Accrual Budgeting

Accrual and cash-based costs are similar for many government activities. However, accrual measurement would move budget recognition forward for the costs of some programs, such as insurance and pensions, which involve future cash flows. The opposite would be true for the purchase of capital assets: accrual measurement would provide a later recognition of those costs. Other nations have moved toward greater use of accrual concepts in budget reporting. This report discusses what lessons the early experiences of six countries--Australia, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom--might offer the United States. Despite obvious political, cultural, and economic differences between the United States and these countries, their early experiences offer insights as the United States considers ways to improve budget recognition of long-term commitments and continues to seek improvements in government performance and accountability.

GAO noted that: (1) several countries have adopted accrual budgeting as a tool to address concerns about public sector performance, sustainability of government activities, and accountability; (2) much more than an isolated technical exercise, the shift to accrual budgeting has generally reflected much wider and more fundamental reform efforts; (3) although these countries are still in the early stages of developing and implementing accrual budgeting, proponents believe that it provides more complete information and better incentives to address these concerns; (4) accrual budgeting has been used as a tool to support performance-focused management because, in some cases, it more clearly links the total cost of resources used to the performance achieved; (5) proponents believe that accrual budgeting improves incentives to address the longer-term implications of current decisions by better reflecting year-to-year changes in assets and liabilities; (6) proponents also believe that accrual budgeting improves accountability and control by enhancing the consistency of budget information, even though it raises some new oversight issues; (7) others have expressed skepticism and concerns about the use of accrual budgeting; (8) some experts have expressed concern about reduction in the transparency of information on the government's cash borrowing requirement and about the ability to clearly track and control government spending; (9) countries faced a number of implementation challenges, such as identification and valuation of assets; (10) despite obvious significant political, cultural, budget, and economic differences, these countries' early experiences with accrual budgeting provide some valuable insights for the United States; (11) however, the challenge is how to translate useful ideas developed in a parliamentary political system to the U.S.' system in ways that could improve the U.S.' decision-making process while protecting its unique institutional needs; (12) GAO believes that the selective application of accrual budgeting to certain long-term commitments can strengthen the information and accountability for these costs; (13) decision-making could benefit from incorporating accrual measurement into the budget in ways that better match the cost of resources consumed with the performance achieved without forfeiting budgetary control; and (14) even without changing the measurement basis of budgeting to accrual, congressional oversight and managerial decision-making could be enhanced by better integration of supplemental accrual-based information into the decision-making process.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone: