The federal government uses grants to achieve national priorities through nonfederal parties, including state and local governments, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations. Grant programs are established through legislation and vary in numerous ways including type, size, nature of recipients, and types of programs they fund. While there is significant variation among different grant program goals and grant types, most federal grants follow a common life cycle comprising four stages for administering the grants: (1) pre-award stage; (2) award stage; (3) implementation; and (4) closeout (see figure 1). During the award stage, the federal awarding agency enters into an agreement with the grantee stipulating the terms and conditions for the use of grant funds including the period funds are available for the grantee’s use. The awarding agency also opens accounts in a federal payment management system through which the grantee receives payments. During the implementation stage, the grantee carries out the requirements of the agreement and requests payments, while the awarding agency approves payments and oversees the grantee. The grantee and the awarding agency close the grant once the grantee has completed all the work associated with a grant agreement, the grant period of performance end date (or grant expiration date) has arrived, or both. The closeout stage includes preparation of final reports, financial reconciliation, and any required accounting for property. Closeout procedures ensure that the grantee has met all financial requirements, provided all final reports, and returned any unspent balances. All stages of the grant life cycle, including grant closeout, are subject to a wide range of requirements derived from a combination of OMB guidance, agency regulations, agency policy, and program-specific statutes. OMB is responsible for developing government-wide policies to ensure that grants are managed properly and the grant funds are spent in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. For decades, OMB has published circulars to aid grant-making agencies on various subjects, including administration, audit, record keeping, and allowability of costs. In December 2013, OMB consolidated its grants management circulars into a single document, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, (Uniform Guidance) to streamline its guidance, promote consistency among grantees, and reduce administrative burden on nonfederal entities. The Uniform Guidance includes revised rules that set the standard requirements for financial management of federal awards across the federal government. In December 2014, OMB, along with federal grant- making agencies, issued a joint interim final rule implementing OMB’s Uniform Guidance for new grant awards made on or after December 26, 2014. Federal agencies that award and administer grants and agreements are responsible for issuing regulations—with which grantees must comply—that are consistent with the Uniform Guidance, unless different provisions are required by federal statute or are approved by OMB. Agency regulations issued under the Uniform Guidance typically impose closeout procedures upon both the grantee and the awarding agency. To close an awarded grant, the grantee and the awarding agency must complete certain actions within the time frames specified by agency regulations and the Uniform Guidance (see figure 2). Generally, within 90 calendar days from the period of performance end date, the grantee must submit all financial, performance, and other reports as required by the terms and conditions of the award and liquidate all permissible expenses incurred under the award. Grantees then are to promptly refund any remaining balances to the awarding agency and account for any real and personal property acquired with federal funds or received from the federal government. The awarding agency must make prompt payments to the grantee for allowable reimbursable costs under the award being closed out. If required by the terms and conditions of the award, the awarding agency must also make a settlement for any upward or downward adjustments to the federal share of costs after the closeout reports are received. Upon the receipt and acceptance of all required final reports from the grantee, the awarding agency should complete all closeout actions within 1 year. Some federal agencies’ grant policies require less than the 1 year closeout period allowed by the Uniform Guidance. For example, HHS’s grant policies specify that all closeout actions must be completed within 180 days of the receipt and acceptance of all required grantee final reports, allowing for a maximum of 270 days for the total closeout process. Closing out grants could allow an agency to redirect resources toward other projects and activities or return unspent funds to the Treasury (see figure 3). Generally, if the undisbursed balances that are deobligated from closed grant accounts are still available for incurring new obligations, the agency may use the funds to enter into new grant agreements. This may allow the federal agencies to use existing resources to fund new grant projects. If the undisbursed balances are returned to expired appropriation accounts, the agency may not use the deobligated funds to make new grants. However, the agency may use the deobligated funds to make adjustments to, or liquidate existing, obligations that were incurred before the appropriations account expired. Expired appropriations accounts remain available for 5 years to make adjustments, after which the undisbursed balances are canceled and returned to the Treasury. At this point, these funds are no longer available for agency use. This helps ensure that federal agency resources are properly spent and helps agencies maintain accurate accounting of their budgetary resources. It may also reduce future federal outlays relative to the federal government’s original estimated amount of spending for these programs. One way agencies can track whether grants are closed out and undisbursed grant balances are deobligated in a timely manner is through federal payment systems. Some agencies make grant payments directly to grantees using their own payment systems, while others enter into arrangements with payment systems that serve multiple agencies to make payments on their behalf. Payment systems represent an important control point for managing federal grant funds. After a grant agreement reaches the period of performance end date, an agency may need to close out a grant in multiple systems including in its payment system, the agency’s general ledger, or in a separate grant management system. Failure to close out a grant in the payment system could prevent the timely deobligation of unspent funds and limit agencies’ ability to regain budget authority that could be used for other purposes. The largest civilian federal payment system is the Payment Management System (PMS). Operated by HHS’s Program Support Center (PSC), PMS allows grantees and awarding agencies to manage all payment-related activities, including grant payment requests, drawing down federal funds from preauthorized grant accounts, and disbursement reporting. Grantees request payments from PMS, which then transmits authorized payments to either the Federal Reserve Bank or Treasury for deposit into the grantee’s bank account. Each PMS account represents a different grant agreement with a specified period of performance end date. To help federal grant-making agencies identify and close out grant accounts in a timely manner, PSC makes available a quarterly “closeout” report. The closeout report lists expired grant accounts that meet the following conditions: (1) remain open more than 3 months past the grant period of performance end date and (2) not having any disbursements in the preceding 9 months. Appropriations acts for selected agencies have called attention to the issue of undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts. For example, Section 530 of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016 required the Director of OMB to instruct any affected agencies receiving funds under that act to track undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts and report on their efforts to address the issue in their annual performance plans and performance and accountability reports. Further, Section 530 requires OMB to instruct the affected agencies to report on their methods to track undisbursed amounts in expired grants and future actions to resolve the issue, the amount of the undisbursed balances that may be returned to the U.S. Treasury, the total number of expired accounts with undisbursed balances in the preceding 3 fiscal years, and the total finances remaining in expired accounts that have not been obligated to a specific project. On January 28, 2016, the Grants Oversight and New Efficiency Act (GONE Act) was signed into law. This law requires that not later than 180 days after enactment the Director of OMB instruct the head of each agency, in coordination with the Secretary of HHS, to provide a report to Congress and the Secretary on grants for which the grant’s period of performance has been expired for more than 2 years, including those with undisbursed balances and with zero dollar balances remaining in the accounts. The report, to be delivered by December 31, 2017, is also to describe the challenges leading to delays in grant closeout and explain why each of the 30 oldest grant awards has not been closed out. It is expected that this identification will help lead to a reduction in the number of expired grants that have not been properly closed out from the financial payment systems, improve financial accountability over grant programs, and save taxpayer money on costs associated with maintaining the grants in open status. As of September 30, 2015, $993.5 million in undisbursed balances remained in 8,832 expired grant accounts in PMS (see figure 4). The total undisbursed balances comprised about 0.2 percent of the $479 billion disbursed through PMS in fiscal year 2015, unchanged from the percentage of the $415 billion disbursed through PMS in fiscal year 2011. The undisbursed balances comprised about 3 percent of the amount authorized for these expired grant accounts, similar to the percentage we found in 2011. Among the departments and agencies that are customers of PMS, the undisbursed balances as a percentage of the authorized amounts available for these expired grant accounts ranged from less than 1 percent to 31 percent. These expired grant accounts should be considered for closeout based on OMB’s Uniform Guidance, which specifies that within 90 calendar days from the period of performance end date, grantees must submit all financial, performance, and other reports as required by the terms and conditions of the award. Grantees must also liquidate all permissible expenses incurred under the award. Moreover, within 1 year of receiving the final reports, awarding agencies should close out grant accounts that are past their period of performance end date (expired grant accounts). As figure 4 shows, in 2015, the undisbursed balances increased to $993.5 million while the number of expired grant accounts decreased to 8,832, in comparison with 2011. The distribution of expired grant accounts and their associated undisbursed balances categorized by the number of years the accounts exceed their grant expiration dates were roughly similar for 2015 and 2011. More than half of the accounts exceeded their expiration date by 1 to 3 years. However as of September 30, 2015, we found expired grant accounts exceeding their grant expiration date by at least 10 years almost doubled to 223 accounts with undisbursed balances increasing fourfold to $39.1 million. Given the general 3 year federal record retention period, there is an increased risk that these grant accounts expired for 10 years or more may not have the necessary financial documents and other information available for account reconciliation. As of September 30, 2015, 151 expired grant accounts with undisbursed balances of $1 million or more comprised approximately 2 percent of the 8,832 expired grant accounts (see figure 5). However, grants in this category had a total of $514.7 million in undisbursed balances that made up 52 percent of the $993.5 million in PMS undisbursed balances, an increase from $316 million or about 40 percent in 2011. This indicates that targeting efforts to close out a small number of expired grant accounts with high undisbursed balances could reduce the total undisbursed balance significantly. It is worth noting that many of the expired grant accounts did not have large undisbursed balances—about half of the expired grant accounts had undisbursed balances of less than $10,000. As of September 30, 2015, $651.3 million in undisbursed balances in expired HHS grant accounts made up 66 percent of the total $993.5 million in undisbursed balances in PMS (see figure 6). This is down from HHS’s 75 percent of the total $794 million in undisbursed balances in 2011. HHS had 7,158 expired grant accounts (81 percent of all expired PMS grant accounts in the data we analyzed), a decrease from 8,262 accounts in 2011. These accounts comprised the bulk of the expired grant accounts among the 11 federal agencies and departments that are PMS customers. Similar to all PMS expired grant accounts and undisbursed balances, about half of expired HHS grant accounts and undisbursed balances exceeded their expiration dates by 1 to 3 years. In 2015, expired HHS grant accounts exceeding their expiration dates by at least 10 years increased to $16.3 million in undisbursed balances and 129 accounts. HHS’s undisbursed balance as a percentage of the authorized amount available for these expired grant accounts, increased to 3.3 percent, up from 2.7 percent in 2011. These expired grant accounts far exceeded HHS’s 270-day window for closing out grants after the grant expiration date as outlined in HHS’s Grant Policy Administration Manual. Of the 11 HHS sub-organizations with grant accounts in PMS, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) continued to make up a large proportion of the expired HHS grant accounts and undisbursed balances in 2015 (see appendix II for HHS sub-organizations). However, in comparison to 2011, ACF’s proportion of the total expired HHS grant accounts decreased. ACF’s $324.4 million in undisbursed balances, up slightly from $321.7 million in 2011, made up about half of HHS’s undisbursed balances in 2015, compared to 54 percent in 2011 (see figure 7). In 2015, ACF’s 2,395 expired grant accounts decreased to about one-third of HHS’s total, as compared to the 53 percent in 2011. Despite the drop in the number of expired grant accounts, a significant number of expired accounts remain open. HHS and ACF grant managers have failed to appropriately monitor expired grant accounts and adhere to HHS closeout policies. As of September 30, 2015, PMS data identified 5,906 expired grant accounts which had no undisbursed balance remaining as ready for closeout processing pending instructions from the awarding agency to finalize the process. The percentage of expired grant accounts ready for immediate closeout varied across all PMS customers. According to PMS officials, the 5,906 accounts incurred about $29,000 in fees for the month of September 2015, a significant reduction from the 28,000 accounts with fees totaling about $173,000 that we reported for 2011. In 2015, 3,922 expired HHS grant accounts made up 66 percent of the 5,906 grants PMS flagged for closeout, down from 79 percent (more than 21,000) in 2011. Promptly closing out expired grants in the PMS system would minimize the monthly service fees charged to the agencies. As HHS’s Program Support Center (PSC) does not close out grant accounts until instructed to do so by the awarding agency, expired accounts flagged by PMS for closeout continue to incur fees until they are closed. PMS fees are set to recover operating costs. PSC uses two billing rates for federal grant- making agencies—one rate generally applies to grants awarded to state, local, and tribal governments and the second rate generally applies to grants awarded to nonprofit agencies, hospitals, and universities. Agencies are billed monthly for all open accounts making it difficult to disaggregate the fees attributable to different types of grantees and those attributable to expired accounts with (1) undisbursed balances, (2) no remaining undisbursed balance (not flagged for closeout), and (3) no remaining undisbursed balances that have been flagged for closeout. The September 2015 fee of $29,000 for the 5,906 grant accounts PMS has flagged for closeout is small relative to the grant award amounts. But, it is important to note that it represents only a portion of the total fees customers pay to keep open expired grant accounts that should have been closed out by the awarding agency. In particular, the estimate does not include expired accounts which should have been closed and have undisbursed balances nor does it include those with zero balances that have not been flagged for closeout by PMS. However, without examining each expired grant account individually, we cannot determine whether expired grant accounts that have exceeded their expiration date should be closed or not. For example, the awarding agency may be renewing the grant or there could be pending action as a result of an audit. The monthly charges for expired grant accounts which have been flagged by PMS for closeout can accumulate over time and can be considerable. For example, of the 5,906 accounts PMS flagged for closeout in September 2015, 359 of these accounts had also been flagged for closeout in September 2011. Of these 359 expired grant accounts, 260 belong to HHS. If the grant has otherwise been administratively and financially closed out, then agencies paying fees for expired accounts with a zero dollar balance are paying for services that are not needed. The presence of expired grant accounts with no undisbursed funds remaining also raises concerns that administrative and financial closeout—the final point of accountability for these grants, which includes important tasks such as the submission of financial and performance reports—may not have been completed. Grant closeout is a necessary step for all types of grant programs that serve a variety of missions and provide different services. As the final stage of the grant life cycle, grant closeout requires the submission and approval of all final grantee reports. Agency officials told us that grant closeout delays can occur for a number of reasons that may be placed into several larger categories, and sometimes these reasons can be attributed to more than one category: grantee failure to submit final reporting in a timely manner; agency failure to review, process, and reconcile final reporting in a timely manner; and external processes or factors. Officials we spoke with at Commerce, Justice, NASA, and NSF— agencies that reported on undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts in their 2010 and 2011 annual performance reports—as well as ACF which accounted for the largest share of undisbursed expired grant balances at HHS as of September 30, 2015, told us that the grantee and awarding agency face the following challenges that may delay grant closeout (see figure 8). Federal grant awards may fund projects that generate research products or technical deliverables. Untimely submission of these deliverables on the part of the grantee can delay grant closeout. For example, certain grant awards at NASA require specialized reporting if the work funded by the grant is for developmental research or leads to new research accomplishments. According to NASA officials, grant award closeout can be delayed if the grantee has yet to submit required new technology reports, summary of research reports, or property reports. Justice officials also told us missing technical deliverables would prevent the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) from closing out grants in a timely manner. Justice officials said NIJ grants typically require a technical deliverable and they cannot close the grant until it has received the deliverable and deemed it acceptable. There are instances in which a recipient of a federal award may cease to exist. Grantees that cease operations after receiving a grant award may not be able to submit their final financial or performance reports to the federal awarding agency. For example, Commerce officials said if a grantee is late in submitting reports, further investigation may find that the grantee is no longer operational or is bankrupt. Commerce officials noted that, while grant awards involving grantee bankruptcies are uncommon, they could present challenges for grant closeout. Some grant programs may have cost-sharing or matching funds requirements in the award that are designed to supplement the resources available to the project from grant funds and to foster the dedication of state, local, and community resources to the purposes of the project. In addition, some federally funded grants support programs that earn program income or income generated from activities funded by the grant. Grant awards affected by these types of arrangements may require additional layers of review by the grantee and agency and delay grant closeout. For example, Commerce officials said grant programs with cost-sharing can experience closeout challenges if the grantee inaccurately documents the agreed upon shared costs and fails to meet the matching costs. Commerce officials said in cases where the grantee is short on the matching costs, Commerce’s bureaus would be required to investigate the issue and in some cases require that grantees return excess funds, which can delay grant closeout. Grant-making agencies may use grants management systems to track their grants and payment systems, sometimes operated by a different federal agency, to make payments to their grantees. As we have previously reported, the separation of grant management and payment functions in different systems could make it possible for an agency to close a grant in a grants management system but not close the grant in a separate payment system. In addition, it is possible for a grant expiration date to be extended in the grant management system and not in the payment system. ACF officials said the separation between grants management systems and payment systems can present challenges when awarding agencies attempt to reconcile final reports and close out grants in the two separate systems. According to ACF officials, grant closeout can become a manual process that presents challenges for agencies that may have a limited number of grants specialists. Specifically, officials explained that this process requires ACF grant managers to compare their internal grant reports with the PMS closeout report, identify grant awards to be closed, and request to close all eligible awards in PMS. ACF officials told us that, after completing this step, they have noted instances where grants they previously requested be closed continue to appear on subsequent PMS closeout reports—meaning that the grants for which they requested closure were not closed in the payment system. According to these officials, it could be possible for ACF to close a grant award in its grants management system while the grant remains open in the payment system due to a difference in the payments reported to the awarding agency and PMS. As a result, the disconnection between these systems can lead to undisbursed funds remaining in the payment system when the grant is closed in the agencies’ grants management system. In these cases, ACF grant managers may need to deobligate funds from the grant and this requires taking additional steps to reopen the grant in the grant management system. The disconnection between these two systems and, in some cases, the manual steps needed to reconcile the differences between systems can lead to additional administrative burden and resource use to close out grants. Recipients of federal grant awards may be subject to certain federal oversight requirements including having audits conducted. Under a federal audit, the grantee must prepare appropriate financial statements, follow up and take corrective action on audit findings, and provide the auditor access to records, as needed. Agency officials told us grant audits, and the related work, can delay grant closeout. For example, Justice officials noted that open inspector general (IG) audits and investigations, agency financial and programmatic monitoring activities, or open legal or compliance issues can delay grant closeout. Commerce officials also told us grants undergoing audit present closeout challenges. They also said that grants under audit resolution remain open until the audit is complete and a final decision has been issued. Certain types of grants may have audits that take years to complete. For example, NASA officials told us they have faced challenges in closing out grants to for- profit entities that require incurred cost audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). NASA officials said these audits for commercial grants may take up to 3 years to complete as the federal audit agency faces an ongoing audit backlog. Some grant programs fund inherently complex projects. These projects may involve multiple levels of review to comply with state statutes which can delay grant closeout. For example, Commerce officials said grant closeout delays can occur if grant reports are required to be reviewed by various jurisdictions—including universities and state and local governments—before the federal awarding agency. These officials noted that construction grant programs such as the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), a federal grant program to promote the expansion of broadband infrastructure, have a complex review process and have presented challenges for grantees in submitting reports in a timely manner. The officials said BTOP construction grant projects involve many equipment purchases that grantees must have reviewed through state and local jurisdictions. The officials explained that grant projects, such as the BTOP projects, that have a complex multi- jurisdictional review process require extra filings and additional grants management, which can cause grant closeout delays. Indirect costs represent a grantee’s general support expenses that cannot be specifically identified with an individual grant project. Indirect costs include, for example, building utilities and administrative staff salaries. To determine the share of indirect costs that may be charged to federally funded awards, grantees use a mechanism called the indirect cost rate, which may be applied to a portion of direct costs and is available to the grantee for a given period. A grantee may continue using a provisional rate until agreement is reached on a new final rate. The procedure for requesting an indirect cost rate varies based on the type of grantee organization, but it entails submitting an indirect cost rate proposal and negotiating with the grantee’s cognizant rate-setting agency. Agency officials told us negotiating an approved indirect cost rate can delay grant closeout. For example, NASA officials said grant closeout challenges can occur if the final approved rate differs from the provisional indirect cost rate used when the grant was awarded. The officials said that in those cases the grantee must make reporting adjustments based on the final approved rate for the period of performance. In some cases, NASA officials said negotiating a final indirect cost rate agreement can take years. OMB staff told us that one of the main reasons for grant closeout delays involves the complexity of finalizing indirect cost rate agreements. OMB staff explained that while a majority of grantees have negotiated indirect cost rate agreements, the status of the agreement, whether it is a provisional or a final negotiated indirect cost rate, can affect when a grantee can close out. OMB staff said if a rate is not finalized and the award has reached the end date, closing out a grant using a provisional rate may involve subsequent complexities. Indirect cost rate agreements are also an issue for closing grants at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). According to NIST officials, grantees have to negotiate a final rate in order for NIST to properly close an award, and grantees have to wait for their next audit cycle to be able to negotiate a final rate, which could be over a year after the award has expired. Consequently it may not be ideal to close out grants without a final rate. For example if the final indirect rate after closeout is lower, the grantee owes money to the federal government, and the agency would have to recover the funds. However, other agencies we spoke with did not view indirect cost rate agreements as a major challenge that delays grant closeout. We and the federal inspectors general (IG) have continued to report on grant closeout issues and actions taken by federal agencies. These reports, in addition to our 2008 and 2012 reports, identified grant closeout issues at federal award-making agencies and reported on agency progress addressing concerns with grant closeout activities. For example, in 2014 we reported that the Department of State (State) generally did not adhere to its policies and procedures relating to documenting internal-control activities such as grant closeout activities. Through a grants file review, we found four grant awards that State grant officers had closed without evidence that they had reviewed the recipient’s final reports. We recommended that grant officials complete all required documentation for all grants. State concurred with the recommendation and said it would increase the emphasis on the file documentation and will expand the extent of file reviews. In another example, in 2014 we issued a follow-up report on the status of recommendations we made in 2012 to Justice for its Bureau of Justice Assistance to improve grantee accountability in the use of federal funds. We found that Justice took actions to address our 2012 recommendations, including implementing an annual process to review and deobligate all undisbursed grant funds. Issues with final grantee reporting and awarding agency oversight of closeout procedures have also been cited in federal IG reports. Since 2012, IGs at the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and State, the United States Agency for International Development, and NASA have issued reports identifying grant closeout challenges experienced in their respective agencies. For example, the IGs at Agriculture and Energy found agency officials were waiting for final grantee reporting for expired grants but also noted that the agency failed to send a closeout letter as required by regulation and its standard operating procedures. Federal IGs have also reported on closeout issues related to oversight and internal controls. For example, an IG report from State cited significant deficiencies in the agency’s grant-management process including insufficient oversight caused by too few staff managing too many grants, insufficient training of grant officials, and inadequate documentation and closeout of grant activities. Two separate Agriculture IG reports highlight issues related to grant closeout oversight. A 2013 Agriculture IG report found one of its grant-making agencies had weaknesses in controls for deobgliating grant funds remaining after projects were completed. In a 2014 report, the Agriculture IG found that another of its grant-making agencies lacked effective controls, including the lack of established time frames and milestones for completing closeout reviews. The Commerce IG found that one of its grant-making agencies had incomplete grant closeout procedures and another had incomplete standard operating procedures. The Housing and Urban Development IG found that one of its grant-making agencies lacked adequate controls over the closeout process. This included written policies and procedures for management’s oversight to ensure that closeout data were consistently and accurately tracked and grants were closed in a timely manner. The NASA IG found NASA lacked a uniform closeout process and that the agency had not deobligated grant funds in a timely manner. In addition to untimely deobligation, the NASA IG found that the agency incurred unnecessary service fees associated with expired grants. The United States Agency for International Development IG found an agency grant program was not performing grant closeout procedures on schedule and that millions of dollars of grant funds sat idle while awaiting deobligation. The Labor IG reported that one of its grant- making agencies had delays in closing out expired grants because of agency resource constraints developed over several years. Agency officials told us grants management and payment systems with automated system closeout features provide agencies with useful methods to monitor, track, and close out expired grants. For example, HHS officials told us about an automated feature in PMS that had a positive impact in identifying late requests for payments for expired grants. HHS officials said the feature allows the system to flag payment requests for expired grants more than 90 days past the period of performance end date and require the awarding agency to approve the request. Justice officials told us its grant-awarding components use a combination of the grants management system (GMS) and financial systems to track undisbursed balances in expired grants. Justice officials told us that their systems, particularly GMS and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office’s Enterprise Content Management System, helped Justice’s components reduce their closeout backlog. Justice officials cited a useful feature in both systems that includes an automatic notification to the grantee as the award approaches its period of performance end date. Commerce officials told us that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) grants management system, Grants Online (GOL), offers automated features that assist agencies in managing grant closeout. For example, Commerce officials said GOL notifies the grantee of award expiration; due dates for final progress and financial reports; report overdue notices; and issues a copy of any enforcement actions. Commerce officials said GOL provides NOAA the ability to electronically review and complete deobligation memorandums, complete a closeout checklist, and view a workflow history that includes dates, times, and electronic signatures of progress and financial report submissions and approvals by grants managers. Commerce officials also noted that GOL provides the option to generate a report that tracks expired awards. NSF officials told us NSF implemented its new award payment management system, the Award Cash Management Service (ACMS), in 2013. NSF officials explained an advantage of using the new system is that ACMS provides award payment and expenditure detail upon each grantee drawdown of funds. NSF uses the payment and expenditure detail from ACMS to notify grantees that have grants with large undisbursed balances 3 months prior to the grants period of performance end date. NSF officials said this approach has improved the timeliness of no cost extension requests. NASA officials said the contractor responsible for the agency’s award closeout process uses a database tracking tool to facilitate grant closeout and track undisbursed balances. NASA officials said the contractor prepares monthly reports for NASA including reports that may highlight reasons why expired grants remain open. This can help inform NASA’s analysis of undisbursed balances and efforts to close out expired grants. Selected agencies have developed and implemented various policies to manage the grant closeout process. OMB’s Uniform Guidance clarified language on award closeout to help standardize federal agencies’ policies for the award closeout process. In their implementing regulations, some federal award-making agencies have provided additional language beyond the Uniform Guidance. This additional language provided more detail with respect to how these agencies intend to implement their award policies with regard to OMB’s new guidance. In addition to the additional guidance on federal award policies used by some agencies to complement the Uniform Guidance, agency officials told us about various internal policies and practices they implemented to manage the grant closeout process. Specifically, selected agencies incorporated expired grant review analyses and established goals to reduce the number of expired grants in their portfolios. For example, Justice officials told us that Office of Justice Programs (OJP) set an internal grant closeout goal to have no more than 10 percent or 250, whichever is greater, of all expired grants in a fiscal year extend 180 days past the period of performance end date. OJP officials told us they produce monthly and annual grant closeout analyses that track the number of expired grant awards and potential deobligation amounts. These reports compare awards past their period of performance end date by 120-179 days and 180 days or more and present the total number of expired grants that fall into these two categories. According to officials in Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office, they use a similar internal grant closeout goal to process at least 90 percent of all expired grants within 180 days of the grant performance end date. The office prepares an annual report to identify the total number of grants to be closed within 180 days of the grant end date. A quarterly analysis is completed to measure the number of expired grant awards that have completed the closeout process and the total grant funding that has been deobligated. Similarly, Commerce has established a Grants Council that serves as an informal working group that meets every 2 months to discuss intergovernmental grant policies and ways to improve Commerce’s grant business processes. Commerce officials told us that their bureaus provide the Grants Council information on their expired grants that are more than 180 days past the period of performance end date. At each Grants Council meeting, the council reviews closeout trends and any undisbursed balances in expired grants that are more than 180 days past the period of performance end date. Commerce officials said this process helps the council categorize the reasons why grants have not been closed. NSF officials also told us that they conduct an analysis at the end of each fiscal year to determine the number of awards which have expired and the amount of undisbursed balances remaining for each award. Compared to other agencies we contacted, NASA took a different approach to managing its grant closeout backlog. It uses a contractor to facilitate its award-closeout process and track undisbursed balances across the entire agency. NASA officials said the contractor coordinates with the NASA grants management office on all aspects of closeout. The contractor provides a monthly report to NASA’s Shared Service Center, which performs various transactional, administrative, and business functions including financial management for NASA grants, highlighting reasons grants remain open. According to NASA officials, using a contractor to facilitate the closeout process ensures consistency with award closeout across the agency. However, similar to other agencies, NASA conducts an analysis of expired grants. In addition, NASA’s Shared Service Center’s finance office conducts an analysis of undisbursed balances. NASA officials explained that since a 2014 IG review, the agency has evaluated and refined its award closeout process, reduced closeout duplication, and placed more emphasis on tracking expired grants. Officials from Commerce and Justice also told us their respective agencies have developed training guides for grantees or awarding agency grant managers. NOAA officials told us they conducted grants workshop training for grantees and provided training materials on grant closeout. For example, NOAA training materials provide information on grant closeout topics including Commerce closeout policies and regulations, responsibilities of the grantee and awarding agency, closeout checklists, definitions, and a list of closeout issues for grant managers to raise awareness for potential challenges. Justice also placed an emphasis on developing closeout training for grantees and awarding agency grant managers. Officials from OJP, the Office on Violence Against Women, and the COPS Office, which represent all of Justice’s grant-making agencies, said their respective offices provide closeout training and financial management training for grantees. For example, the OJP training guide covers closeout topics such as the OJP closeout process and time frame, key grant closeout terms and definitions, responsibilities, and a step-by-step guide to assist the grantee in using the closeout module in the GMS to close the grant. By developing training and information resources for both grantees and awarding agencies, these agencies are using training as a method of informing all grant stakeholders of the importance of a timely grant closeout. OMB’s 2012 Controller Alert advised grant-making agencies to consider establishing policy and procedures for unilaterally closing out expired grants. Selected agency officials also told us they have implemented various internal policies that address administrative obstacles which can cause grantees to fail to meet the terms of the agreement and delay grant closeout processing. For example, Commerce officials said they implemented a policy in 2013 that allowed the grants officer to carry out an administrative closeout of expired and unexpired awards when the recipient was no longer in existence or the recipient was unresponsive to attempts to make contact. OJP, COPS, and the Office on Violence Against Women use a similar policy to carry out an administrative closeout of grant awards in which the grantee was unable or unwilling to complete the requirements of the award. Under this policy, Justice officials said the closeout process was initiated by either the grant manager or automatically by GMS for an expired grant that reached 91 days past the grant period of performance end date. NASA has an administrative closeout policy that enables the grant officer to initiate a closeout within 270 days of the end of the period of performance if the recipient is not cooperating with the terms of the award. HHS officials explained that unilateral closeout exists as an option for closing awards, but it is used infrequently and judiciously. HHS officials noted that nuanced analysis and detailed communication should occur prior to exercising a unilateral closeout to avoid negatively impacting recipients that are cooperating. In situations where attempts to contact a recipient are unsuccessful, or when an agreement cannot be reached with a recipient, unilateral closeout is a tool of last resort when HHS operating divisions have not been successful in obtaining acceptable final reports from grant recipients. From fiscal year 2010 through 2016, the Appropriations Act for Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies has required that OMB instruct any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States receiving funds appropriated under the act to track undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts and include these balances in its annual performance plan and performance and accountability reports. In response to these laws, in 2010 and 2011 OMB issued instructions for tracking and reporting on undisbursed grant balances to these affected federal agencies. However, according to OMB staff and officials at the affected agencies we interviewed, OMB had not issued any instructions on reporting these balances since 2011, and OMB staff did not think that restating additional guidance was necessary given the language in the selected agencies’ appropriations acts. OMB staff explained that they did not conduct a detailed review of agency reporting of undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts. Our review included four of the affected agencies under this appropriations act—Commerce, Justice, NASA, and NSF. While all four agencies demonstrated that they have internal policies in place to review expired grants and undisbursed balances, only Justice and NSF have continually reported these undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts. NASA stopped reporting these balances in its annual performance reporting after fiscal year 2011, and Commerce stopped reporting them after fiscal year 2012. They both cited a lack of guidance from OMB related to reporting undisbursed balances in expired grants as the reason why they stopped reporting. Our previous work has found that reporting on the status of grant closeouts in annual performance reports can raise the visibility of untimely grant closeout within federal agencies. It can also lead to improvements in grant closeouts and reduce undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts. These reports help the President, Congress, and the American people assess agencies’ accomplishments for each fiscal year by comparing agencies’ actual performance against their annual performance goals, summarizing the findings of program evaluations completed during the year, and describing the actions needed to address any unmet goals. For example, in accordance with the appropriations act, both Justice and NSF have been reporting undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts in their agency performance reporting since 2010. These reports clearly point to the number of expired grants and the amount of related undisbursed grant balances. Specifically, in fiscal year 2012, NSF reported $184.5 million in undisbursed balances in almost 8,000 expired grants. In fiscal year 2015, NSF reported an undisbursed balance of $72.3 million in approximately 4,400 expired grant accounts. However, as we noted above, NASA and Commerce have not been reporting these balances as required since fiscal years 2011 and 2012, respectively. As a result of OMB not recognizing the language in the appropriations acts as a requirement to instruct agencies to report these balances and NASA and Commerce not recognizing the language in the appropriations acts to report, the undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts for NASA and Commerce have not been reported since fiscal years 2011 and 2012, respectively. In July 2012, OMB issued a Controller Alert that instructed agencies to take appropriate action to close out grants in a timely manner. This alert asked all Chief Financial Officer Act agencies to consider the following: determine what closeout means for their programs; focus on closing out grants several years past their end date or having no remaining funds; establish policies and procedures to unilaterally close out grants; leverage internal control procedures outlined in OMB Circular No. A- 123, Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control, to minimize risk associated to not closing out grants in a timely manner; and monitor closeout activity to track progress in reducing the closeout backlog. In December 2013, OMB consolidated its grants management circulars into a single document, OMB’s Uniform Guidance. This consolidated guidance included some changes and clarifications for federal awarding agencies and non-federal entities receiving grant funds on grant closeout time frames and final adjustments to grantee reimbursable expenses. The major change to grant closeout in the Uniform Guidance established the period of 1 year for federal awarding agencies to complete all closeout actions. It also clarifies that this closeout period begins after receipt and acceptance of all required final reports. While the 2012 Controller Alert and the Uniform Guidance take steps in the right direction to increase government-wide awareness related to timely grant closeout, these alerts and guidance documents continue to lack instruction on tracking and reporting undisbursed balances in grant accounts eligible for closeout, as we recommended in 2008. At that time, in response to our recommendation, OMB stated that it did not believe that having agencies report on these balances in their performance reporting would reduce undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts. According to federal standards for internal control, information should be recorded and communicated to management and others within the entity who need it. It should also come in a form and within a time frame that enables the entity to carry out its internal control and other responsibilities. Encouraging effective external communication on undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts would serve to further transparency efforts and promote informed decision making. Grant closeout is an important final point of accountability for grantees that helps to ensure they have met all financial requirements and have provided final reports as required. Closing out grants also allows agencies to identify and redirect unused funds to other projects and priorities as authorized or to return unspent balances to the Treasury. We have previously reported that agencies can improve their grant closeout process when they direct their attention to the issue and make timely grant closeout a high priority. We have also stated that tracking undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts, including the status of grant closeouts on annual performance reports, could raise the visibility of the problem within individual agencies and across the federal government. However, our analysis of PMS data indicates that expired grant accounts, and, in some cases, the undisbursed balances associated with these expired accounts, persisted as an issue for agencies in 2015. The number of expired grant accounts decreased since we last reported these data in 2012. However, the amount of undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts has increased. HHS has not effectively used PMS data to help target agency efforts toward closing accounts that have the largest undisbursed balances and is missing an opportunity to help agencies significantly reduce undisbursed balances and deobligate funds from expired grant accounts, consistent with its grant closeout policies to close out grants within 270 days of their expiration. In January 2016, the GONE Act was signed into law. This act requires government-wide reporting of undisbursed balances in certain expired grants and provides a basis for government-wide reporting of these balances. In addition, OMB’s implementation of Section 537 of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010 and subsequent annual legislation creates a framework for such reporting. However, affected agencies have varied in the reporting of these balances and have said they need clearer instructions from OMB on where and how to report these balances. Effective implementation of grant closeout requirements in the GONE Act and appropriations acts depends on clear instructions for where and how to report this information and on appropriate agency policies for timely closeout. Improved grant closeout processes can in turn allow federal agencies to make better use of their appropriated funds. 1. The Director of OMB resume instructing all affected and independent agencies receiving funds under the 2016 appropriations act to track and report undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts. 2. The Administrator of NASA resume reporting on the undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts in the agency’s annual performance reporting. 3. The Secretary for the Department of Commerce resume reporting on the undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts in the agency’s annual performance reporting. 4. The Secretary of HHS, to improve the enforcement of existing HHS Grant Policy Manual grant closeout guidance and reduce undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts, require all HHS grant-making operating divisions to take the following two actions: identify grants expired for more than 1 year past their period of performance end date and to either close the expired grant in the Payment Management System or to determine why these grants are not closed; and identify expired grant accounts designated for immediate closure by the Payment Management System and require these operating divisions to close the expired grant accounts in PMS or explain why these grants are not closed. We provided a draft of this report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the Assistant Attorney General for Administration of the Department of Justice; the Office of the Director of the National Science Foundation; and the Secretaries of the Departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury. Commerce, HHS, NASA and OMB responded with written comments, which we have reprinted in appendixes III, IV, V, and VI, respectively. OMB concurred with the recommendation and said it will issue guidance to the heads of the Selected Agencies to report on balances in expired grant accounts in the agencies’ fiscal year 2016 performance and accountability reports. In addition, OMB stated it is currently analyzing the requirements of the GONE Act and will be issuing government-wide guidance on the reporting of the required information by July 2016. NASA partially concurred with GAO’s recommendation, saying it would resume reporting on undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts once guidance was provided by OMB. Commerce concurred with GAO’s recommendation. HHS concurred with GAO’s recommendations and said it will implement strategies, in accordance with the recommendations, to address and reduce grant closeout delays and further enhance compliance with HHS’ Grants Policy Administrative Manual. Staff from OMB, HHS, Justice, NSF, and Commerce also provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate. NASA and Treasury had no technical comments. We are sending copies of this report to the heads of the Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, OMB, Commerce, Justice, NASA, and NSF, as well as interested congressional committees and other interested parties. This report will also be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or sagerm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of our report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII. This report examines (1) the extent to which there are undisbursed balances remaining in expired grant accounts in the federal government’s largest civilian payment management system—the Payment Management System (PMS) administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); (2) the reasons selected agencies give for their grant accounts remaining open past their end dates; and (3) the extent to which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) monitors agency progress with regard to tracking and reporting on undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts. To address the first objective, we analyzed data from PMS administered by HHS’s Program Support Center (PSC). Federal payment systems facilitate the transfer of cash payments from federal awarding agencies to grantees. Some agencies make grant payments directly to grantees using their own proprietary payment systems. Others enter into arrangements with payment systems that serve multiple agencies to make payments on their behalf. PMS was selected based on the following criteria: PMS provides payment services to other federal departments and entities. In 2015, offices from 12 federal departments and agencies used PMS for making grant disbursements. PMS accounts for a significant percentage of civilian federal grant disbursements. Based on fiscal year 2014 data, the most recent available at the time of our selection, PMS made about $429 billion in grant disbursements, or 74 percent of all civilian federal grants disbursements in fiscal year 2014. PMS is a centralized grant payment and cash management system, operated by PSC in the Division of Payment Management (DPM) at HHS. According to DPM, the main purpose of PMS is to serve as the fiscal intermediary between awarding agencies and the recipients of grants and contracts. Its main objectives are to expedite the flow of cash between the federal government and recipients, transmit recipient disbursement data back to the awarding agencies, and manage cash flow advances to grant recipients. PSC personnel operate PMS, making payments to grant recipients, serving as user/recipient liaisons, and reporting disbursement data to awarding agencies. Awarding agencies’ responsibilities include entry of authorization data into PMS, program and grant monitoring, grant closeout, and reconciliation of their accounting records to PMS information. Awarding agencies pay PSC a service fee for maintaining accounts and executing payments through PMS. PMS continues to charge agency customers a servicing fee until a grant account is closed. To update our previous analysis of undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts and provide a degree of comparability, we replicated the methodology used in our 2008 and 2012 reports. To determine the amount of undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts, we analyzed PMS data from closeout reports PSC makes available to PMS customers each quarter. These closeout reports list all expired grant accounts that, according to the data system, have not completed all of their closeout procedures. A grant account is considered expired in PMS if (1) the grant end date is more than 3 months old, and (2) the latest date of disbursement was at least 9 months old. PMS does not close a grant account until instructed to do so by the awarding agency. For each grant account, the report includes such information as the identification number, the amount of funding authorized for the grant, the amount disbursed, and the beginning and end dates for the grant. The grant end date is a mandatory field completed by the awarding agency. PSC provided us with the PMS quarterly closeout report for the end of fiscal year 2015 (September 30, 2015). PSC appended to the closeout data an additional field showing the applicable number from the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) for each grant account. We used the CFDA number provided by PSC to help determine which accounts to exclude from our analysis. The purpose of these exclusions was to avoid including accounts that would distort the calculation of undisbursed funds in expired PMS grant accounts and to provide comparability with our previous findings. Our criteria for excluding accounts were consistent with the methodology we used in our 2008 and 2012 reports. We excluded 127 programs from our review. We included programs that were grants or cooperative agreements; had a time limit for spending; had a zero or positive undisbursed balance; had a readily identifiable CFDA number and program description in did not have special financial reporting procedures. For reporting purposes, we separated data into two sets of expired grant accounts: (1) one set consisted of expired accounts for which all of the funds made available had been disbursed and (2) a second set of accounts included expired accounts with a positive undisbursed balance. To obtain an estimate of the total amount of fees paid for maintaining accounts with no undisbursed balances remaining, we requested data from PSC for all accounts that appear on the year-end fiscal year 2015 closeout report (i.e., as of September 30, 2015) with a unique accounting status symbol indicating that no undisbursed balances remained and that the awarding agency only needed to submit the final closeout code to PSC to finalize grant closeout. According to data provided by PSC, PMS users were charged a total of roughly $29,000 September 2015 to maintain more than 5,900 expired grant accounts with no undisbursed balances remaining listed on the year-end closeout report. To test the reliability of PMS closeout data, we (1) reviewed existing documentation related to PMS, including the most recent audit of the design and operating effectiveness of the system’s controls, (2) interviewed officials responsible for administration of the database on data entry and editing procedures and the production of closeout reports, and (3) conducted electronic testing for obvious errors in completeness and accuracy. We discussed with HHS officials any known limitations associated with the data. According to HHS officials, no-cost extensions that extend the grant period without changing the authorized amount of funding may not be reflected in PMS data. As a result, PMS closeout reports may include grants that have received an extension and are therefore not eligible for closeout. No obvious errors in completeness and accuracy were identified during electronic testing. After conducting these assessment steps, we found that the PMS closeout data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. In our 2012 report, we included an analysis of data contained in “dormant account reports” that were provided to users of a second payment system, the Automated Standard Application for Payments (ASAP), administered by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Federal Reserve Bank. We were unable to include the results of a similar analysis of the data contained in the most recent dormant account report (dated October 2015) because the number of grant accounts identified was below the threshold at which we could report without potentially identifying the recipients. To address our second objective and identify why selected agencies have expired grants open past their end dates, we collected and reviewed audit reports from GAO and inspectors general (IG) at the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act (CFO Act) agencies that focused on undisbursed funds in expired grants accounts and grant closeout. We reviewed IG reports from the 24 CFO Act agencies from September 2011 to March 2015 in order to provide coverage of the major grant-making agencies and because this approach updated the review we performed as part of the work on our 2008 and 2012 reports, which included IG reports issued between 2000 and 2011. We also reviewed annual performance reports for all 24 agencies to determine how the major grant-making agencies were reporting on undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts. We also reviewed available data on grant closeout from selected agencies. We interviewed agency officials at selected grant-making agencies to determine reasons why grants remain open past their end date and determine to what extent there are promising practices related to grant closeout. Agencies selected for interviews reflect a mix of PMS customers, one from within HHS that, according to preliminary analysis of March 31, 2015 PMS data, had a large undisbursed balance. We also interviewed officials from the United States Department of Commerce, the United States Department of Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation as agencies that have been instructed through their appropriations acts since 2010 to report on undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts. To address our third objective and understand the extent to which OMB monitors agency progress with regard to tracking and reporting progress on reducing undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts, we reviewed relevant OMB guidance, including: Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) and OMB Circular No. A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements. We reviewed two memorandums related to tracking undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts issued by OMB in 2010 and 2011 to selected agencies receiving funding under the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations act, and the related appropriations acts from 2010 through 2016. We also reviewed an OMB 2012 Controller Alert focused on timely grant closeout. We interviewed OMB staff on providing government-wide guidance for grants management and grant closeout and officials at the four agencies that reported undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts in 2010 and 2011 annual performance reports—the United States Department of Commerce, the United States Department of Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation—to discuss their implementation of OMB’s instructions. In addition to the contact named above, Thomas M. James (Assistant Director), Keith O’Brien (Analyst-in-Charge), Sara L. Daleski, Bertha Dong, and Michael Sweet made major contributions to this report. Other key contributors include Joy Booth, Michael Grogan, Kimberly McGatlin, Robert Robinson, and Cynthia Saunders. The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog. Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. Please Print on Recycled Paper.

Summary: In 2008 and 2012, GAO reported on hundreds of millions of dollars in undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts in the largest civilian payment system for grants, PMS. GAO was asked to update this work. GAO examined: (1) the extent to which there are undisbursed balances remaining in expired grant accounts in PMS; (2) the reasons selected agencies give for their grant accounts remaining open past their end dates; and (3) the extent to which OMB monitors agency progress with regard to tracking and reporting undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts. To do this, GAO analyzed PMS data as of September 30, 2015; reviewed audit reports issued by GAO and federal inspectors general, agency performance reports, and OMB guidance; and interviewed agency officials from OMB, HHS, Commerce, Justice, NASA and NSF. GAO found approximately $994 million in funding remained in expired grant accounts in the Payment Management System (PMS), operated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), at the end of fiscal year 2015. PMS identifies expired grant accounts for users as those accounts more than 3 months past their grant end date that have not had payment activity for 9 months. PMS makes payments for 12 federal entities and about 77 percent of all federal civilian grant payments. GAO’s analysis of the September 30, 2015, PMS data indicated the following: The total undisbursed balance increased by approximately $200 million from what GAO reported for the end of fiscal year 2011. However, the number of expired grant accounts with undisbursed balances decreased to 8,832 in 2015 compared to 10,548 in 2011. More than half the accounts exceeded their expiration date by 1 to 3 years. A relatively small number of expired grant accounts represented more than half of the total undisbursed balance—151 grants represented $514.7 million in undisbursed balances. HHS grant accounts in PMS comprised approximately $651 million (66 percent) of the identified undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts. The number of expired grant accounts with no undisbursed balance that PMS flagged for closeout dropped to 5,906 from the more than 28,000 accounts GAO reported for the end of fiscal year 2011. HHS accounts made up 66 percent of the 5,906 expired accounts flagged for closeout, which is inconsistent with HHS policy. Agency officials told GAO that closeout delays can occur for a number of reasons, including grantee failure to submit final financial and performance reports and agency failure to review, process, and reconcile grantees’ final reporting in a timely manner.These agency officials included staff from HHS, the largest PMS user, and the Departments of Commerce (Commerce) and Justice (Justice), the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF), which previously reported undisbursed balances for expired grants. These agencies have implemented various internal policies to elevate the issue of timely grant closeout internally, including developing internal working groups that set grant closeout goals and analyzing the number of expired grants not yet closed out. Since 2010, Congress has required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to specifically instruct Commerce, Justice, NASA, and NSF to track and provide information onbalances in expired grant accounts. OMB has not issued this guidance since 2011, and NASA and Commerce have not reported on these balances since 2011 and 2012, respectively. OMB staff did not think that it was necessary to restate the requirements given the language in these agencies’ appropriations acts. OMB updated its guidance on grant closeout in December 2013. However, OMB did not specify procedures for tracking and reporting undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts. GAO recommends that OMB resume instructing agencies to report undisbursed balances for expired grant accounts as required under their respective appropriations acts and that NASA and Commerce resume reporting on these balances. GAO also recommends that HHS require its grant-making operating divisions to identify grants expired more than 1 year past their period of performance end date and close those grants or determine why they are not closed, consistent with agency policy. OMB and the agencies agreed with the recommendations.