The stated purposes of the Recovery Act are to: preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery; assist those most impacted by the recession; provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health; invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits; and stabilize state and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases. While many Recovery Act projects focused on immediately jumpstarting the economy, some projects—such as those involving investments in technology, infrastructure, and the environment—are expected to contribute to economic growth for many years. The Recovery Act established the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (Recovery Board) to provide additional monitoring and oversight. The board was originally scheduled to terminate operations by September 30, 2013, but its mission has been extended until September 30, 2015, to provide oversight and monitoring of assistance provided in response to Hurricane Sandy, which hit the northeast in October 2012.in figure 1 displays selected events related to the Recovery Act and its requirements. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) initially estimated the cost of the Recovery Act to be approximately $787 billion; however, CBO’s most recent estimate projects that the Recovery Act will cost approximately $830 billion over the 2009-2019 time period. As of October 31, 2013, the federal government provided a total of approximately $812 billion related to Recovery Act activities. This includes funding to 28 federal agencies that were distributed to states, localities, and other entities; individuals through a combination of tax benefits and cuts; entitlements; and loans, contracts, and grants. See figure 2 for an overview of Recovery Act spending by category and program. Although Medicaid was the single largest Recovery Act grant program, we did not include it in our review because it is primarily an entitlement program and subject to specific rules that are not typical of program grants. Accordingly, we included the Recovery Act funds directed to Medicaid in the entitlement category, rather than the grant category, in figure 2. Emphasizing the importance of spending Recovery Act funds quickly, the President established a goal that by September 30, 2010, 70 percent of Recovery Act funding should be spent (that is, both obligated and outlayed). Therefore, agencies had approximately 19 months to spend almost three- quarters of their Recovery funds. Grants have played a key role in providing Recovery Act funds to recipients, with approximately $219 billion being awarded for use in states and localities through a wide variety of federal grant programs. With the intent of disbursing funds quickly to create and retain jobs and stabilize state and local budgets, a large majority of Recovery Act grant funding went to states and localities within 3 years of the law’s enactment. Recipients reported receiving approximately 88 percent of their grant awards by the end of the 2nd quarter of calendar year 2013. State and local spending was as follows: Fiscal year 2009: spending totaled approximately $53 billion in actual outlays. Fiscal year 2010: spending was at its highest level with approximately $112 billion in actual outlays. Fiscal year 2011: spending decreased from its peak, with approximately $69 billion in actual outlays. The 28 federal agencies that received Recovery funds developed specific plans for spending the money. The agencies then awarded grants and contracts to state governments or, in some cases, directly to schools, hospitals, or other entities. OMB guidance directed these federal agencies to file weekly financial reports detailing how the money was being distributed. Recipients of the funds, in turn, were required by the Recovery Act to file quarterly reports on how they were spending the Recovery Act funds that they received. Recovery Act grants provided to states and localities covered a broad range of areas such as transportation, energy, and housing. Education programs were the largest recipients of Recovery Act grant awards. Of the education programs funded in the Recovery Act, the largest in terms of funding was the newly created State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program, which provided assistance to state governments to stabilize their budgets by minimizing budgetary cuts in education and other essential government services, such as public safety. The Recovery Act appropriated $53.6 billion for the SFSF program.shows, grants represent over one-quarter of Recovery Act funding. Out of that category, funding received in the program areas of education, transportation, and energy and environment amount to approximately $137 billion, or 70 percent, of Recovery Act grant spending to date. As figure 2 (above) The Recovery Act called for a large amount of federal funds to be spent (that is, obligated and outlayed) in a short period of time—approximately 19 months—by the end of September 30, 2010. To assure the public that their tax dollars were being spent efficiently and effectively, the Recovery Act placed increased emphasis on accountability and transparency through enhanced reporting, auditing, and evaluation requirements for users of Recovery Act funds. The Recovery Act delineated some of these increased accountability and transparency responsibilities to existing organizations and entities as well as newly-created ones. See table 1 for details regarding the primary accountability and oversight responsibilities of key organizations involved in implementing the Recovery Act. Under the Recovery Act, accountability for timely and effective implementation of the law was a shared responsibility that included agencies involved in directly implementing the law as well as the external oversight community. On the operational side, among the practices that facilitated accountability were (1) strong support by top leaders, (2) centrally-situated collaborative governance structures, and (3) the regular and systematic use of data to support management reviews. We have previously reported on the importance of having the active support of top leadership when undertaking large and complex activities. This was the case in the implementation of the Recovery Act where, at the federal level, the President and Vice President made clear that effective Recovery Act implementation was a high priority for them. The President assigned overall management responsibility for the Recovery Act to the Vice President and appointed a former OMB deputy director to head the newly-created Recovery Implementation Office with direct reporting responsibilities to both him and the Vice President. The former head of the Recovery Implementation Office told us that his position gave him access to top leadership in the administration. This official said he participated in daily morning staff meetings with the White House senior staff, briefing them on any issues related to the Recovery Act. He briefed the President directly approximately once a month. In addition, he typically met with the Vice President’s staff on a daily basis after the President’s staff meeting. He also met with the Vice President directly every 1 to 2 weeks. Finally, he frequently interacted with the head of OMB and sometimes also sat in on his staff meetings. In each of these roles he had direct access to, and support from, the highest levels of government. The former head of the Recovery Implementation Office stated this was key to his ability to ensure cooperation and coordination with other federal departments during the Recovery Act. For example, he told us that senior government leaders knew that his office had the authority of the President and Vice President behind it, and if they did not do what was requested, they would have to explain their reasoning to senior White House officials. This awareness of the Recovery Implementation Office’s line of authority helped to ensure that federal officials coordinated and cooperated with the office. In turn, the involvement and engagement of top leaders at individual federal agencies was facilitated by OMB guidance that required each agency to identify a senior accountable official—generally at the deputy secretary or subcabinet level—to be responsible for Recovery planning, implementation, and performance activities within the agency.senior agency leaders were regularly involved with overseeing and reporting on Recovery Act efforts. At the state level, several governors demonstrated top leadership support by establishing specific positions, offices, or both that were responsible for state Recovery efforts. For example, the Governor of Massachusetts created the Massachusetts Recovery and Reinvestment Office as a temporary program management office for the specific task of overseeing Recovery activities. The former director of the office stated that he reported directly to, and drew his authority from, the Governor. The Governor also elevated the office to the rank of a senior level office. This action increased the office’s visibility and gave it a seat at the Governor’s weekly cabinet meetings, where its director would regularly report on the status of Recovery Act projects. In addition, no state Recovery Act program could be approved without the director’s consent. The former director told us that the success of the office was attributable to the direct line of authority it had with the Governor of Massachusetts. In fiscal year 2012, Massachusetts’ Office of Commonwealth Performance, Accountability, and Transparency was created, in part, as a direct result According to Massachusetts’ state officials, this of the Recovery Act. office is the state’s attempt to take lessons from the state’s experience with the Massachusetts Recovery and Reinvestment Office and apply them post Recovery Act. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 7, § 4A(e). and to run competitions in a manner consistent with their individual statutes, regulations, and agency practices. On the other hand, there was also centralization of oversight as demonstrated by the direct involvement of high-level officials such as the Vice President, cabinet secretaries, and senior accountable officials in federal agencies receiving Recovery Act funding, as well as centrally-placed policy and oversight organizations such as OMB and the Recovery Board. This combination of a centralized and decentralized approach to managing the implementation of the Recovery Act represented a new method of managing grant oversight, one which simultaneously recognized the importance of collaboration while increasing the role of the center. Officials in the Recovery Implementation Office employed a collaborative, facilitative approach, while also leveraging the authority of the Vice President to facilitate the participation of stakeholders. The office functioned as a convener and problem-solver that engaged with a wide range of federal, state and local partners. This approach was embodied in the objectives identified by the Vice President when the office was established.