GPRAMA requires OMB to make publicly available, on a central government-wide website, a list of all federal programs identified by agencies. For each program, each agency is to provide to OMB for publication an identification of how the agency defines the term “program,” consistent with OMB guidance, including program activities that were aggregated, disaggregated, or consolidated to be considered a program by the agency; a description of the purposes of the program and how the program contributes to the agency’s mission and goals; and an identification of funding for the current fiscal year and the previous 2 fiscal years. In addition, GPRAMA requires OMB to issue guidance to ensure that the information provided on the website presents a coherent picture of all federal programs. In August 2012, OMB issued guidance for implementation of the inventory requirements through a phased approach for the 24 agencies subject to the CFO Act. OMB subsequently published 24 separate inventory documents on Performance.gov in May 2013, wherein agencies were to select an approach for identifying programs and provide funding and performance information for the programs identified. For the second phase, originally planned for publication in May 2014, the 24 agencies were to update their inventories based on any stakeholder feedback they received and provide additional program-level funding and performance information. OMB’s guidance also stated that, at that time, the inventory information was to be presented in a more dynamic, web-based approach. However, agencies did not publish updated inventories in May 2014. In October 2014, we reported that according to OMB officials plans for updating the inventories were on indefinite hold as OMB re-evaluated next steps for what type of information would be presented in the inventories and how it would be presented. OMB staff were considering how implementation of the expanded reporting requirements for federal spending information under the DATA Act could be tied to the program inventories. As of July 2017, OMB had not provided a timeline or plan for the next iteration of the federal program inventory. In our 2014 assessment of the executive branch’s initial effort to develop a program inventory, we found that the usefulness of the 24 agency inventories was limited. Agencies had the flexibility to identify their programs using different approaches within the broad definition of what constitutes a program, which—while potentially appropriate for individual agencies—limited the comparability of information across the inventory. Further, we found that the agencies did not work together or consult with stakeholders. We also found that none of the agencies provided the necessary budget and performance information. Without performance information, it was unclear how programs supported various agency goals. We also determined that for the federal program inventory to be useful it must be accurate, complete, consistent, reliable, and valid, among other factors. We recommended a number of specific steps OMB and agencies could take to ensure the inventories are more useful to decisions makers, including providing complete performance information (including performance goals), consulting with stakeholders, and ensuring that information in the inventory is comparable within and across agencies. As mentioned above, OMB staff generally agreed with these recommendations, although they did not comment on three of our recommendations related to including tax expenditures and additional performance information. The principles and practices of information architecture—a discipline focused on how information is organized, structured, and presented to users—may offer an overarching approach for developing a useful federal program inventory. There are three key concepts in information architecture that are relevant to the development of a federal program inventory—facet, controlled vocabulary, and taxonomy. Table 1 defines these terms and provides examples of what they mean within the context of a federal program inventory. Decision rules provide consistency in how programs are included, in the application of the controlled vocabulary, and in the collection of program information in facets. Information architecture can be visualized as a process to identify and define needed information, develop a structure for organizing and presenting it, and ensure that standards are met and maintained. These steps may not be purely sequential, but may be iterative as the inventory is developed, evaluated, and maintained. Based on the principles of information architecture, figure 1 provides a conceptual overview of this potential process for developing a federal program inventory. Each of these steps is described more fully in the sections following. As program information in the inventory is collected and organized into facets, it can be aggregated or disaggregated to facilitate various uses. Facets—and the information or data collected within them—can be structured to allow for searching, grouping, or other functions. Individual facets could describe program characteristics or operations or could relate to budgeting or performance information, among other things. Within these facets, specific information or data would be reported such as program type, specific agency or office names, or budget data. By organizing information according to facets, programs can be identified, grouped, or organized based on certain characteristics, such as the information or data collected within the facet. For example, if a program facet on beneficiaries existed, then potentially all programs that serve the same types of beneficiaries could be identified within the inventory. In the following sections we provide examples of how these principles and practices can be applied to federal programs. However, since we developed these examples for illustrative purposes only, this does not necessarily mean that they should be included in the inventory. The federal program inventory is intended to improve transparency over federal programs. There can be many specific uses for the inventory to support this purpose, and input from stakeholders—such as Congress, agency officials, state and local governments, third-party service providers, and the public—can assist in establishing these potential uses. Early stakeholder involvement can also guide efforts to determine what programs and program information should be included so that the inventory is more likely to meet stakeholder needs over time. We have reported that a federal program inventory including performance information could be used by congressional decision makers to inform decision making to identify issues that the federal government should address, to measure progress, and to identify better strategies, if necessary, among other uses. State officials that we interviewed from three states that have developed or are developing program inventories pointed to similar potential uses. For example, in Vermont a senior performance management official said the state’s inventory could be used to facilitate cross-agency coordination, aid government transitions (such as for newly elected legislators), and link program performance with funding. Likewise, an Arizona official told us the state’s program inventory has the potential to show how agency programs align with performance goals. Michigan officials anticipate that the program inventory currently being developed in that state will have the potential to identify duplication and overlap among state programs. As a result, decision makers in that state will be better equipped to oversee the budget process. Our prior work highlights potential uses for different types of information that could be included in a program inventory. Performance and budgeting information—including, among other types of information, performance goals, targets, and time frames; measures of efficiency; operations, such as activities and services; and costs—could facilitate a variety of potential uses, such as helping decision makers prioritize resources among programs or identifying pressing issues for the government to address; informing congressional decisions about authorizing or reauthorizing federal programs, provisions in the tax code, and other activities; and determining the scope of the federal government’s involvement, investment, and performance in a particular area. Prioritization of some uses may be important to consider to make the inventory more effective. As we previously reported, consulting with stakeholders to understand their needs would better ensure that the information provided in the inventories is useful for stakeholder decision making. Such prioritization, for example, could also involve examining costs that agencies might face in collecting information for certain facets. Then decisions could be made to select only a subset of all potential facets for inclusion in early iterations of the inventory. Tax expenditures are one program type that would need to be included in the program inventory to fully implement GPRAMA. Tax expenditures represent a substantial federal commitment. If the Department of the Treasury’s estimates are summed, an estimated $1.23 trillion in federal revenue was forgone from the 169 tax expenditures reported for fiscal year 2015, an amount comparable to discretionary spending. Tax expenditures are often aimed at policy goals similar to those of federal spending programs. Increased transparency over tax expenditures could help determine how well specific tax expenditures work to achieve their goals and how their benefits and costs compare to those of spending programs with similar goals. In our 2014 review of the executive branch’s initial effort to develop a program inventory, we recommended OMB include tax expenditures as a program type in the federal program inventory and work with the Department of the Treasury to produce an inventory of tax expenditures. As stated previously, OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with those recommendations. Likewise, to enhance usefulness at the federal level, a program inventory can include program operations information, in addition to the budget and performance information required by GPRAMA. Program operations information can include descriptions of what programs do, whom they serve, and the specific activities they conduct. Including this type of information provides a more comprehensive picture of a program within the inventory. There are many potential benefits, including improved ability to identify, assess, and address fragmentation, overlap, and duplication within the federal government. Likewise, program operations information can provide opportunities to enhance service delivery among programs offering similar services or serving related populations. For example, programs serving low income or transportation disadvantaged populations could look for opportunities to facilitate access to related services by coordinating to provide transportation for these beneficiaries. One of the central tasks in creating an inventory of federal programs is to identify the programs to be included and the information to be collected about them. Information architecture practices suggest selecting information sources to compile a list of concepts and terms as part of a controlled vocabulary. For example, stakeholders may frequently use certain terms and concepts to describe programs and make distinctions between different types of programs that can affect the content of the inventory or the information included within it. Thus, grant programs may describe eligible beneficiaries using similar terms, such as rural and urban or youth and elderly.