Congress provides budget authority to federal agencies to incur financial obligations through annual appropriations acts or other legislation. An obligation is a definite commitment that creates a legal liability of the government for the payment of goods and services, or a legal duty that could mature into a legal liability by virtue of actions that are beyond the control of the United States. Based on the authority provided in legislation, agencies obligate and expend funds. For example, an agency incurs an obligation when it places an order, signs a contract, awards a grant, or purchases a service. Expenditures or outlays occur when funds that have been obligated are transferred for payment. See figure 1 for an overview of this process. One of the limits set by appropriations acts is the period of availability of budget authority: periods of availability include one-year, multi-year, and no-year. Although federal funding may be available to obligate for one year, multiple years, or until expended (no-year), only accounts with multi- year or no-year funds may carry forward amounts that remain legally available for new obligations from one fiscal year to the next. Such amounts are referred to as unobligated balances. Agencies may also carry forward obligated balances. As shown in figure 1 and previously described, obligated balances are the amount of obligations already incurred for which payment has not yet been made while an unobligated balance is the portion of available budget authority that has not yet been obligated. If the agency does not obligate one-year or multi-year funds by the end of the period of availability, the budget authority will expire. The agency may not incur new obligations using expired budget authority, unless otherwise provided by law. The sum of unobligated and obligated balances is referred to as unexpended balances. Federal spending is categorized as discretionary or mandatory. This distinction refers to the way budget authority is provided. Discretionary spending is controlled through annual appropriations acts (plus, in some cases, supplemental appropriations acts). In contrast, mandatory spending accounts, which include “entitlement authority,” receive budget authority through laws other than appropriations acts. This distinction affects the management of unobligated balances because mandatory funding may require programmatic changes to authorizing legislation to affect unobligated balances, while discretionary accounts are controlled through the annual appropriation process. In 2013, we reported that reviewing unexpended balances—and in particular, unobligated balances—may provide an opportunity to identify potential budgetary savings and direct those resources towards other programs or priorities. We identified four key questions that agencies and decision makers should answer during a review of unexpended balances, and used those questions for this review to evaluate unobligated balances at selected agencies. These questions can provide insights into why a balance exists, what size balance is appropriate, and what opportunities (if any) for savings exist (see text box). Unobligated balances can provide agencies with flexibility when responding to unexpected budget events. For example, agencies faced with reduced budget authority—such as during a sequestration—or with a lapse in annual appropriations may choose to use unobligated balances from prior year appropriations that remain available for new obligations to ensure continuity of agency activities. In 2014, we reported that unobligated balances that remain legally available from prior year appropriations could provide agencies with funding flexibility to respond to sequestration. Similarly, in September 2013, OMB issued guidance to agencies that said unobligated balances could be used to fund activities during the government shutdown. Sequestration. On March 1, 2013 the President ordered a sequestration of $85.3 billion across federal government accounts. Final appropriations enacted on March 26, 2013 had the effect of reducing this amount to $80.5 billion. The reductions were to be split evenly between defense and nondefense functions. Under current law, a sequestration of mandatory spending will occur through fiscal year 2024, and another sequestration of discretionary appropriations could occur in any fiscal year through 2021. The fiscal year 2013 sequestration reduced funding to selected components of federal agencies and their program partners— such as state and local governments—that assist in carrying out agency missions. As a result, the selected components and their partners reduced or delayed some services to the public and operations in 2013. As we found in March 2014, agencies reported that sequestration reduced assistance for education, housing, and nutrition, as well as health and science research and development grants. We also found that agencies delayed investments such as information technology and facilities projects. In 2013, both mandatory spending and discretionary appropriations were subject to sequestration. In accounts with budgetary resources classified as defense spending, prior year unobligated balances were also subject to sequestration. Prior year unobligated balances in nondefense accounts were exempt. This means that only prior year balances for some agencies’ accounts were affected by sequestration, while others were not. Figure 2 shows the breakdown of unobligated balances by different types of accounts and how these different balances were treated under sequestration in fiscal year 2013. In fiscal year 2013, agencies had the ability to reprogram funds and had various transfer authorities to respond to sequestration. Reprogramming is the shifting of funds from one program activity to another within an appropriation account for purposes other than those contemplated at the time of appropriation. Generally, no statutory authority is necessary for agencies to reprogram funds, but in some instances the ability to reprogram funds may be limited by law for certain purposes or amounts. A transfer is the shifting of funds between appropriation accounts. Agencies must have statutory authority to transfer funds, and that authority may also be limited by purpose or amount. Government Shutdown. The federal government partially shut down for 16 days in October 2013 because of a lapse in appropriations. According to OMB, about 850,000 federal employees were furloughed for part of this time, and agencies furloughed federal employees for a combined 6.6 million work days. Over the past 20 years, there have occasionally been federal lapses in appropriations that led to government shutdowns. During a government shutdown, one of the key issues OMB and agencies must determine is what activities and programs an agency is permitted or required to continue when faced with a funding gap. The Antideficiency Act generally restricts agencies from continuing operations funded by annual appropriations during a government shutdown. However, there are some categories of activities that are permitted to continue during an appropriations lapse. This includes activities funded through multi-year appropriations that did not expire at the end of the fiscal year or no-year appropriations. As described earlier in this report, in September 2013 we identified four key questions for evaluating balances in budget accounts, including unobligated balances or the portion of the available budget authority that has not yet been obligated, to help agencies more effectively manage public funds. For the eight accounts we reviewed across the four agencies, the agencies generally addressed the key questions in their management and ongoing review of unobligated balances. We describe the four key questions below and provide examples of how the selected agencies applied the questions to the reviewed accounts (see text boxes). Understanding the mission activities, goals, and programs the account supports provides information about whether a program needs to maintain an unobligated balance to operate smoothly, what size balance is appropriate, and whether opportunities for savings exist. Such context can inform assessments of whether, and how, to reduce unobligated balances and what effect a reduction would have on the agency’s ability to carry out its mission. The text box below describes two examples from the reviewed accounts. Mission Activities and Goals and Unobligated Balances Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance (CROM). Energy’s WAPA CROM account supports critical energy function across the central and western region of the United States. The agency holds unobligated balances in the account from one year to the next to maintain operations in case unexpected events, such as a droughts or economic downturns, lead to lower than expected power sales. Economic Development Assistance Programs (EDAP). Among its missions, Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA) provides grants to public and private non-profit organizations to mitigate sudden and severe economic impacts, such as natural disasters, through the EDAP account. According to EDA officials, funding in this account that is appropriated for specific disaster relief programs cannot be spent for other activities. A delay in assistance applications for EDA’s grants could result in unobligated balances for those program funds. For example, EDA officials attributed the majority of the $185 million unobligated balance at the end of fiscal year 2012 to the additional $200 million appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 2012 to fund disaster relief efforts in areas with major disaster designations in 2011, which included areas affected by Hurricane Irene. According to officials, communities eligible to apply for this relief were focused on short-term recovery in 2012 and were not in a position to apply for EDAP funds until long-term recovery plans were in place, generally after the end of fiscal year 2012. The sources and fiscal characteristics of the funding influence what opportunities may exist for budgetary savings. Sources of funding include appropriations acts (i.e. discretionary spending) and laws other than appropriations acts (i.e. mandatory spending). Budget accounts can have both discretionary and mandatory amounts: these are known as split accounts. Discretionary and mandatory budget authority presents different issues for Congress in its oversight of the size of any balance. Specifically, if amounts are mandatory, Congress must make programmatic changes to authorizing legislation in order to begin to affect the size of any unobligated balance. Fiscal characteristics include the period of availability for new obligations and are also important to evaluating unobligated balances. If an account receives multi-year or no- year appropriations, an unobligated balance can be expected in some accounts or programs. Accounts that receive funding primarily from outside sources, such as fees, have their own unique considerations when evaluating unobligated balances. The text box below describes three examples from the reviewed accounts. Sources and Fiscal Characteristics of Funding and Unobligated Balances Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP). State’s D&CP account is composed of both discretionary and mandatory authority that come from various sources including annual appropriations, Overseas Contingency Operations appropriations, offsetting collections derived from services to the public for visas and passports, and reimbursements from other agencies. Almost all of the unobligated balances support activities funded by discretionary appropriations. The account includes no-year, multi- year, and one-year appropriations. In fiscal year 2014, D&CP’s appropriation did not provide multi-year authority as in previous years, but rather, permitted the extension of up to about 15 percent of new one-year authority to two-year authority. State officials reported that this change led to greater scrutiny of the balances, as well as closer work with the Department of the Treasury to transfer funds into the two-year portion of the account. International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE). State’s INCLE account receives two-year appropriations. Therefore, these funds must be obligated within the two-year period or they will expire. INCLE officials said that they strive to obligate all funds within this period of availability. United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Salaries and Expenses (S&E). The USPTO S&E account at Commerce is composed of receipts from patent and trademark fees. USPTO receives congressional authority in annual appropriations acts to spend a fixed amount of these receipts. Funds are obligated in this account as salaries are earned and expenses incurred. The unobligated balance in this account therefore depends on the volume of fee collections going in and salaries and expenses going out. It is important to consider which factors affecting unobligated balances are within the agency’s control and which are not. The rate at which obligations are incurred and subsequently liquidated in a fiscal year can vary with the nature of the activity. External events beyond agencies’ control—such as natural disasters or economic crises—can also affect unobligated balances. The text box below describes two examples from the reviewed accounts. Factors Affecting Size and Composition of Unobligated Balances Science. NASA officials said that while they attempt to obligate funds during the first year of appropriation within the Science account, a delayed project may result in an unobligated balance in the account. For example, in fiscal year 2014, the Europa mission funding for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory was delayed while officials conducted a July progress review, resulting in a delay of obligations and an unobligated balance at the end of the year. Defense Environmental Cleanup (DEC). Officials managing Energy’s DEC account said that unobligated balances in fiscal year 2014 resulted from a variety of reasons, including contracts that could not be awarded before the end of the fiscal year, delays in hiring employees, and funding allocated for a finished construction project. Understanding an agency’s processes for estimating and managing carryover balances provides information to assess how effectively agencies anticipate program needs, and ensure the most efficient use of resources. Agency management and estimation of unobligated balances also helps to ensure that any amounts carried over into the next year meet the targets the agency has determined are necessary to continue activities. The text box below describes three examples from the reviewed accounts. Management and Estimation of Unobligated Balances Economic Development Assistance Programs (EDAP). In managing the EDAP account, EDA tracks expended, obligated, and unobligated balances, and reports weekly on these fund balances to program staff. The budget office estimates the likelihood of the remaining unobligated funds being obligated during the fiscal year, and continually revises these estimates, putting forward a final estimate of the unobligated balance that is expected to be carried over at the end of the fiscal year. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). EERE officials monitor unobligated balances monthly, with a more thorough analysis at the end of the fiscal year. According to officials, there is no set formula for estimating unobligated balances in future years; project managers are asked in the fourth quarter for their expected level of obligations which helps the agency estimate current year unobligated balances. Science. Unobligated balances for NASA’s Science account are monitored monthly. Specifically, budget analysts compare actual and planned spending, and monitor the level of unobligated balances. If an analyst believes that there is a significant difference between expected and actual unobligated balances, then he or she can flag those balances for further review. Of the four key questions, agency management of balances is especially important in that it highlights how ongoing, routine estimation, and agency management of unobligated balances throughout the year is critical to help ensure the effective use of program resources. Our work shows that actively managing unobligated balances involves (1) regular review of unobligated balances, including ongoing monitoring and tracking, throughout the year; (2) tracking the appropriation year of the balances; (3) estimating projected annual unobligated balances and identifying the amount of unobligated balances that may be necessary to retain the following year; and (4) recognizing how unobligated balances may result from, or be affected by, events outside of an agency’s control. If an agency does not have a robust strategy in place to manage unobligated balances, or is unable to adequately explain or support the reported unobligated balances, then a more in-depth review is warranted. In those cases, balances may either fall too low to efficiently manage operations, or rise to unnecessarily high levels. This produces potential opportunities for those funds to be used more efficiently elsewhere. For all of the eight accounts we reviewed, agency officials reported having a process for managing unobligated balances throughout the year, including ongoing monitoring and tracking of the balances. Having a process to regularly review unobligated balances throughout the year allows agencies and decision makers to better understand the size and nature of their balances and determine if actions should be taken to increase or reduce these balances. Specific examples include the following: Officials for State’s D&CP account reported that they monitor unobligated balances monthly to ensure that program spending is on track, with more frequent monitoring of some subaccounts with large balances, such as the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) subaccount. Frequent monitoring may make it easier to identify whether unobligated balances will meet program needs. Officials managing NASA’s Science account said their monthly monitoring of unobligated balances begins the first day of each month when obligations are transferred from the agency’s accounting system into a project management system, which is used to compare planned and actual expenditures. Budget analysts monitor the level of unobligated balances, taking into account obligations from the prior month. NASA officials said it is the responsibility of the budget analyst for the account to raise significant differences between planned and actual levels of unobligated balances for further review by the Budget Director, the Deputy Chief Financial Officer, and the Chief Financial Officer. Commerce’s USPTO finalized an operating reserve policy on September 25, 2015. This policy includes a regular process for monitoring unobligated balances within the S&E account. In the S&E account, which is funded through fees that are paid by customers to obtain and renew patents and trademarks, USPTO sets aside its unobligated balances as an operating reserve. In April 2012, we recommended that the Secretary of Commerce direct the USPTO Director to finalize an operating reserve policy, including the expected level of reserves, to smooth economic downturns on operations and to ensure its use aligns with agency goals. The finalized policy was developed in response to our recommendation. The policy requires monthly monitoring of the operating reserve balance compared to the established minimum level, among other things. We have previously reported that the time limits imposed upon the budget authority are important when evaluating unobligated balances. If an account receives multi-year or no-year appropriations, an unobligated balance can be expected in some cases. Similarly, if an account receives multi-year supplemental appropriations late in the fiscal year or for long- term projects, there is an increased likelihood of, and perhaps expectation for, an unobligated balance in the account. It is important to track the year of appropriation for accounts with multi-year budget authority to obligate the authority in the order appropriated to maximize resources for program implementation and prevent budget authority that otherwise could have been used from expiring. There may be different periods of availability for funds within the same agency, program, or account. As shown in table 2 below, six of the eight accounts we reviewed received no-year funds, which do not expire, and two of the accounts received only multi-year funds. One account received no-year, multi-year, and one-year funds. Multi-year Funds. Five of the accounts we reviewed receive multi-year funds in the form of 2-year funds—NASA’s Science account, State’s INCLE and D&CP accounts, and Energy’s EERE and DEC accounts. Officials managing each of these five accounts reported tracking the appropriation year of the funds to help ensure that the agency incurs new obligations only during the appropriation’s period of availability. Since funds are available for only 2 years, in most cases they will expire at the end of the 2-year period. For example, officials managing State’s INCLE account said that they divide responsibility for tracking funds between budget execution analysts and program staff. While the budget execution analysts are responsible for tracking funds in the accounting system and highlighting any problems as they arise, it is ultimately the responsibility of program staff to ensure that the agency incurs new obligations only during the appropriation’s period of availability. Although officials in the five reviewed accounts with two-year funds said they track the appropriation year of funds to help ensure effective use of current budget authority within the appropriation’s period of availability, all of the accounts had unobligated balances that expired during fiscal years 2012 through 2014. Expiration of funds can occur for a variety of reasons including contract adjustments, delays in entering contracts because of continuing resolutions, or poor management. See table 3 for the amounts of expired funds in five reviewed accounts and an explanation of the expiration, according to agency officials. State officials managing the D&CP account told us that they attempt to avoid cancellation of expired funds and their unavailability for future use by using four separate authorities to transfer expired funds for specific uses such as offsetting overseas price inflation for projects and wages paid to local employees, making reward payments for captured terrorists, and reimbursing New York City for the protection of foreign missions and officials at the United Nations. According to officials, State notifies OMB and Congress regarding the Department’s intent to transfer expired funds for such purposes. Officials said they transfer the oldest expired funds first, such as those nearing the end of their expiration period, which would be the first to be cancelled, before obligating the more recently expired funds. In fiscal year 2014, D&CP’s appropriation consisted of primarily one-year authority, of which State could extend up to about 15 percent for an additional year, versus the primarily two-year authority generally appropriated to D&CP. Officials said that all expired fiscal year 2014 funds ($369 million) were transferred to the two-year portion of the account because the $369 million fell within the 15 percent limit. For the INCLE account, State has the authority to extend the availability of certain balances that would have otherwise expired after 2 years. When funds are obligated during their initial period of availability, those funds remain available to incur new obligations for an additional 4 years from the date on which the availability of such funds would have otherwise expired. To enter into new obligations during this extended period of availability, State officials must deobligate previously obligated funds. State reported that deobligated amounts are moved from an expired account into what officials call an “extended account” and are available to be reobligated. State officials said that expired funds reflected in the President’s budget may actually be in a holding status awaiting coordination, including coordination with Congress. However, State’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) also identified issues with the process of tracking obligations within the INCLE account. State’s OIG recommended that the agency should develop a list of bureaus’ requirements related to tracking and reporting foreign assistance funds by program, project, and country, among other things, and develop and implement a comprehensive plan with target completion dates to address foreign assistance tracking and reporting requirements. State agreed and initiated a working group to address the recommendation. No-year Funds. In accounts with no-year funds, agencies may choose to track the year in which such funds were appropriated, but such funds do not expire. Officials managing the three reviewed accounts at Energy— DEC, EERE, and WAPA CROM—each reported tracking no-year funds by the year of appropriation. In contrast, officials from the other three reviewed accounts with no-year funds reported that they did not do this. For example, at Commerce, officials managing EDA’s EDAP account reported that the agency does not track the appropriation year of the unobligated balances. Officials managing the EDAP account said they track the funds by program, such as Economic Adjustment Assistance or Public Works, but do not track funds by year because these are no-year funds. When a grant funded from the account is completed, officials said any remaining funds tied to that grant are deobligated, and may be used to fund a new grant that would qualify under the parameters of the original activity or subprogram. As we have previously reported, both the necessity for and appropriate size of minimum unobligated balances varies among agencies and within agencies. It is important for agencies to estimate the projected unobligated balances for the fiscal year and identify the amount of the balances, if any, which may be necessary to carryover into the following year to sustain agency operations. For five of our reviewed accounts— Energy’s DEC and EERE, Commerce’s EDAP, State’s INCLE, and NASA’s Science—agency officials said a minimum level or consistent target of unobligated funds was not necessary to maintain operations across fiscal years. For example, Energy officials managing the DEC account told us that a minimum level of unobligated funds was not necessary for their operations and that their goal is to obligate all of their funds in the first year. Energy officials reported they obligate more than 99 percent of DEC funds, on average, within the first year of appropriations. Similarly, officials managing the INCLE account said they would obligate all funds in the first year if possible. However, planning and reporting requirements often delay obligations leading to significant unobligated balances each year. We have previously reported that unobligated balances in some instances support an agency’s ability to carry out its mission by providing flexibility for the agency to respond to contingencies or emergencies. In three of the eight accounts we reviewed—USPTO’s S&E, State’s D&CP, and Energy’s WAPA CROM—officials reported that a certain level of unobligated balances was necessary to properly execute activities and manage financial risk for certain programs within the accounts. In our prior work, USPTO officials reported that maintaining an operating reserve is important for the user fee funded agency because, without an unobligated balance, its businesslike operations would leave the agency vulnerable to financial risk and threaten long- term operational stability. All unobligated balances within USPTO’s S&E account are considered part of this operating reserve. In response to our 2012 recommendation, USPTO drafted and, as of September 25, 2015, has finalized a policy to guide its management of this operating reserve. The policy describes a method for determining an acceptable minimum size for the operating reserve as well as a model for determining its optimal size. This model takes into account the likelihood and consequence of seven different spending and fee collection risk factors such as economic uncertainty and climate, unexpected costs, and fee and workload projection uncertainties. Depending on the levels of risk and consequence, the model calls for maintaining, in addition to the established minimum reserve requirement, between 0- and 4-months of operating expenses in its reserve. Additionally, for the Consular and Border Security Programs (CBSP) within the D&CP account, State officials said they have a target to carryover approximately 25 percent of projected program expenditures for the next year to manage complex global visa and passport operations. CBSP is fully fee funded, which means that all appropriations for the program are offsetting collections from consular fees and surcharges. These fees and surcharges include the Passport Security Surcharge, the Diversity Visa Lottery fee, and the Machine Readable Visa fee. Congress has permanently appropriated these collections to State as no-year authority for CBSP’s use. State set this target of 25 percent based on activity-specific analysis using historical data and projections. However, officials did not report using models or formulas to help anticipate how certain factors would impact the financial risk of the account. Our previous work has found that unobligated balances in fee-based accounts should be subject to the same scrutiny as unobligated balances in accounts funded by general revenues. Based on our findings from this review, we continue to believe that agencies need to understand the vulnerabilities of user fees and to be deliberate in their design of a reserve fund to effectively manage them. Specifically, we found that in fiscal year 2014 unobligated balances for CBSP accounted for 38 percent, or approximately $1.3 billion, of projected program expenditures for fiscal year 2015 for the program. This exceeded the 25 percent target of approximately $850 million by approximately $440 million. Similarly, in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, unobligated balances for CBSP accounted for approximately 40 percent of program expenditures for the next fiscal year. State officials reported that unobligated balances were higher than the predetermined target, in part, because of limitations on the purposes for which fees collected under CBSP may be used. In particular, fees collected for fraud prevention and detection on certain types of visas can only be spent on specific fraud activities. State officials reported that annual revenue from this fee is usually higher than the cost of these activities, resulting in an annual increase in unobligated balances. However, this limitation on how fees can be spent accounts for only a small proportion of the excess unobligated balances (approximately $97 million of the total excess unobligated balance of $440 million in fiscal year 2014). State officials within the Bureau of Consular Affairs said that they began drafting a plan in 2013 for managing and monitoring funding for each program within CBSP. According to officials, this plan will include a strategy on how unobligated balances will be tracked and managed to reach the identified target of 25 percent. Officials said that the plan is awaiting clearance by leadership and they anticipate that it will be finalized by June 2016. While unobligated balances for CBSP were greater than the 25 percent target in recent years, State officials reported that they have taken steps to regulate and reduce unobligated balances. According to officials, these steps included decreasing fees or delaying fee increases when unobligated balances were adequate to cover costs; realigning spending, consistent with authorities, to better coincide with actual costs; and improving internal coordination to better track and model revenues and obligations. For example, officials reported that since fiscal year 2012, the cost of the Passport Security Surcharge service was higher than the $40 fee charged. In 2015, State announced that it intended to raise the fee to $60. Officials said that this delay of the fee increase allowed them to spend down existing unobligated balances. According to data provided by State, unobligated balances for the Passport Security Surcharge decreased from 95 percent of next year’s program expenditures in fiscal year 2012, to 72 percent in fiscal year 2014. Similarly, the unobligated balances in WAPA’s CROM account exceeded the level officials said was necessary to maintain certain activities and manage risk for those activities. Specifically, officials said that for two of the account’s four use categories—the annual expense fund, and purchase power and wheeling—they set a target level of unobligated balances as contingency funds against unexpected events. For the annual expense fund, officials set a target to retain up to one quarter, or 25 percent, of the yearly budget requirement. For purchase power and wheeling, the target was equal to 25 percent of each region’s maximum annual receipts. WAPA officials explained that WAPA’s mission to market hydroelectric power to multiple regions across the western United States can be affected by a number of environmental factors such as drought, animal breeding seasons, and flood prevention—all of which may affect the function of power generating dams and introduce financial risk. WAPA officials reported addressing these environmental factors and potential financial risks by carrying over unobligated funds. WAPA officials told us that while a carryover of up to or equal to 25 percent in unobligated balances is the current target for these two use categories, they are continuing to refine and evaluate the necessary level of unobligated balances. These officials added that they do not have a model or formula to estimate anticipated environmental factors, and how those factors would have a fiscal impact on the agency. For fiscal year 2014, unobligated balances for purchase power and wheeling fell below the 25 percent target. However, for the annual expense fund, unobligated balances were above this previously identified target. For the annual expense fund, officials estimated that the 25 percent target for the unobligated balance would be about $52 million for fiscal year 2014. The unobligated balance, however, for the annual expense fund was $92 million, or $40 million more than officials deemed necessary to avoid risk. According to WAPA officials, the annual expense fund’s unobligated balance for fiscal year 2014 was higher than the predetermined target partially because they forecasted a 3 percent cost of living increase for personnel, which never occurred. WAPA officials reported that they developed a strategy in fiscal year 2013 for managing unobligated balances in the annual expense fund within the CROM account. According to officials, the draft strategy includes three alternatives for reducing unobligated balances in the annual expense fund, including one to decrease future budget requests and rely on existing unobligated balances to cover expenses. Officials said that this alternative was approved by WAPA senior management. However, officials acknowledged that this strategy would not be fully implemented until officials assess the outcomes of the strategy at the end of 2015. WAPA officials also reported that they are considering other strategies for reducing unobligated balances to required targets. As of October 2015, WAPA had not finalized or fully implemented a strategy to reduce unobligated balances. Without a finalized and fully implemented strategy for reducing unobligated balances in excess of the agencies’ predetermined targets for necessary balances for the identified programs or activities in these two accounts, Energy and State are missing opportunities to actively manage unobligated balances. Thus, they should consider whether actions such as reprogramming or transferring unobligated balances, reevaluating the necessary threshold of unobligated balances, or reducing funding requests in future appropriations for these accounts are appropriate courses of action for using their resources effectively. We have previously reported that the nature of some accounts may routinely cause unobligated balances that result from events outside of an agency’s control. Spending in some accounts may require processes to be completed by state, local, or private entities that receive funds from federal agencies. If these processes are not completed in a time frame necessary to obligate the funds in the current fiscal year, funds may remain unobligated at the end of the fiscal year and be carried over. These events are separate from the active estimation of the necessary size of unobligated balances described above. Nevertheless, as we have previously noted, it is important for agencies to understand how these events may influence the level of their balances. For example, in EDA’s EDAP account, officials said that many of their programs are driven from the bottom up in that funding cannot be obligated until potential recipients apply for grants. Specifically, EDA officials told us that unobligated balances for the Reshoring program have been carried over for 3 years while the program waits to receive applications from eligible public and private non-profit organizations. The Reshoring program, a subprogram under EDA’s Economic Adjustment Assistance program, provides aid to businesses bringing jobs from overseas to the U.S. It received approximately $5 million each year for fiscal years 2013 and 2014. However, funds cannot be obligated until eligible recipients take actions outlined in programmatic rules and regulations and these funds were carried over as unobligated balances. As we have previously reported, for agencies that rely on user fees for funding, economic factors may impact the amount of fees collected and contribute to unobligated balances. For example, officials at USPTO said that an economic downturn can decrease USPTO’s collected fees. This would create an imbalance with planned spending, and lead to a decrease in its operating reserve of unobligated balances. Continuing resolution (CR): an appropriation act that provides budget authority for federal agencies, specific activities, or both to continue operation when Congress and the President have not completed action on the regular appropriations acts by the beginning of the fiscal year. A CR may be enacted for a full year, up to a specified date, or until regular appropriations are enacted. CRs have been passed in all fiscal years since 1997, the most recent fiscal year that all regular appropriations bills were completed on time. During this time, CRs funded an average of 5 months each fiscal year. Uncertain budget environments can also affect the level of unobligated balances. As we reported in March 2013, under a continuing resolution (CR) agencies may have difficulty making long-term decisions due to uncertainty about, both, when they will receive their final appropriation, and what level of funding ultimately will be available. Agencies are directed to operate at a conservative rate of spending while CRs are in effect, thus compressing the time period to obligate funds once final appropriations decisions are made. State officials managing the D&CP account said that they will limit the obligation of funds until full-year appropriations are made. Officials said that higher obligation rates occur in the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year as the agency obligates money for procurement purposes. On the other hand, obligations for salaries and personnel expenses remain relatively consistent across quarters. Depending on a number of factors, including the timing of appropriations for the rest of the year, agencies may not be able to obligate funds before the end of the fiscal year and so will carryover unobligated funds. For example, although Energy has a goal for its EERE account to obligate all funds in the first year of appropriations, in fiscal year 2014 it carried over unobligated balances of $408 million. Energy officials said that the majority of the unobligated balance resulted from delays in issuing funding opportunity announcements associated with EERE’s research and development programs in the areas of solar energy, bioenergy, advanced manufacturing, and water power. Officials said that they delayed the issuance of funding announcements during the 3-month continuing resolution of fiscal year 2014 following the government shutdown. According to guidance for the fiscal year 2013 sequestration, OMB recommended early budget planning to minimize the impact on essential activities tied to an agency’s mission. These activities include identifying opportunities for reprogramming or transferring funds (including unobligated balances and new budget authority), and reviewing grants and contracts for possible cost savings and reviewing reductions in personnel costs, such as hiring freezes. Unobligated balances that remain legally available from prior year appropriations could provide agencies with funding flexibility to respond to sequestration. Agency officials for four of the eight reviewed accounts— Energy’s EERE and WAPA CROM accounts, State’s D&CP account, and USPTO’s S&E account—reported using unobligated balances to mitigate the effects of sequestration in fiscal year 2013. Using prior year unobligated funds, Energy officials managing the EERE account reported reprogramming approximately $80 million of the unobligated balances. Officials reported deobligating previously obligated amounts that had not yet been expended from various projects and activities. They then reobligated these amounts for other activities, such as the Weatherization Assistance Program, which funds weatherization of homes through grants to states, territories and some Native American lands. Officials managing Energy’s WAPA CROM account reported using unobligated balances to mitigate the effects of sequestration by reprogramming approximately $4.7 million in funds within the account. Reductions based on sequestration resulted in lower than needed funds for construction projects related to WAPA’s delivery of cost- based federal hydroelectric power and related services across the western United States. As a result, officials said they reprogrammed approximately $4.7 million from the program direction portion of the account (which supports activities such as personnel salaries) to mitigate the effect of sequestration on the construction portion of the account. At State officials reported that they reprogrammed $64 million in unobligated balances from non-Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) Iraq funding within the non-OCO portion of the D&CP account to about 40 other activities within the account. These activities included personnel salaries and benefits, facility operating and maintenance costs, travel, and other operational requirements. They said this decision was made because there was a reduction of needs in Iraq due to lower than anticipated costs. This resulted in higher than necessary unobligated balances that could be better used for other activities. State officials said they notified OMB and Congress of this reprogramming. Officials managing other accounts we reviewed—State’s INCLE, Energy’s DEC, and NASA’s Science accounts—reported that no unobligated balances were used to mitigate the effects of sequestration. For example, for State’s INCLE account, officials reported that Foreign Assistance funds, including INCLE and other accounts, were not reprogrammed to mitigate the effects of sequestration to maintain fairness among the countries that receive assistance. As we previously reported, officials said it would be easier to explain to foreign partners that these cuts to programs and commitments were mandated by U.S. law, and that they were being applied equally. Officials managing Energy’s DEC account reported that they reprogrammed funds from new budget authority for fiscal year 2013, and did not use unobligated balances from previous years. Unlike the other seven accounts we reviewed, the DEC account is categorized as a defense account with its unobligated balances subject to sequestration. Officials reported that $1 million was sequestered from fiscal year 2012 unobligated balances in the DEC account during the 2013 sequestration. The funds in Commerce’s EDAP account were not subject to sequestration. Therefore, unobligated balances did not need to be used to mitigate its effects. As previously reported in our work on sequestration, the account’s funding was not sequestered in fiscal year 2013 due to a reduction in funding for the account. In the event of a government shutdown, OMB is responsible for ensuring agencies have taken the essential actions needed to manage the shutdown effectively. It does so by providing policy guidance and shutdown-related instructions. For example, OMB guidance to agencies for the October 2013 government shutdown permitted them to use unobligated funds to continue operations on activities. Six of the eight accounts we reviewed—State’s INCLE and D&CP, USPTO’s S&E, and Energy’s EERE, DEC and WAPA’s CROM accounts—used unobligated balances to fund activities during the October 2013 government shutdown. For these selected accounts, agency officials reported that having no-year or multi-year funds made it possible to continue to carry out agency missions, such as allowing WAPA to continue providing electrical energy to customers and USPTO to continue to review patent and trademark applications. Officials at Energy reported that, in anticipation of the shutdown, agency officials reviewed program data to assess how much of the unobligated balances would be available for specific activities for the next fiscal year. This would allow the funds to be obligated during the shutdown to ensure operations could continue. This is consistent with our prior work on the government shutdown in which we reported that Energy reevaluated its budget priorities to have funds available to meet payroll and to help ensure that the highest priority activities, such as providing electrical power to customers, could continue during the shutdown. Officials from USPTO’s S&E and WAPA’s CROM accounts described continuing normal activity for their business-like accounts. Both accounts receive either all or most of their funding from customer receipts. All appropriated funds for USPTO’s S&E account come from receipts, while approximately 90 percent of appropriated funds for CROM come from customer advances and receipts for services such as construction improvements and providing electrical energy to customers from federally owned dams and other infrastructure. For these accounts, agency officials reported that they were able to use unobligated balances to continue to operate and provide services directly to their customers during the shutdown. Two of our reviewed accounts, NASA’s Science account and EDA’s EDAP account, did not use unobligated balances to continue to fund activities or operations. For example, EDA officials reported that account balances are specifically appropriated to support grant funding, and, therefore, could not fund salaries and expenses for EDA employees. Given the significant events during the last 2 years—sequestration and the government shutdown—and the potential for budget uncertainties in the future, effective management of unobligated balances is critical for agencies to ensure the most efficient use of resources and to effectively respond to budget uncertainties. Understanding the justification for or impact of unobligated balances requires a close look at individual accounts and agencies, and how they manage unobligated balances. We found that officials generally managed unobligated balances effectively by tracking balances, having a process to estimate balances, and identifying necessary balances to carryover each year to fulfill their missions. However, there are opportunities for improvement in the way agencies manage unobligated balances in two of the reviewed accounts. Specifically, agency officials managing Energy’s WAPA CROM account and State’s CBSP within the D&CP account are not taking sufficient steps to ensure that the accounts only carryover the necessary unobligated balances into the next year. Without proper management of unobligated balances, opportunities for budgetary savings or funding activities may be missed. To ensure effective use of federal funds and management of unobligated balances, the Secretary of Energy should direct WAPA’s Administrator and Chief Executive Officer to finalize and implement a strategy to reduce excess unobligated balances within the CROM account. Similarly, the Secretary of State should direct the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs to finalize Consular Affair’s strategy for the management of its unobligated balances, and to continue efforts to reduce excess unobligated balances allocated to CBSP in the D&CP account. For both the CROM and D&CP accounts, as appropriate, these strategies may include reprogramming or transferring funds to other activities, as allowed by appropriation law, reevaluating fees to ensure fee revenues match program needs, or reducing budget authority requests in future years. We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Commerce, Energy, and State; and the Administrator of NASA for comment. Energy and State concurred with our recommendations and provided written comments that are reproduced in appendixes IV and V, respectively. In its letter, Energy said that it agrees with the need to avoid excess unobligated balances and reported that WAPA is finalizing a plan to better manage unobligated balances in the CROM account. After receiving the draft report, officials from State discussed our findings, conclusions, and recommendation with us and provided additional information on unobligated balances. Based on these discussions and information provided, we made minor revisions to the body of the report, including the recommendation, to reflect actions taken by Bureau of Consular Affairs officials to reduce unobligated balances. In its letter, while State concurred with the revised recommendation, officials noted that they disagreed with the use of the term “excess” to describe the unobligated balances in CBSP. State said it will continue efforts to better align unobligated balances and finalize the plan for CBSP to maintain balances at optimal levels. We maintain that the unobligated balances for CBSP are “excess” because they are above the agency’s own target of 25 percent of projected program expenditures for the next year. We received technical comments from Commerce, Energy, and State, which we have incorporated into the final draft where appropriate. NASA did not have any comments on the draft report. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of Commerce, Energy, and State; the Administrator of NASA; and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact Susan J. Irving at (202) 512-6806 or irvings@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII. Our objective was to evaluate how selected agencies managed and used unobligated balances in reviewed accounts, focusing on fiscal years 2012 through 2014, which covers the fiscal year 2013 sequestration and fiscal year 2014 government shutdown. In addition, we analyzed the size and composition of unexpended balances in the federal budget from fiscal years 2012 through 2014, and compared those balances to previously reported balances for fiscal years 2007 through 2012. To address this objective, we examined selected agencies’ management of unobligated balances in reviewed accounts both during fiscal years 2012 through 2014, and the current management of the reviewed accounts. We focused on unobligated balances because our prior work has shown that agencies used unobligated balances to offset reductions from the 2013 sequestration and the government shutdown. For this review, we selected a nongeneralizable sample of four agencies—the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Departments of State (State), Commerce (Commerce) and Energy (Energy). To select these four agencies, we identified all budget accounts having unobligated balances in fiscal years 2012, 2013, or 2014 in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) MAX database. We then reviewed the data for each of the 24 Chief Financial Officer Act agencies, as well as agency plans to use unobligated balances to offset sequestration, according to our previous work on the 2013 sequestration. We selected the four agencies based upon whether they had accounts with significant unobligated balances, as well as whether they used or were planning to use reprogramming of funds, transfers among accounts, and/or multi-year funding to mitigate the effects of sequestration. Within the four selected agencies, we identified a nongeneralizable sample of eight accounts. To select the eight accounts, we reviewed OMB MAX data for every budget account in the four agencies for fiscal years 2012 through 2014. In 2013, the most recent end of year data available at that time of our initial selection, these four agencies had a total of 157 budget accounts. From these accounts, we selected eight accounts for in-depth review based on whether the agencies reprogrammed funds within accounts, transferred funds among accounts, and/or used multi-year funds to mitigate the effects of the 2013 sequestration. We also selected accounts that had particularly large unobligated balances or significant changes in unobligated balances during fiscal years 2012 through 2014. We selected only accounts with discretionary appropriations and split authority—a combination of discretionary appropriations and mandatory budget authority—and excluded mandatory accounts from our review to avoid duplication with our ongoing review of mandatory accounts. See table 4 for a list of accounts selected. To evaluate how the selected agencies managed and used unobligated balances in the reviewed accounts, we reviewed agency budget reports and guidance, congressional budget justifications, and congressional notifications. We interviewed agency officials at the department (or agency), the bureau, and the account levels about account management policy and practice, especially with regard to unobligated balances, using the four key questions from our prior work as criteria. To analyze agency budget data from fiscal years 2012 through 2014, we asked agency officials to explain the size of the balances, any balance changes, how and whether balances were used to mitigate the effects of the 2013 sequestration and the government shutdown, discuss any expired funds, and whether any transfers or reprogramming occurred during this time. We discussed with agencies the four key questions described earlier from our prior work, including the mission and goals of programs supporting the accounts, sources and fiscal characteristics of the funding, factors that affect the size and composition of unobligated balances, and agency estimation and management of balances. To describe unexpended balances—including unobligated balances—in appendix III, we analyzed data on government-wide unexpended balances across all federal budget accounts for fiscal years 2007 through 2014. For our analysis, we obtained government-wide data on obligated and unobligated balances. We queried OMB’s MAX database for data by account on obligated and unobligated balances, including budget function, and composition of the account (e.g., mandatory, discretionary, split), for fiscal years 2012 through 2014. We found the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of our report. We also drew from data reported in our previous report on unexpended balances from fiscal years 2007 through 2012 to add context to the new analysis. Although we did not attempt to identify causal links, two significant events occurred during fiscal years 2013 through 2014—sequestration and the government shutdown—which may have affected unexpended balances, possibly causing agencies to use unobligated balances to mitigate effects of the budget events. We conducted our review from December 2014 to October 2015 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. In this appendix, we summarized how the selected agencies are managing and using unobligated balances in the eight reviewed accounts according to the four key questions from our prior work. What Mission and Goals Is the Account or Program Supporting? What are the Sources and Fiscal Characteristics of the Funding? What Factors Affect the Size or Composition of the Carryover Balance? How Does the Agency Estimate and Manage Carryover Balances? We also included analysis of the ways agencies used unobligated balances to mitigate the effects of the 2013 sequestration and government shutdown. Each template includes a graphic which shows the unobligated balance as a percentage of budgetary resources. Federal agencies reported unexpended balances—the sum of obligated and unobligated balances—in 1,358 of 1,493 active budget accounts from fiscal year 2012 through 2014. Total unexpended balances fluctuated from $2.23 trillion in fiscal year 2012 to $2.27 trillion in fiscal year 2014. This represents an overall increase of approximately $41 billion with a decrease in 2013. About 91 percent of active accounts carried unobligated balances with total unobligated balances increasing from $788 billion to $872 billion during this period. As shown in figure 11, unobligated balances were more than one-third of total unexpended balances from fiscal year 2012 through 2014, which is generally consistent with data from fiscal years 2007 through 2011. Each budget account is assigned a category of spending—discretionary, mandatory, or split, which is a combination of both discretionary and mandatory. As shown in figure 12, mandatory accounts represent about 50 percent of total unobligated balances in fiscal years 2012 through 2014. From fiscal year 2009 through 2011 the share of unobligated balances in mandatory accounts was relatively stable at about 52 percent of total unobligated balances. This comes after a growth in the mandatory share of the balances from about 25 percent in fiscal year 2007 to about 47 percent in fiscal year 2008. The percentage of unobligated balances in split accounts remained at about 32 percent in fiscal years 2012 through 2014, which has been generally consistent since 2010. From fiscal years 2012 through 2014, unobligated balances in discretionary accounts were between approximately 16 and 19 percent of all unobligated balances. As shown in figure 12, this has been the case since 2010, before which discretionary balances represented higher proportions of unobligated balances, including nearly 26 percent in fiscal year 2007. As shown in table 5, the three mandatory accounts with the largest amount of unobligated balances in fiscal year 2014 were more than 12 times larger than the top three discretionary account balances. Each budget account appears in 1 of the 19 budget functions that best reflects its major purpose or important national need. These functions include income security, national defense, and transportation. Accounts under a particular budget function may support programs and activities at multiple agencies. For example, accounts that are categorized as within the “national defense” budget function may support activities at multiple agencies such as operations and maintenance at the Department of Defense, infrastructure protection at the Department of Homeland Security, and defense environmental cleanup at the Department of Energy. As shown in figure 13, the majority of unobligated balances were in accounts classified under three budget functions: (1) commerce and housing credit, (2) international affairs, and (3) national defense. These three functions combined accounted for around 65 percent of unobligated balances in all budget accounts from fiscal years 2012 through 2014. This is consistent with data from fiscal years 2008 through 2011. From fiscal years 2012 through 2014 and consistent with earlier years, the majority of unobligated balances were in eight agencies: Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, State, Transportation, and the Treasury, and the Office of Personnel Management and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (see figure 14). These eight agencies had between 81 and 83 percent of unobligated balances across all budget accounts from fiscal years 2012 through 2014—approximately the same percentages since 2008. From 2008 through 2014, the agencies combined together in the “all other” category represented between 16 percent and 20 percent of all unobligated balances. Apportionment: The action by which the Office of Management and Budget distributes amounts available for obligation, including budgetary reserves established pursuant to law, in an appropriation or fund account. An apportionment divides amounts available for obligation by specific time periods (usually quarters), activities, projects, objects, or a combination thereof. The amounts so apportioned limit the amount of obligations that may be incurred. An apportionment may be further subdivided by an agency into allotments, suballotments, and allocations. Appropriation: Budget authority to incur obligations and to make payments from the Treasury for specified purposes. An appropriation act is the most common means of providing appropriations; however, authorizing and other legislation itself may provide appropriations. Availability: Budget authority that is available for incurring new obligations. Budget authority: Authority provided by federal law to enter into financial obligations that will result in immediate or future outlays involving federal government funds. Budget function: The functional classification system is a way of grouping budgetary resources so that all budget authority and outlays of on-budget and off-budget federal entities and tax expenditures can be presented according to the national needs being addressed. National needs are grouped in 17 broad areas to provide a coherent and comprehensive basis for analyzing and understanding the budget. Discretionary spending: Budget authority that is provided in and controlled by appropriation acts other than those that fund mandatory programs. Expenditure: The actual spending of money; an outlay. Expired budget authority: Budget authority that is no longer available to incur new obligations but is available for an additional 5 fiscal years for disbursement of obligations properly incurred during the budget authority’s period of availability. Unobligated balances of expired budget authority remain available for 5 years to cover legitimate obligation adjustments, or for obligations properly incurred during the budget authority’s period of availability that the agency failed to record. Obligated balance: The amount of obligations already incurred for which payment has not yet been made. Obligation: A definite commitment that creates a legal liability of the government for the payment of goods and services ordered or received, or a legal duty that could mature into a legal liability by virtue of actions on the part of the other party beyond the control of the United States. For example, an agency incurs an obligation when it places an order, signs a contract, awards a grant, or purchases a service. Mandatory (or direct) spending: Budget authority that is provided in laws other than appropriation acts and the outlays that result from such budget authority. Mandatory spending includes entitlement authority (for example, the Food Stamp, Medicare, and veterans’ pension programs), payment of interest on the public debt, and nonentitlements such as payments to states from Forest Service receipts. Multi-year funds: Budget authority available for a fixed period of time in excess of 1 fiscal year. This authority generally takes the form of 2-year, 3-year, and so forth availability, but may cover periods that do not coincide with the start or end of a fiscal year. No-year funds: Budget authority that remains available for obligation for an indefinite period of time. Reappropriation: Legislation permitting an agency to obligate, whether for the same or different purposes, all or part of the unobligated portion of budget authority that has expired or would otherwise expire if not reappropriated. Reprogramming: Shifting funds within an appropriation or fund account to use them for purposes other than those contemplated at the time of appropriation; it is the shifting of funds from one object class to another within an appropriation or from one program activity to another. Rescission: Legislation enacted by Congress that cancels the availability of budget authority previously enacted before the authority would otherwise expire. Spendout rate: The rate at which budget authority becomes outlays in a fiscal year. Transfer: Shifting of all or part of the budget authority in one appropriation or fund account to another. Agencies may transfer budget authority only as specifically authorized by law. Unexpended balance: The sum of obligated and unobligated balances. Unobligated balance: The portion of obligational authority that has not yet been obligated. For an appropriation account that is available for a fixed period, the budget authority expires after the period of availability ends. However, its unobligated balance remains available for 5 additional fiscal years for recording and adjusting obligations properly chargeable to the appropriations period of availability. For example, an expired, unobligated balance remains available until the account is closed to record previously unrecorded obligations, or to make upward adjustments in previously under recorded obligations (such as contract modifications properly within scope of the original contract). At the end of the fifth fiscal year, the account is closed and any remaining balance is canceled. For a no-year account, the unobligated balance is carried forward indefinitely until (1) specifically rescinded by law, or (2) the head of the agency concerned (or the President) determines that the purposes for which the appropriation was made have been carried out, and disbursements have not been made from the appropriation for 2 consecutive years. Susan J. Irving, (202) 512-6806 or irvings@gao.gov. In addition to the contact named above, Janice Latimer, Assistant Director; Mary C. Diop; Steve Berke; and Shelby Kain made major contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Shari Brewster, Deirdre Duffy, John Mingus Jr., Robert Robinson, and Cynthia Saunders. In addition, the following individuals provided programmatic and subject matter expertise: Johana Ayers, Allison Bawden, Carol Henn, Jon Ludwigson, Christine Kehr, Farahnaaz Khakoo, Thomas James, Judith McCloskey, Leah Q. Nash, Shelby Oakley, Michelle Sager, Robert Sanchez, Roger Stoltz, and Matthew Ullengren.

Summary: Both the 2013 sequestration and government shutdown highlighted the importance of actively managing public funds. Effective management of unobligated balances that are carried over for use in the next fiscal year presents agencies with an opportunity to better respond to unexpected events in the future. GAO was asked to review how balances have changed since 2012. This report evaluates how selected agencies managed and used unobligated balances in reviewed accounts, focusing on fiscal years 2012 through 2014, which covers the 2013 sequestration and shutdown. GAO selected a nongeneralizable sample of eight accounts from four agencies for this review—Commerce, Energy, NASA, and State—based on their use of balances to address sequestration and large or significant changes in the balances. GAO analyzed data on the size and composition of unobligated balances, reviewed agency documentation on managing the balances, and interviewed budget officials responsible for the accounts. GAO found that the selected agencies—the Departments of Commerce, Energy, and State, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)—generally managed and tracked unobligated balances to ensure the effective use of program resources in the eight reviewed accounts. Agency estimation and management of unobligated balances in the reviewed accounts involved the following activities: Regular review of unobligated balances . Agency officials for all of the eight reviewed accounts reported having a process for managing unobligated balances throughout the year. For example, officials managing NASA's Science account reported that they monitor unobligated balances monthly by considering obligations from the prior months. Tracking the appropriation year of unobligated balances . Officials reported that agencies tracked the year of appropriation for the five reviewed accounts that receive multi-year budget authority. This action is important to help ensure that the agency obligates the authority in the order appropriated to maximize resources. All five accounts had balances that expired during fiscal years 2012 through 2014; however, there can be various reasons for an agency to not obligate funds late in the fiscal year, and in some cases, special authority expands the use of certain budget authority. For example, for State's Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) and International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement accounts, State has the authority to use expired funds beyond their initial period of availability for specific purposes and to extend the availability of certain funds. Estimating and identifying needed unobligated balances . Officials managing three of the eight reviewed accounts identified a need to retain unobligated balances to sustain agency operations and manage financial risk. For example, officials responsible for managing Energy's Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance (CROM) account said that two of the account's four use categories have a target to carryover equal to or up to 25 percent of funds against unexpected environmental factors that could introduce financial risk to their mission of marketing hydroelectric power. However, in fiscal year 2014, the balance for one category exceeded its target by approximately $40 million. WAPA officials reported that they have drafted a strategy to manage excess balances, but the strategy has not been fully implemented. Similarly, in fiscal year 2014, within State's D&CP account, officials reported exceeding the target to carryover about 25 percent of projected program expenditures for the next year to manage complex global visa and passport operations for the Consular and Border Security Programs (CBSP) by approximately $440 million. State officials said that they have developed a draft strategy for reducing excess unobligated balances. Officials said that they plan to finalize the strategy by June 2016. In the meantime, they reported taking steps to reduce unobligated balances for CBSP. These steps include decreasing fees or delaying fee increases when unobligated balances were adequate to cover costs. In accordance with Office of Management and Budget guidance, the selected agencies used unobligated balances in four of the reviewed accounts to mitigate the effects of the 2013 sequestration. The agencies also used unobligated balances to fund operations in six of the accounts during the October 2013 government shutdown. GAO is recommending that Energy finalize and implement a strategy and that State finalize its strategy and continue efforts to ensure more effective management of unobligated balances in the WAPA CROM account and CBSP within the D&CP account, respectively. Energy and State concurred with GAO's recommendations. Commerce, Energy, and State provided technical comments which GAO incorporated; NASA had no comments.