FFMIA is part of a series of financial management reform legislation enacted since the early 1980s. This series of legislation started with the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), which the Congress passed to strengthen internal controls and accounting systems throughout the federal government, among other purposes. Issued pursuant to FMFIA, the Comptroller General’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government provides the standards that are directed at helping agency managers implement effective internal control, an integral part of improving financial management systems. Internal control plays a major role in managing an organization and comprises the plans, methods, and procedures used to meet missions, goals, and objectives. In summary, internal control helps government program managers achieve desired results through effective management of public resources. Effective internal control also helps in managing change to cope with shifting environments and evolving demands and priorities. As programs change and agencies strive to enhance operational processes and implement new technological developments, management must continually assess and evaluate its internal control to ensure that the control activities being used are effective and updated when necessary. While agencies had achieved some early success in identifying and correcting material internal control and accounting system weaknesses, their efforts to implement FMFIA had not produced the results intended by the Congress and sufficiently improved general and financial management in the federal government. Therefore, beginning in the 1990s, the Congress passed additional management reform legislation to achieve these management improvements in the federal government. This legislation includes the (1) CFO Act of 1990, (2) Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, (3) Government Management Reform Act of 1994, (4) FFMIA, (5) Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, (6) Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002, (7) Improper Payments Information Act of 2002, (8) Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA), and (9) Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act of 2004. The combination of reforms ushered in by these laws, if successfully implemented, provides a solid foundation to improve the accountability of government programs and operations as well as to routinely produce valuable cost and operating performance information. These financial management reform laws reflect the importance of improving financial management of the federal government. Appendixes II through VI include details on the various requirements, guidance, standards, and checklists that support federal financial management. OMB sets governmentwide financial management policies and requirements, as well as guidance related to FFMIA. OMB Circular No. A-127, Financial Management Systems, defines the policies and standards prescribed for executive agencies to follow in developing, operating, evaluating, and reporting on financial management systems. OMB Circular No. A-127 references the series of publications entitled federal financial management systems requirements, issued by the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program (JFMIP) as the primary source of governmentwide requirements for financial management systems. Federal financial management systems requirements, among other things, provide a framework for establishing integrated financial management systems to support program and financial managers. Appendix III lists the series of federal financial management systems requirements published to date. In a January 4, 2001, memorandum, Revised Implementation Guidance for the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act, OMB provided guidance for agencies and auditors to use in assessing substantial compliance. The guidance describes the factors that should be considered in determining whether an agency’s systems substantially comply with FFMIA’s three requirements and provides guidance to agency heads to assist in developing corrective action plans for bringing their systems into compliance with FFMIA. There are examples included in the guidance on the types of indicators that should be used as a basis in assessing whether an agency’s systems are in substantial compliance with FFMIA requirements. In addition, we have worked in partnership with the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) to develop and maintain the joint GAO/PCIE Financial Audit Manual (FAM). The FAM presents a methodology that auditors may, but are not required to, use to perform financial statement audits of federal entities in accordance with professional standards and includes sections that provide specific procedures auditors should perform when assessing FFMIA compliance. These sections include guidance and detailed audit steps for testing agency financial management systems’ substantial compliance with the requirements of FFMIA. The FAM guidance on FFMIA assessments recognizes that while financial statement audits offer some assurance on FFMIA compliance, auditors should design and implement additional testing to satisfy FFMIA criteria. Testing for compliance with FFMIA is efficiently accomplished, for the most part, as part of the work done in understanding agency systems in the internal control phase of the audit, and the FAM provides specific guidance on what additional testing should be performed, such as tests of information system controls and nonsampling control tests. The purpose of financial management systems goes beyond providing the data necessary to comply with various financial reporting requirements to focus on routinely producing reliable, useful, and timely financial information that federal managers can use for day-to-day decision-making purposes. Recognizing that decision makers can benefit from a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with federal financial management systems, the Comptroller General convened a forum on improving federal financial management systems in December 2007. According to several participants, producing accurate financial statements should be viewed as a by-product of effective business processes and financial management systems. We have consistently provided this perspective for a number of years in our prior reports. As in prior years, the auditors’ fiscal year 2007 FFMIA assessments for the 24 CFO Act agencies illustrate that many agencies still do not have effective financial management systems, including processes, procedures, and controls in place that can produce reliable, useful, and timely financial information with which to make informed decisions on an ongoing basis. The primary goal of FFMIA is for agencies to improve financial management systems so that financial information from these systems can be used to help manage agency programs more effectively and enhance the ability to prepare auditable financial statements. Auditors reported a change in their FFMIA assessment for five agencies’ systems that they determined are no longer in substantial noncompliance for fiscal year 2007. The auditors noted these agencies took corrective action in the areas of compliance with federal accounting standards and federal financial management systems requirements. However, in light of the significant deficiencies and problems that auditors are still reporting, we remain concerned that criteria for substantial compliance with FFMIA requirements are not well defined or consistently implemented across the 24 CFO Act agencies. Recognizing that decision makers can benefit from a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with federal financial management systems, the Comptroller General convened a forum on December 11, 2007. The forum brought together knowledgeable and recognized financial management leaders from the federal government, including the CFO, Chief Information Officer, and IG communities, and selected other officials with extensive experience in financial management from both the public and private sectors. One of the themes from the forum was that federal financial management leaders should refocus their efforts on comprehending and meeting program managers’ financial information requirements and not simply on meeting financial reporting compliance requirements. Despite agencies’ emphasis on meeting financial reporting compliance requirements, about two thirds of forum participants (21 of 33 respondents) agreed that financial management systems are not able to provide or provide little information that is reliable, useful, and timely to assist managers in their day-to-day decision-making, which is the ultimate goal of FFMIA. Figure 1 shows 19 of the 24 CFO Act agencies received an unqualified opinion on their financial statements in fiscal year 2007. However, for 8 of these 19 agencies, auditors reported that systems did not substantially comply with one or more of the three FFMIA requirements and that significant problems exist, as discussed later. According to auditors, some of these 8 agencies have been able to obtain unqualified audit opinions through extensive labor-intensive efforts, which include using ad hoc procedures, expending significant resources, and making billions of dollars in adjustments to derive financial statements. This is usually the case when agencies have inadequate systems that are not integrated and routinely reconciled. These time-consuming procedures must be combined with sustained efforts to improve agencies’ underlying financial management systems and controls. Forum participants said that producing accurate financial statements should be viewed as a byproduct of effective business processes and financial management systems. We have expressed a similar viewpoint in the past. If agencies continue year after year to rely on costly and time-intensive manual efforts to achieve or maintain unqualified opinions, the Congress and others may be misled as to the true status of agencies’ financial management systems capabilities. While work performed in auditing financial statements would naturally offer some perspective regarding FFMIA compliance, the work necessary to assess substantial compliance of systems with the FFMIA requirements has a complementary but broader focus than that performed for purposes of rendering an opinion on the financial statements. In performing financial statement audits, auditors generally focus on the capability of the financial management systems to process and summarize financial information that flows into the financial statements. For purposes of FFMIA, financial management systems include systems, processes, procedures, and controls that produce the information management uses day to day, not just systems that produce annual financial statements. Thus, according to the FAM, to report on system compliance with FFMIA, the auditor should understand the design of and test, as needed, the financial management systems (including the financial portion of any mixed systems) used for managing financial operations, supporting financial planning, management reporting, budgeting activities, and systems accumulating and reporting cost information. Several forum participants expressed concern that because of the efforts devoted to preparing financial reports and meeting financial reporting compliance requirements, finance organizations have not focused sufficient attention on understanding and meeting the financial management needs of their own program managers. FFMIA was designed to lead to system improvements that would result in agency managers routinely having access to reliable, useful, and timely financial-related information to measure performance and increase accountability throughout the year. If significant adjustments are made at year end for financial statement reporting purposes, then management has more than likely been operating with inaccurate data throughout the year. According to auditors, the majority of federal agencies’ financial management systems are still not in substantial compliance with FFMIA requirements. As shown in figure 2, auditors reported that 13 of the 24 CFO Act agencies’ systems did not substantially comply with one or more of the three FFMIA requirements for fiscal year 2007. This compares with 17 agencies whose systems were reported as not substantially compliant with FFMIA requirements for fiscal year 2006. Based on our review of the fiscal year 2007 audit reports for the 13 agencies reported to have systems not in substantial compliance with one or more of FFMIA’s three requirements, noncompliance with federal financial management systems requirements was the most frequently auditor-cited deficiency of the three FFMIA requirements. Auditors for six CFO Act agencies reported a change in the FFMIA assessment for fiscal year 2007. The auditor for one agency, EPA, changed its FFMIA assessment from no instances of substantial noncompliance in fiscal year 2006, to not being in substantial compliance with FFMIA requirements for fiscal year 2007 because of problems related to security over certain information systems. The auditors for five agencies reported agencies’ financial management systems were no longer in substantial noncompliance. As discussed later, auditors for these five agencies noted that the agencies took corrective action in the areas of federal accounting standards and federal financial management systems requirements. However, as we have previously reported, we are still concerned that criteria for substantial compliance are not well defined or consistently implemented across the 24 CFO Act agencies. In light of the significant deficiencies and problems that auditors are still reporting, it appears that agencies and auditors may be interpreting OMB’s January 4, 2001, FFMIA guidance to mean that if an agency has no material weaknesses, it is in substantial compliance with the three FFMIA requirements. Further, we caution that the number of agencies reported as noncompliant may be even greater because all but one auditor provided negative assurance. As we have previously reported, when auditors express negative assurance, the auditors are not saying that they determined the systems to be substantially compliant, but that the work performed did not identify instances of noncompliance. Therefore, the auditors may not have identified all instances of noncompliance with FFMIA requirements and included all problems in their reports. Based on our review of the fiscal year 2007 audit reports for the 13 agencies reported to have systems not in substantial compliance with one or more of FFMIA’s three requirements, noncompliance with federal financial management systems requirements was the deficiency auditors most frequently cited of the three FFMIA requirements. To better understand the underlying issues regarding agencies’ noncompliance with federal financial management systems requirements, we divided this requirement into four problem areas including nonintegrated systems, inadequate reconciliation procedures, lack of accurate and timely recording, and weak security over information systems. These four problem areas related to federal financial management systems requirements, plus the two areas related to noncompliance with the SGL and lack of adherence to federal accounting standards result in six problem areas. Figure 3 shows the number of agencies with problems reported in each of the six areas for fiscal year 2007. The weaknesses reported by the auditors ranged from serious, pervasive systems problems to less serious problems that may affect only one aspect of an agency’s accounting operation. While at some agencies, the problems were so serious that they affected the auditor’s opinion on the agency’s financial statements, at other agencies, the auditors cited problems that represented significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control, but were determined not to be material to the financial statements taken as a whole. Table 1 illustrates the potential effect these six types of problems can have on an agency’s financial management. For example, the auditor for the Department of the Treasury reported that IRS personnel rely on resource- intensive compensating procedures to prepare its financial statements in a timely manner because of serious internal control and financial management systems deficiencies. These challenges affect IRS’s ability to fulfill its responsibilities as the nation’s tax collector because its managers lack accurate, useful, and timely financial information and sound controls with which to make fully informed decisions day-to-day and to ensure ongoing accountability. For fiscal year 2007, auditors for five agencies no longer reported a lack of substantial compliance with FFMIA requirements. While auditors reported that improvements at those five agencies were because of agency- implemented corrective actions, in some cases, it appears that varying interpretations of OMB’s FFMIA guidance on the definition of “substantial compliance” may have played a role. The implementation guidance provides indicators of substantial compliance, such as whether an agency’s “audit disclosed no material weaknesses in internal control that affect the agency’s ability to prepare financial statements and related disclosures.” However, this indicator only addresses the federal accounting standards requirement of FFMIA, not the federal financial management systems or the SGL requirement. We are concerned that auditors are interpreting OMB’s FFMIA implementation guidance to mean that if an agency has no material weaknesses in controls over the area of financial reporting, it is compliant with FFMIA. For example, the auditor for Justice told us that the reduction of certain material weaknesses to significant deficiencies was a factor for the change in its FFMIA assessment of substantial compliance. Based primarily on the information contained in the agencies’ performance and accountability reports, the following summarizes how auditors determined that five agencies were no longer substantially noncompliant in fiscal year 2007. Department of Energy—The Department of Energy’s auditor reported one material weakness related to FFMIA noncompliance in the area of federal accounting standards at the end of fiscal year 2006. For 2006, the auditor reported that the department did not properly account for obligations and undelivered orders, which affected the accuracy, validity, and completeness of these account balances. During fiscal year 2007, the department reported it took corrective actions including, but not limited to, improving several reports and related reconciliation processes. Because of these efforts, the auditor reported that the corrective actions related to the material weakness on obligations and undelivered orders were fully implemented and considered the finding closed in fiscal year 2007. In fiscal year 2007, Energy had a significant deficiency related to network vulnerabilities and weaknesses in access and other security controls in the department’s unclassified computer information systems. The auditor concluded that its tests disclosed no instances in which the department’s financial management systems did not substantially comply with the three FFMIA requirements for fiscal year 2007. Department of the Interior—At the end of fiscal year 2006, the Department of the Interior’s auditor reported FFMIA-related findings in the area of federal accounting standards, that resulted in the department not being in substantial compliance with FFMIA requirements. The findings included a material weakness related to controls over Indian Trust Funds and a reportable condition on the improper disclosure of the condition of museum collections. According to management, Interior implemented corrective actions during fiscal year 2007, including closing 9,400 probate cases and deploying the Trust Asset and Accounting Management System. As a result, the auditor reduced the Indian Trust Fund finding to a significant deficiency and closed the museum collection finding entirely in fiscal year 2007. While the department invested a significant amount of resources to improve its controls over Indian Trust Funds, the auditor noted that Interior needs to continue its efforts to resolve historical differences and to improve procedures and internal controls for entering and maintaining Trust Fund information. In addition, a repeat significant deficiency was reported by the auditor on general and application controls over financial management systems. The auditor stated that the previously mentioned findings were not significant enough to warrant concluding that the department was substantially noncompliant with FFMIA requirements for fiscal year 2007. Department of Justice—Justice’s auditor reported FFMIA-related findings in the area of federal financial management systems requirements that resulted in the department not being in substantial compliance with FFMIA requirements at the end of fiscal year 2006. One of these findings was a repeat material weakness related to the department’s financial management systems’ general and application controls. According to the auditor, during fiscal year 2007, three out of the four components that had long-standing material weaknesses in this area—United States Marshals Service, Office of Justice Programs, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—made enough improvements to internal controls over their information system environment to reduce the finding from a material weakness to a significant deficiency. Some of the reported corrective actions included increasing security awareness and training, and implementing stronger password setting policy. In its commentary and summary of Justice’s annual financial statement for fiscal year 2007, the Justice IG made the following comment about Justice’s financial system environment: “Inadequate, outdated, and in some cases non-integrated financial management systems do not provide certain automated financial transaction processing activities that are necessary to support management’s need for timely and accurate financial information throughout the year.” In the IG’s 2007 list of top management and performance challenges facing Justice, the IG also reported that “the Department’s efforts over the past few years to implement the Unified Financial Management System (UFMS) to replace the seven major accounting systems currently used throughout the Department have been subject to fits and starts. Three years after the Department selected a vendor for the unified system it has made little progress in deploying the UFMS. The Department notes that problems with funding, staff turnover, and other competing priorities have caused the delays in implementing the UFMS. Until that time, Department-wide accounting information will have to continue to be produced manually, a costly process that undermines the Department’s ability to prepare financial statements that are timely and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Furthermore, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Marshals Service will not be able to achieve compliance with the FFMIA requirement to record all activity at the United States Standard General Ledger transaction level until the UFMS has been fully implemented.” We also noted that all nine of Justice’s components still had at least one significant deficiency or material weakness related to general and application controls, and five out of the nine components had findings related to a second significant deficiency on improving internal controls to ensure that transactions are properly recorded, processed, and summarized to permit the preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Justice’s auditor concluded that its tests disclosed no instances in which the department’s financial management systems did not substantially comply with the three requirements of FFMIA for fiscal year 2007. Department of Labor—Labor’s auditor reported FFMIA-related reportable conditions in the area of federal financial management systems requirements, which resulted in the department not being in substantial compliance with FFMIA requirements at the end of fiscal year 2006. These reportable conditions related to lack of strong application controls over access to and protection of financial information, lack of strong logical security controls to secure Labor’s networks and information, and weaknesses noted in the change control process for a benefits system. In addition, Labor’s fiscal year 2006 FISMA report identified a significant deficiency related to a mixed system. According to management, Labor pursued an aggressive remediation process during fiscal year 2007 by revising computer security guidance and performing access controls testing and evaluation for all major information systems. Labor’s auditors noted improvements in the areas of general computer controls related to a Labor benefits system, controls over the mixed system cited in the fiscal year 2006 FISMA report, and updated policies and procedures. For fiscal year 2007, auditors for Labor reported 2 prior year reportable conditions as one significant deficiency related to the lack of adequate controls over access to key financial and support systems. Specifically, the auditor noted issues that were present in multiple financial systems across the department such as inactive accounts were not disabled or deleted in a timely manner; generic accounts existed on systems; and access to sensitive files, directories, or software was not restricted. According to the auditor, each access control issue mentioned presented a reasonably possible chance to adversely affect Labor’s ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data. The auditor also reported that these access control weaknesses could lead to users with inappropriate access to financial systems; inefficient processes, lack of completeness, accuracy, or integrity of financial data; and/or the lack of detection of unusual activity within financial systems. As a result of the access control weaknesses identified, the IG reported an access control significant deficiency in conjunction with its testing of compliance with FISMA for fiscal year 2007. However, the IG’s fiscal year 2007 FISMA report did not communicate significant deficiencies for specific systems; instead, it reported significant deficiencies by control type, grouping all impacted systems together in each deficiency. Labor’s auditors stated, as a result, they could not determine the severity of deficiencies for any individual financial or mixed system. Labor’s auditor concluded that the department complied, in all material respects, with the requirements of FFMIA as of September 30, 2007. Small Business Administration (SBA)—At the end of fiscal year 2006, auditors reported that SBA was not substantially compliant with FFMIA requirements in the area of federal financial management systems requirements. The related finding involving weak information technology security controls was characterized as a reportable condition. During fiscal year 2007, the auditor noted improvements in formalizing policies and procedures over granting users emergency access, documenting reviews of remote users, and formalizing continuity of operations plans. Despite the identified improvements, the auditors continued to report issues in the areas of security access controls, software program changes, and end-user computing and reported the condition as a significant deficiency. For fiscal year 2007, the auditor reported no instances in which the department’s financial management systems did not substantially comply with the three requirements of FFMIA. We have previously reported that auditors have expressed a need for clarification on the definition of “substantial compliance” with FFMIA. Further, when asked to what extent agreement exists on the definition of substantial compliance with FFMIA, 20 of 35 participants at the December 2007 Comptroller General forum stated that agreement exists to little or no extent while the other 15 of 35 believed agreement exists to a moderate extent. We initially recommended that OMB clarify its guidance on the meaning of substantial compliance in our report covering FFMIA fiscal year 2000 results and have reiterated this recommendation thereafter with OMB action starting this year. In prior years, OMB has responded that it has been focusing on various initiatives, and it agreed to consider clarifying the definition of “substantial compliance” in future policy and guidance updates. Last year OMB stated that in its update to Circular No. A-127, Financial Management Systems, its goal would be to simplify FFMIA compliance requirements as well as to better balance the FFMIA objectives of generating audited financial statements and providing meaningful information for decision makers. Accordingly, OMB agreed to take this recommendation under advisement and is currently revising its guidance. As we have previously reported, without a consistent agreement and application of a common definition of substantial compliance, the status of agency financial management systems’ compliance remains uncertain. Although OMB’s January 4, 2001, FFMIA implementation guidance includes examples of compliance indicators, we found in the past that several agency auditors used the indicators as a checklist for determining an agency’s systems compliance. In our view, a checklist approach is inappropriate for assessing the substantial compliance of agency systems, including processes, procedures, and controls with FFMIA. This approach also does not meet the expectations of the Congress in requiring the auditor to insist on rigorous adherence to the accounting standards in reporting whether the agency’s financial management systems substantially comply with the three requirements of FFMIA. Congress also expected that the audit community would discharge this compliance function consistent with established practices of the profession and the exercise of sound professional judgment. A comprehensive approach that considers key systems’ functionalities, such as tests of information system controls and nonsampling control tests, is essential for auditors to obtain assurance that the agencies’ systems provide reliable, useful, and timely information for decision makers on an ongoing basis throughout the year and not just for preparing year-end financial statements. OMB’s guidance lays out the key factors that auditors should consider when assessing whether an agency’s systems are substantially compliant. OMB’s guidance calls for auditors to use their professional judgment when considering factors such as providing reliable and timely information for managing current operations; accounting for assets so they can be properly protected from loss, misappropriation, or destruction; and whether a system’s performance prevents an agency from meeting specific FFMIA requirements. Nonetheless, because auditors have focused their consideration of FFMIA substantial compliance on issues related to the financial statement audit, it is important that the meaning of substantial compliance be clarified and refocused to include other aspects in addition to financial statement audit results. While we agree that the use of professional judgment is critical, we continue to believe that a consensus is needed on what constitutes substantial compliance. In regard to our previous recommendation that OMB explore further clarification of the definition of “substantial compliance,” OMB is in the process of revising OMB Circular No. A-127 and its FFMIA implementation guidance. In May 2008, OMB issued a draft Circular No. A-127 for CFO Council review and comment. In our comments on the draft Circular No. A-127, we reemphasized our concerns with, among other things, the need for an appropriate definition of substantial compliance that focuses on financial management systems’ capabilities beyond financial statement preparation. OMB is considering the comments received and had not issued a public draft as of August 2008, but is planning to finalize the guidance in October 2008. Auditors’ FFMIA assessments pointed out that many of the CFO Act agencies have significant problems with the financial management systems in use today. For agencies to achieve FFMIA compliance, they need to implement systems that give them reliable, useful, and timely information and do so using disciplined processes. The modernization of federal financial management systems has been a long-standing challenge at many federal agencies. Past systems implementation attempts have failed to deliver the promised capability on time and within budget. For example, we reported in September 2004 that HHS did not effectively implement the best practices needed to reduce the risks associated with the implementation of a new system. Three years later, auditors report HHS continues to experience problems converting to the system. In part, to combat the past failures of individual agencies’ efforts, OMB developed the FMLOB initiative, which involves standardizing business processes and data elements governmentwide, and leveraging common solutions through a competitive environment of shared service providers to which agency financial management systems can be migrated. The initiative is intended to enable seamless data integration across agencies and avoid costly and redundant investment in “in-house” financial management system solutions. Although OMB continues to make progress on this initiative and priorities have been developed to focus efforts through December 2009, some aspects of the initiative have taken longer than OMB expected. We have previously reported concerns with this initiative, such as the lack of a concept of operations and need for a clear plan for migrating agencies to shared service providers. Similarly, participants at the forum expressed uncertainties about the previous goal for migrating the majority of agencies to a shared service provider by 2011. One of our ongoing and consistent reporting themes has been that the modernization of federal financial management systems has been a long- standing challenge at many federal agencies across the government. While the development of a financial management system can never be risk free, effective implementation of best practices in systems development and implementation efforts (commonly referred to as disciplined processes) can reduce those risks to acceptable levels. Nevertheless, agency efforts far too often result in systems that do not meet their cost, schedule, and performance goals. While agencies anticipate that the new systems will provide reliable, useful, and timely data to support managerial decision making, our work and that of others has shown that has often not been the case. For example, modernization efforts at DOD, HHS, and DHS have been hampered by agencies not following disciplined processes. As we reported in July 2007, the Army’s approach for investing about $5 billion over the next several years in its General Fund Enterprise Business System, Global Combat Support System-Army Field/Tactical, and Logistics Modernization Program did not include alignment with the Army enterprise architecture or use of a portfolio-based business system investment review process. Moreover, we reported that the Army’s lack of a concept of operations has contributed to its failure to take full advantage of business process reengineering opportunities that are available when using an enterprise resource planning solution. Further, the Army did not have reliable processes—such as an independent verification and validation function, or analyses, such as economic analyses—to support its management of these programs. We concluded that until the Army adopts a business system investment management approach that provides for reviewing groups of systems and making enterprise decisions on how these groups will collectively interoperate to provide a desired capability, it runs the risk of investing significant resources in business systems that do not provide the desired functionality and efficiency. As we previously reported in September 2004, HHS did not follow key disciplined processes necessary to reduce the risks associated with implementing the Unified Financial Management System (UFMS) to acceptable levels. We identified problems in such key areas as requirements management, including developing a concept of operations, data conversion, and risk management. Three years later, in fiscal year 2007, HHS’s auditors reported that serious financial system issues continue as a result of conversion problems. For example, over 800 entries, exceeding $170 billion, had to be manually recorded into the UFMS system; more than $1 billion in transactions were inappropriately posted; and a cumbersome, manual process is used to compile its financial statements. Sustained efforts will be necessary to overcome these continuing serious weaknesses. In June 2007, we reported that DHS lacked a financial management strategy that included a formal strategic financial management plan to implement or migrate to an integrated system. In addition, DHS’s concept of operations did not contain an adequate description of the legacy systems and a clear articulation of the vision that should guide the department’s improvement efforts, and key requirements developed for the project were unclear and incomplete. Since then, DHS has developed a strategy to consolidate the department’s financial systems down to two platforms—SAP and Oracle. However, according to a recent DHS IG report, DHS did not perform a complete analysis of all potential systems and service providers as part of its process to select a financial systems solution. As a result of a bid protest, in a March 17, 2008, ruling, the United States Court of Federal Claims held that DHS’s sole source procurement for financial systems application software had violated a provision in the Competition in Contracting Act requiring full and open competition using competitive procedures and required DHS to conduct a competitive procurement. In response to this decision, DHS is revisiting its financial systems consolidation strategy. As illustrated by these examples, more discipline is needed in implementation efforts to avoid the problems that can occur when best practices are not followed. Similarly, participants at the forum stated that it is time to start putting into practice the lessons learned from previous implementation efforts. As part of an effort to begin confronting these challenges, forum participants offered a range of perspectives, insights, and examples. Experience related to financial management, human capital management, systems ownership, customization of commercial off-the- shelf software, and the purchase of shared services has provided useful insights that should help financial managers avoid some of the obstacles that impeded past projects. Consistent with our long-held views, financial managers at the forum also identified various useful system implementation practices, including conducting independent verification and validation, and periodically reevaluating system implementation projects. In March 2004, OMB launched the FMLOB initiative, in part, to improve the outcome of financial management system implementations so that agencies have systems that ensure ongoing accountability and generate reliable, useful, and timely information for decision-making purposes emphasized by FFMIA. Since then, OMB and FSIO have continued to make gradual progress toward achieving FMLOB goals by issuing a common governmentwide accounting classification structure, a financial services assessment guide, and standard business processes for funds and payment management, as well as developing other planning tools designed to leverage these standards and shared solutions. However, additional efforts are needed to address recommendations included in our March 2006 report regarding key aspects of this initiative, such as developing an overall concept of operations, identifying and defining additional standard business processes, and ensuring that agencies do not continue to develop and implement their own stove-piped systems. We are currently working with OMB to gain a more in-depth understanding of FMLOB-related efforts and progress toward addressing these recommendations. The following provides an overview of the status of OMB’s efforts and concerns identified in these areas. Developing a concept of operations. A concept of operations would provide a useful tool to explain how financial management systems can operate cohesively in conjunction with other related systems and to help minimize an agency’s individualized, stove-piped efforts. Participants attending the forum confirmed our concerns regarding the need for this important tool, pointing out that OMB’s various lines of business initiatives are serving to preserve existing stovepipes. For example, participants said it is unclear why separate lines of business are needed for budget and financial management. Although OMB officials told us that a draft concept of operations document is currently under review, the extent to which these concerns will be addressed is unclear. Identifying and implementing standard business processes. In a January 2008 memo summarizing FMLOB efforts and priorities, OMB recognized the risk associated with implementing business processes that are not standardized across government as well as the need to develop additional guidance and other tools. Specifically, the memo states that once business standards have been completed, incorporated into core financial system requirements, and tested during the FSIO software qualification and certification process, shared service providers will only be permitted to utilize the certified products as configured. To date, two standard business processes have been issued, and OMB expects three additional standard business processes to be finalized in December 2008. Recognizing the need to further develop FMLOB guidance and tools, OMB identified priorities for the remainder of 2008 and 2009, which include identifying and developing additional business standards (e.g., interface data elements), expanding migration planning guidance, finalizing and developing cost and performance measurements related to FMLOB business standards, incorporating these standards into core financial systems requirements and software, and updating related testing methodology and scenarios. Establishing a clear migration path. To ensure that agencies migrate to a shared service provider in accordance with OMB’s stated approach rather than attempt to develop and implement their own stove-piped business systems, we previously recommended that OMB establish a clear migration path or timetable for future migrations. OMB estimates for when migrations will be completed are evolving and no firm timeframes have been set. OMB’s general guidance is that agencies should migrate to a shared service provider when it is cost effective to do so and they have maximized the return on investment in the current system. Although OMB previously established a goal of migrating the majority of agencies toward the use of shared service providers by 2011, more recent information indicates that agency migrations will take longer than OMB expected. For example, participants attending the forum appeared uncertain regarding the ability of their respective organizations to reach this goal by 2011. OMB’s more recent estimate indicates that many migrations are scheduled through fiscal year 2015 and that some agency migrations have not yet been scheduled. Agency migrations to a shared service provider are an important aspect to achieving FMLOB goals. Even without a clear migration path, some agencies may readily migrate to a shared service provider to minimize the tremendous undertaking of implementing or significantly upgrading a financial system. However, other agencies may continue efforts to implement stand-alone systems that place additional resources at risk because of potential financial system implementation failures. Further, other concerns that exist within the federal financial management community include the availability of sufficient resources, the viability of the initiative on a governmentwide basis, and the potential loss of control of critical financial functions. For example, none of the forum participants believed the resources available to implement the initiative are fully adequate. Some participants also indicated that some financial leaders may be reluctant to transition their agencies’ financial management activities on a wholesale basis because of their fear of losing control of critical functions and lack of trust in a shared service providers’ ability to effectively meet their needs. Shifting financial management leaders’ focus from meeting financial reporting compliance requirements to comprehending and meeting program managers’ financial information requirements is key to more meaningful, value-added financial management. Given our nation’s current fiscal environment, reliable financial information for prudent and forward- thinking decision making is imperative. If properly developed, implemented, and managed, financial management systems can provide essential financial data in support of day-to-day managerial decision making—the ultimate goal of FFMIA. To accomplish this goal, CFO Act agencies must continue to strive toward routinely producing not only annual financial statements that can pass the scrutiny of a financial audit, but also other meaningful financial and performance data. Over a decade has passed since the enactment of FFMIA, and the majority of agencies continue to lack financial management systems—including processes, procedures, and controls—that substantially comply with the requirements of the act, even though the majority of agencies are achieving “clean” audit opinions. Consistent and diligent OMB commitment and oversight toward achieving financial management system capabilities and the common goals of the FMLOB initiative and FFMIA are essential. In our view, the indicators included in OMB’s guidance are not a substitute for the rigorous criteria needed for assessing substantial compliance with FFMIA. While we are not making any new recommendations in this report, we will continue to work with OMB to help ensure that it provides agency management and auditors with the guidance needed to bring about reliable and consistent assessments of, and meaningful improvements in, financial management systems as envisioned by FFMIA. Accordingly, we reiterate our prior recommendation for OMB to clarify its guidance on the meaning of “substantial compliance” with FFMIA. Significant and long-standing obstacles remain for developing and implementing effective financial management systems, including processes, procedures, and controls. It is important that emphasis on correcting these deficiencies be sustained by the current administration as well as the new administration that will be taking office next year. Continued congressional oversight will also be crucial in transforming federal financial management systems. We received written comments (reprinted in app. VII) from the Deputy Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget on a draft of this report. In its comments, OMB agreed with our assessment that federal agencies still need to improve their financial systems so that reliable, useful, and timely financial management information is available for decision making. OMB stated that it was working aggressively to assist agencies in building a strong foundation of financial management practices through OMB’s financial management and systems oversight and under the FMLOB initiative. According to OMB, both efforts support the goals of FFMIA to improve governmentwide financial management and to facilitate timely and reliable information for day-to-day management. While OMB stated that the number of noncompliances with FFMIA was reduced to 10, compared to 12 for the previous year, that number differed from our report findings due to the fact that OMB’s number was based on the assessments made by the 24 CFO Act agency heads rather than by the independent auditors as we reported. With regard to our prior recommendation for guidance that clarifies the definition of substantial compliance, OMB has begun a significant re-write of OMB Circular No. A-127, Financial Management Systems, as well as an update to OMB’s implementation guidance for FFMIA. OMB stated the re- write of OMB Circular No. A-127 will clarify the definition of substantial compliance so that auditors and agency heads interpret the guidance more consistently. We will continue to work with OMB by providing comments and recommendations on the draft so that a clear definition of substantial compliance with FFMIA is developed and to address other concerns. OMB also provided technical comments on a draft of this report that we incorporated as appropriate. In addition, we also received technical comments from several agencies cited in the report and incorporated them as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and to the Chairman and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. We are also sending copies to the Director, Office of Management and Budget; the heads of the 24 CFO Act agencies in our review; and agency CFOs and Inspectors General. Copies will be made available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO web site at http://www.gao.gov. This report was prepared under the direction of Kay L. Daly, Acting Director, Financial Management and Assurance, who may be reached at (202) 512-9095 or dalykl@gao.gov if you have any questions. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff that made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VIII. We reviewed the fiscal year 2007 financial statement audit reports for the 24 Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act agencies contained in their performance and accountability reports. We further analyzed and compiled the auditors’ assessments of agency financial systems’ compliance and the problems that affect Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) compliance. We did not re-perform the auditors’ work as it was beyond the scope of this engagement. To determine whether the data were sufficiently reliable, we performed the following procedures. We gained an understanding of the independence and quality control environments at the respective auditors that made the agencies’ FFMIA assessment; leveraged our understanding of the methodology used by the inspectors general (IG) and their contract auditors in past years to reach conclusions on FFMIA compliance at the respective agencies; considered management responses to the auditor’s findings and conclusions; and conducted interviews to improve our understanding of the procedures applied and/or conclusions drawn, where appropriate. We also reviewed the data for obvious inconsistencies or errors, completeness, and changes from the prior year. When we found data which were inconsistent or incomplete we brought them to the attention of the cognizant IG staff or contract auditor and worked with them to resolve any issues before using the data as a basis for this report. When we encountered data that varied from the prior year, we reviewed the performance and accountability report and auditor’s report to determine the reason for the change. We conducted interviews with the auditors and IG staffs, and obtained selected supporting documentation. Based on these actions, we determined that the data from these reports were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of using the work of other auditors in our report. Using the auditors’ reports for 13 of the 24 CFO Act agencies that auditors reported as noncompliant with FFMIA for fiscal year 2007, we identified problems reported by the auditors that affected agency systems’ compliance with FFMIA. The problems identified in these reports are consistent with long-standing financial management weaknesses we have reported based on our work at a number of agencies. Further, we identified other GAO and IG reports that discussed financial management systems issues and analyzed and summarized the reports. In addition, we analyzed the results and information obtained from the recent Comptroller General’s forum on improving the federal government’s financial management systems. We also met with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials to discuss their current efforts to improve federal financial management and address our prior recommendations related to FFMIA. In addition, we reviewed documentation provided by OMB regarding its current initiatives. We conducted this performance audit from December 2007 to September 2008, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Director, Office of Management and Budget, or his designee. We received written comments from the Deputy Controller. OMB’s comments are discussed in the Agency Comments and Our Evaluation section and reprinted in appendix VII. We also received technical comments from OMB, which we incorporated as appropriate. In addition, we provided relevant excerpts from a draft of this report to agencies specifically cited in the report. Several agencies provided technical comments which we incorporated as appropriate. Congress enacted the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) in 1996 to obtain the benefits of effective financial management of the federal government that would flow from enforced implementation of three earlier 1990s financial management developments. First, the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 (CFO Act), as expanded by the Government Management Reform Act of 1994, initiated significant financial management reform at 24 major agencies by establishing a centralized agency financial management leadership structure and imposing financial discipline through required annual agencywide audited financial statements. Second, the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program (JFMIP) in 1995 issued revised Core Financial System Requirements, which set out the functional and technical requirements for an agency’s core financial system. Third, the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), which was established in 1990, had made significant progress after 6 years of work in developing the federal government’s first set of comprehensive financial accounting standards and concepts designed to meet the needs of federal agencies and users of federal financial information. Moreover, FFMIA requires implementation of the U.S. Government Standard General Ledger (SGL). The SGL is intended to improve data stewardship throughout the federal government enabling consistent reporting at all levels within the agencies and providing comparable data and financial analysis governmentwide. Even with these improvements, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, which considered the legislation resulting in FFMIA, stated that federal agencies’ financial management systems were inadequate and could be improved by creating a means to use the audit process established by the CFO Act to assure that federal agencies would implement and maintain financial management systems that use the applicable federal financial management systems requirements and federal accounting standards. The policies and standards prescribed for executive agencies to follow in developing, operating, evaluating, and reporting on financial management systems are defined in the OMB Circular No. A-127, Financial Management Systems. The components of an integrated financial management system include the core financial system, managerial cost accounting system, administrative systems, and certain programmatic systems. Administrative systems are those that are common to all federal agency operations, and programmatic systems are those needed to fulfill an agency’s mission. OMB Circular No. A-127 refers to the series of publications entitled federal financial management systems requirements, initially issued by the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program’s (JFMIP) Program Management Office as the primary source of governmentwide requirements for financial management systems. However, as of December 2004, the Financial Systems Integration Office (FSIO) assumed responsibility for coordinating the work related to federal financial management systems requirements and OMB’s Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM) is responsible for issuing the new or revised regulations. In December 2004, the JFMIP Principals—the Comptroller General of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Directors of OMB and the Office of Personnel Management—voted to modify the roles and responsibilities of JFMIP, resulting in the creation of FSIO. Appendix III lists the federal financial management systems requirements published to date. Figure 4 is the current model that illustrates how these systems interrelate in an agency’s overall systems architecture. FASAB promulgates federal accounting standards and concepts that agency chief financial officers use in developing financial management systems and preparing financial statements. FASAB develops the appropriate federal accounting standards and concepts after considering the financial and budgetary information needs of the Congress, executive agencies, and other users of federal financial information and comments from the public. FASAB forwards the standards and concepts to the Comptroller General, the Director of OMB, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of the Congressional Budget Office for a 90-day review. If, within 90 days, neither the Comptroller General nor the Director of OMB objects to the standard or concept, then it is issued and becomes final. FASAB announces finalized concepts and standards in The Federal Register. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants designated the federal accounting standards promulgated by FASAB as being generally accepted accounting principles for the federal government. This recognition enhances the acceptability of the standards, which form the foundation for preparing consistent and meaningful financial statements both for individual agencies and the government as a whole. Currently, there are 32 Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) and 5 Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts (SFFAC). The concepts and standards are the basis for OMB’s guidance to agencies on the form and content of their financial statements and for the government’s consolidated financial statements. Appendix IV lists the concepts, standards, interpretations, and technical bulletins, along with their respective effective dates. FASAB’s Accounting and Auditing Policy Committee (AAPC) assists in resolving issues related to the implementation of federal accounting standards. AAPC’s efforts result in guidance for preparers and auditors of federal financial statements in connection with implementation of federal accounting standards. To date, AAPC has issued nine technical releases, which are listed in appendix V along with their release dates. The SGL was established by an interagency task force under the direction of OMB and mandated for use by agencies in OMB and Treasury regulations in 1986. The SGL promotes consistency in financial transaction processing and reporting by providing a uniform chart of accounts and pro forma transactions used to standardize federal agencies’ financial information accumulation and processing throughout the year, enhance financial control, and support budget and external reporting, including financial statement preparation. The SGL is intended to improve data stewardship throughout the federal government, enabling consistent reporting at all levels within the agencies and providing comparable data and financial analysis governmentwide. SFFAS No. 21 Reporting Corrections of Errors and Changes in Accounting Principles, Amendment of SFFAS 7, Accounting for Revenue and Other Financing Sources SFFAS No. 22 Change in Certain Requirements for Reconciling Obligations and Net Cost of Operations, Amendment of SFFAS 7, Accounting for Revenue and Other Financing Sources SFFAS No. 23 Eliminating the Category National Defense Property, Plant, and Equipment SFFAS No. 24 Selected Standards for the Consolidated Financial Report of the United States Government SFFAS No. 25 Reclassification of Stewardship Responsibilities and Eliminating the Current Services Assessment SFFAS No. 26 Presentation of Significant Assumptions for the Statement of Social Insurance: Amending SFFAS 25 SFFAS No. 27 Identifying and Reporting Earmarked Funds SFFAS No. 28 Deferral of the Effective Date of Reclassification of the Statement of Social Insurance: Amending SFFAS 25 and 26 SFFAS No. 29 Heritage Assets and Stewardship Land SFFAS No. 30 Inter-Entity Cost Implementation Amending SFFAS 4, Managerial Cost Accounting Standards and Concepts SFFAS No. 31 Accounting for Fiduciary Activities SFFAS No. 32 Consolidated Financial Report of the United States Government Requirements: Implementing Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts 4 “Intended Audience and Qualitative Characteristics for the Consolidated Financial Report of the United States Government” In addition to the contact named above, Michael S. LaForge, Assistant Director; F. Abe Dymond, Assistant General Counsel; Rosalinda Cobarrubias; Francine DelVecchio; Tiffany Epperson; Lauren S. Fassler; Jim Kernen; Sheila D. Miller; and Patrick Tobo made key contributions to this report. Financial Management: Long-standing Financial Systems Weaknesses Present a Formidable Challenge. GAO-07-914. Washington, D.C.: August 3, 2007. Federal Financial Management: Critical Accountability and Fiscal Stewardship Challenges Facing Our Nation. GAO-07-542T. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2007. Financial Management: Improvements Under Way but Serious Financial Systems Problems Persist. GAO-06-970. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2006. Financial Management: Achieving FFMIA Compliance Continues to Challenge Agencies. GAO-05-881. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2005. Financial Management: Improved Financial Systems Are Key to FFMIA Compliance. GAO-05-20. Washington, D.C.: October 1, 2004. Financial Management: Recurring Financial Systems Problems Hinder FFMIA Compliance. GAO-04-209T. Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2003. Financial Management: Sustained Efforts Needed to Achieve FFMIA Accountability. GAO-03-1062. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2003. Financial Management: FFMIA Implementation Necessary to Achieve Accountability. GAO-03-31. Washington, D.C.: October 1, 2002. Financial Management: Effective Implementation of FFMIA Is Key to Providing Reliable, Useful, and Timely Data. GAO-02-791T. Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2002. Financial Management: FFMIA Implementation Critical for Federal Accountability. GAO-02-29. Washington, D.C.: October 1, 2001. Financial Management: Federal Financial Management Improvement Act Results for Fiscal Year 1999. GAO/AIMD-00-307. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2000. Financial Management: Federal Financial Management Improvement Act Results for Fiscal Year 1998. GAO/AIMD-00-3. Washington, D.C.: October 1, 1999. Financial Management: Federal Financial Management Improvement Act Results for Fiscal Year 1997. GAO/AIMD-98-268. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 1998. Financial Management: Implementation of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996. GAO/AIMD-98-1. Washington, D.C.: October 1, 1997.

Summary: The ability to produce the financial information needed to efficiently and effectively manage the day-today operations of the federal government and provide accountability to taxpayers continues to be a challenge for many federal agencies. To help address this challenge, the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA) requires the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act agencies to implement and maintain financial management systems that comply substantially with (1) federal financial management systems requirements, (2) federal accounting standards, and (3) the U.S. Government Standard General Ledger (SGL). FFMIA also requires GAO to report annually on the implementation of the act. This report, primarily based on GAO and inspectors general reports and agencies' performance and accountability reports, discusses (1) the reported status of agencies' systems compliance with FFMIA and overall federal financial management improvement efforts and (2) the remaining challenges to achieving the goals of FFMIA. For fiscal year 2007, auditors reported 13 of 24 CFO Act agencies' financial management systems were not in substantial compliance with FFMIA requirements. For these 13 agencies, auditors reported a number of problems, as shown below, that illustrate how agency financial management systems-- including processes, procedures, and controls--are not providing reliable, useful, and timely information to help manage agency programs more effectively. As discussed in prior FFMIA reports, GAO remains concerned that the criteria for assessing substantial compliance with FFMIA are not well defined or consistently implemented across agencies. In addition, the majority of participants at a Comptroller General's forum on improving federal financial management systems said there is little agreement on the definition of "substantial compliance." To address GAO's prior recommendation, OMB is in the process of revising its guidance, and GAO has reemphasized its concerns with the need for an appropriate definition of substantial compliance that focuses on financial management systems' capabilities beyond financial statement preparation. Agencies' efforts to implement new systems far too often result in systems that do not meet cost, schedule, and performance goals. Recent modernization efforts by some agencies have been hampered by not following disciplined processes. To help avoid implementation problems, OMB continues to make progress on its financial management line of business initiative, which promotes business-driven, common solutions for agencies to enhance federal financial management, but additional efforts are needed.