from its funding partner agencies in fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year 2004, Grants.gov received almost all of its planned partner contributions from its funding partner agencies; the exception was Commerce, because of the appropriations bill restriction on NOAA contributing funds to e-gov initiatives. Commerce contributed in-kind resources in lieu of the full requested funds in fiscal year 2004.

Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE)

Managing partner agency: General Services Administration Purpose: Create a secure business environment that will facilitate and support the cost-effective acquisition of goods and services by agencies, while eliminating inefficiencies in the current acquisition environment.

Funding: In addition to funding from GSA’s General Supply Fund, the IAE initiative relied on monetary contributions from partner agencies in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Planned contributions were allocated based on each agency’s procurement volume as reported in the Federal Procurement Data System. Table 11 details funding for the IAE initiative for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

IAE project officials reported that for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the Department of Energy contribution was lower than the planned amount because of an error by OMB that assessed the Department of Energy the same amount as the Department of Education (the two departments have similar abbreviations). This resulted in nearly a $10 million shortfall over fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Officials reported that this indirectly impacted the initiative and reported that several applications were postponed and are now indefinite because the funds were not available at that time. In fiscal year 2004, remaining shortfalls from the planned amount represented negotiated reductions. For example, as reported by both IAE and DOD officials, DOD contributed less than the planned amount, instead providing in-kind support (e.g., staff time and existing IT resources) for project activities. Commerce’s fiscal year 2004 shortfall was again attributable to the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill language that prohibited NOAA from contributing to any of the e-gov initiatives.

GSA officials reported that continuing resolutions and “red-tape” issues such as paperwork and lost documents prolonged the transfer of funds. Specifically noted was the administrative burden on both the managing and funding partner agencies in crafting interagency agreements. Although in fiscal year 2003, requests were made from the smaller agencies (including the Broadcasting Board of Governments, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Executive Office of the President, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Peace Corps), only the Peace Corps made its requested contribution. The IAE project manager reported that a decision was made that the administrative costs to process the memorandum of understanding and funding requests could not be offset by the funds collected and therefore fiscal year 2003 contributions were not pursued and funds were not sought from these agencies in fiscal year 2004.

Project SAFECOM

Managing partner agency: Department of Homeland Security Purpose: Serve as the umbrella program within the federal government to help local, tribal, state, and federal public safety agencies improve public safety response through more effective and efficient interoperable wireless communications.

Funding: According to SAFECOM project officials, contributions were determined by OMB and communicated through budget passback instructions. Table 12 summarizes funding for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

SAFECOM officials reported experiencing shortfalls and receiving funds from partner agencies late in the fiscal year. As we previously reported, SAFECOM has been managed by three different agencies since its inception. In fiscal year 2003, SAFECOM received only about $17 million of the $34.9 million OMB had allocated as contributions from funding partners. According to program officials, these shortfalls resulted from two major causes: (1) the inability of the Departments of Justice and the Interior to obtain congressional approval to reprogram funds from other accounts and (2) the impact of organizational realignments associated with the creation of DHS in fiscal year 2003. SAFECOM officials reported that the shortfall experienced in fiscal year 2003 resulted in delays in the development of the standards and architecture efforts related to communications interoperability. For example, the timeline of the National Baseline Methodology and Assessment of communications interoperability was extended until sufficient funding was available. According to agency officials, Justice was not authorized to reprogram funds and negotiated to provide its fiscal year 2003 allocation in fiscal year 2004. The total amount contributed was a reduced amount negotiated with OMB. Although SAFECOM re-requested Interior’s unpaid fiscal year 2003 contribution in addition to its fiscal year 2004 allocation, Interior officials reported that their reprogramming request was denied. According to DHS officials, fiscal year 2003 unpaid amounts from FEMA and the Transportation Security Administration were not re-requested in fiscal year 2004 at the direction of the DHS Under Secretary for Management.

SAFECOM officials also reported that in fiscal year 2004, they were unable to collect funding resources in a timely manner because of enactment of the fiscal year 2004 appropriation bill late in the fiscal year. Project officials reported that this affected the initiative’s progress by delaying start dates for certain tasks and creating breaks in project service and performance.

Recreation One-Stop

Managing partner agency: Department of the Interior Purpose: Provide a single-point-of-access, user-friendly, Web-based resource to citizens, offering information and access to government recreational sites.

Funding: The Recreation One-Stop initiative relied on monetary contributions from four partner agencies, including Interior, in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Additionally, the initiative received $800,000 from the E-Government Fund in fiscal year 2003. According to project officials, Recreation One-Stop partners agreed that agencies receiving major benefits from the initiative would contribute $50,000 annually, and agencies receiving fewer benefits would contribute $25,000 annually, with the managing partner contributing a larger share. Table 13 details contributions for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

Recreation One-Stop officials reported that all fiscal year 2003 and 2004 planned contributions had been received; however, officials noted that the logistics of transferring funds according to agency-specific procedures was time-consuming, and as a result funding requests from “minor partners” were eliminated for fiscal year 2006.