Electronic Government
Funding of the Office of Management and Budget's Initiatives Gao ID: GAO-05-420 April 25, 2005In accordance with the President's Management Agenda, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has sponsored initiatives to promote electronic government--the use of information technology, such as Web-based Internet applications, to enhance government services. Generally, these "e-gov" initiatives do not have direct appropriations but depend on a variety of funding sources, including monetary contributions from participating agencies. GAO was asked to review the funding of e-gov initiatives that relied on such contributions: specifically, to determine, for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, whether agencies made contributions in the amounts planned and to determine the timing of these contributions.
Most federal agencies contributed funds as originally planned by the managing partners of the 10 initiatives that relied on such contributions in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Nevertheless, 6 of the 10 initiatives experienced shortfalls from their funding plans in fiscal year 2003 and 9 in 2004. The rationale provided by agencies for contributions that were less than planned included: (1) substitution of in-kind resources in lieu of funds, (2) lack of budget guidance from OMB reflecting planned funding amounts, (3) inability to obtain permission to reprogram funds from other accounts, and (4) organizational realignments associated with creation of the Department of Homeland Security in fiscal year 2003. For example, the e-Rulemaking initiative (managed by the Environmental Protection Agency) received only 51 percent of its planned fiscal year 2004 contributions. Although the initiative's funding plan called for adding new funding partners in that year, OMB did not reflect this expansion when it issued its annual budget guidance to agencies. As a result, the newly added agencies generally did not contribute. According to E-Rulemaking officials, the resulting shortfall in funds, along with delays in receiving funds from other agencies, required them to significantly scale back their plans. In most cases, fiscal year 2003 and 2004 contributions from partner agencies were made in the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year. Agency officials identified the administrative burden associated with drafting, negotiating, and signing interagency agreements, as well as the delayed enactment of the fiscal year 2003-2004 appropriations bills, as contributing to this timing of contributions. However, according to officials from several agencies, although the administrative burden is still high, agencies have become more accustomed to funding strategies based on partner agency contributions.
RecommendationsOur 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:GAO-05-420, Electronic Government: Funding of the Office of Management and Budget's Initiatives
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-420
entitled 'Electronic Government: Funding of the Office of Management
and Budget's Initiatives' which was released on May 25, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
April 2005:
Electronic Government:
Funding of the Office of Management and Budget's Initiatives:
GAO-05-420:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-420, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
In accordance with the President‘s Management Agenda, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has sponsored initiatives to promote
electronic government”the use of information technology, such as Web-
based Internet applications, to enhance government services. Generally,
these ’e-gov“ initiatives do not have direct appropriations but depend
on a variety of funding sources, including monetary contributions from
participating agencies. GAO was asked to review the funding of e-gov
initiatives that relied on such contributions: specifically, to
determine, for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, whether agencies made
contributions in the amounts planned and to determine the timing of
these contributions.
What GAO Found:
As shown below, most federal agencies contributed funds as originally
planned by the managing partners of the 10 initiatives that relied on
such contributions in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Nevertheless, 6 of
the 10 initiatives experienced shortfalls from their funding plans in
fiscal year 2003 and 9 in 2004. The rationale provided by agencies for
contributions that were less than planned included: (1) substitution of
in-kind resources in lieu of funds, (2) lack of budget guidance from
OMB reflecting planned funding amounts, (3) inability to obtain
permission to reprogram funds from other accounts, and (4)
organizational realignments associated with creation of the Department
of Homeland Security in fiscal year 2003. For example, the e Rulemaking
initiative (managed by the Environmental Protection Agency) received
only 51 percent of its planned fiscal year 2004 contributions. Although
the initiative‘s funding plan called for adding new funding partners in
that year, OMB did not reflect this expansion when it issued its annual
budget guidance to agencies. As a result, the newly added agencies
generally did not contribute. According to E Rulemaking officials, the
resulting shortfall in funds, along with delays in receiving funds from
other agencies, required them to significantly scale back their plans.
In most cases, fiscal year 2003 and 2004 contributions from partner
agencies were made in the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year.
Agency officials identified the administrative burden associated with
drafting, negotiating, and signing interagency agreements, as well as
the delayed enactment of the fiscal year 2003–2004 appropriations
bills, as contributing to this timing of contributions. However,
according to officials from several agencies, although the
administrative burden is still high, agencies have become more
accustomed to funding strategies based on partner agency contributions.
Numbers of Contributing Partner Agencies by Initiative:
[See Table 3]
What GAO Recommends:
In order to avoid errors and to better assist managing partner agencies
in obtaining funds to execute e gov initiatives, GAO recommends that
OMB ensure that it correctly reflects the funding plans of each
initiative in its budget guidance to partner agencies.
In commenting on a draft of this report, officials from OMB‘s Office of
Electronic Government generally agreed with its content and the
recommendation.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-420.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Linda Koontz at (202) 512-
6240 or koontzl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Although Agencies Generally Contributed Amounts as Planned, Shortfalls
Nevertheless Occurred:
Contributions Were Often Made Late in the Fiscal Year:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying
on Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies:
Disaster Management:
e-Authentication:
e-Loans:
e-Rulemaking:
Geospatial One-Stop:
GovBenefits:
Grants.gov:
Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE):
Project SAFECOM:
Recreation One-Stop:
Tables:
Table 1: Funding Strategies Employed by the 25 OMB-Sponsored e-
Government Initiatives in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004:
Table 2: E-Government Fund Money Allocated to the 25 OMB-Sponsored e-
Gov Initiatives in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004:
Table 3: Numbers of Contributing Partner Agencies by Initiative:
Table 4: Disaster Management Contributions for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Table 5: e-Authentication Contributions for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Table 6: e-Loans Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Table 7: e-Rulemaking Contributions for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Table 8: Geospatial One-Stop Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Table 9: GovBenefits Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Table 10: Grants.gov Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Table 11: Integrated Acquisition Environment Partner Contributions for
Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Table 12: Project SAFECOM Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Table 13: Recreation One-Stop Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Figures:
Figure 1: OMB Management Structure for e-Government Initiatives:
Figure 2: Shortfalls in Contributions and Agency Rationale for Fiscal
Years 2003 and 2004:
Figure 3: Finalization of Agency Funding Obligations by Quarter for One
e-Gov Initiative:
Abbreviations:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOD: Department of Defense:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:
GSA: General Services Administration:
IAE: Integrated Acquisition Environment:
IT: information technology:
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
SBA: Small Business Administration:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 25, 2005:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Chairman:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Adam H. Putnam:
House of Representatives:
Generally speaking, e-government refers to the use of information
technology (IT), particularly Web-based Internet applications, to
enhance the access to and delivery of government information and
service to citizens, to business partners, to employees, and among
agencies at all levels of government. In 2001, under the leadership of
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a team known as the E-
Government Task Force identified a set of high-profile initiatives to
lead the federal government's drive toward e-government transformation.
These initiatives--now numbering 25[Footnote 1]--cover a wide spectrum
of government activities, ranging from centralizing various types of
government information on the Web to eliminating redundant,
nonintegrated business operations and systems. OMB has been overseeing
the implementation of these 25 high-priority, cross-agency e-government
initiatives in support of the President's Management Agenda. Generally,
these initiatives do not have direct appropriations but depend on a
variety of funding sources, including, for 10 of the initiatives, joint
funding from participating agencies.
This report responds to your request that we review funding of the OMB-
sponsored e-government initiatives. Specifically, as agreed with your
office, our objectives were, for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, to (1)
determine whether federal agencies made contributions in the amounts
planned to the 10 e-gov initiatives that relied on such contributions
and (2) determine the timing of these contributions and reasons for any
contributions made late in each fiscal year.
To address our objectives, we obtained and analyzed detailed funding
data and supporting documentation from the managing and funding
partners of these initiatives to identify the amount and timing of
contributions for fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Through interviews with
agency officials, we obtained explanations for any shortfalls in making
planned contributions and the circumstances that affected timing of
contributions. Details of our objectives, scope, and methodology are
provided in appendix I. Our work was conducted in the Washington, D.C.,
metropolitan area, from September 2004 to April 2005, in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Most federal agencies contributed funds as originally planned by the
managing partners of the 10 initiatives that relied on such
contributions in fiscal years 2003 and 2004[Footnote 2]. Specifically,
in fiscal year 2003, 79 of the 110 funding partner agencies made
contributions as planned, as did 89 of 128 funding partner agencies in
fiscal year 2004. Nevertheless, shortfalls from originally planned
contributions occurred; 6 of the 10 initiatives experienced shortfalls
from their funding plans in fiscal year 2003 and 9 in fiscal year 2004.
The rationale provided by agencies for contributions that were less
than planned included (1) substitution of in-kind resources in lieu of
monetary funds, (2) lack of budget guidance from OMB reflecting the
original planned amounts, (3) inability to obtain congressional
approval to reprogram funds from other accounts, and (4) organizational
realignments associated with creation of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) in fiscal year 2003. For example, the General Services
Administration (GSA), the managing partner for the Integrated
Acquisition Environment initiative, agreed to accept in-kind
contributions from the Department of Defense (DOD) consisting of staff
and the use of existing DOD systems instead of the funding contribution
originally planned for fiscal year 2004. As another example, in fiscal
year 2004, although the e-Rulemaking initiative's governing board had
reached agreement on a funding plan that called for expanding the
number of funding partners from 9 to 35 over the previous fiscal year,
OMB did not reflect this planned expansion in the budget guidance it
provided to agencies. As a result, the newly added agencies that did
not receive budget guidance to provide funds for e-Rulemaking in fiscal
year 2004 generally did not contribute, except in three
instance[Footnote 3]s. Without receiving planned contributions,
officials had to delay implementation of key elements of the planned
initiative.
In most cases, fiscal year 2003 and 2004 contributions from partner
agencies were made in the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year.
Specifically, seven of the initiatives reported that they had finalized
half or more of their funding agreements with partner agencies in the
third or fourth quarter of the fiscal year. According to managing and
funding partner agency officials, factors contributing to this timing
of contributions included the administrative burden associated with
drafting, negotiating, and signing interagency agreements, as well as
the timing of enactment of the fiscal year 2003-2004 appropriations
bills.[Footnote 4] However, according to officials from several
agencies, although the administrative burden is still high, over time
agencies have become more accustomed to the requirements of the
interagency agreement process.
In order to avoid errors and to better assist the managing partner
agencies in obtaining funds to execute the OMB-sponsored initiatives,
we are recommending that the Director of OMB take steps to ensure that
OMB's budget guidance to partner agencies correctly reflects the
funding plans of each of the initiatives that rely on funding
contributions. In commenting on a draft of this report, officials from
OMB generally agreed with its content and our recommendation.
Background:
E-government is seen as promising a wide range of benefits based
largely on harnessing the power of the Internet to facilitate
interconnections and information exchange between citizens and their
government. A variety of actions have been taken in recent years to
enhance the government's ability to realize the potential of e-
government. The President designated e-government as one of five
priorities in his fiscal year 2002 management agenda for making the
federal government more focused on citizens and results. According to
the agenda, e-government is expected to:
* provide high-quality customer services regardless of whether the
citizen contacts the agency by phone, in person, or on the Web;
* reduce the expense and difficulty of doing business with the
government;
* cut government operating costs;
* provide citizens with readier access to government services;
* increase access for persons with disabilities to agency Web sites and
e-government applications; and:
* make government more transparent and accountable.
As the lead agency for implementing the President's management agenda,
OMB developed a governmentwide strategy for expanding e-government,
which it published in February 2002.[Footnote 5] In its strategy, OMB
organized the 25 selected e-government initiatives into five
portfolios: "government to citizen," "government to business,"
"government to government," "internal efficiency and effectiveness,"
and "cross-cutting." Figure 1 provides an overview of this structure.
Figure 1: OMB Management Structure for e-Government Initiatives:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
For each initiative, OMB designated a specific agency to be the
initiative's "managing partner," responsible for leading the
initiative, and assigned other federal agencies as "partners" in
carrying out the initiative. Partner responsibilities can include
making contributions of funding or in-kind resources (e.g., staff
time). Most of the initiatives do not have direct appropriations but
rely instead on a variety of alternative funding strategies. Table 1
summarizes the funding strategies employed by the 25 OMB-sponsored e-
gov initiatives in fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Table 1: Funding Strategies Employed by the 25 OMB-Sponsored e-
Government Initiatives in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004:
Initiative: Business Gateway;
Managing partner: Small Business Administration;
Funding strategies: Managing partner funded, E-Government Fund.
Initiative: Consolidated Health Informatics;
Managing partner: Department of Health and Human Services;
Funding strategies: In-kind contributions (no monetary funds).
Initiative: Disaster Management;
Managing partner: Department of Homeland Security;
Funding strategies: Partner agency contributions.
Initiative: e-Authentication;
Managing partner: General Services Administration;
Funding strategies: Partner agency contributions.
Initiative: e-Clearance;
Managing partner: Office of Personnel Management;
Funding strategies: Managing partner funded.
Initiative: e-Loans;
Managing partner: Department of Education;
Funding strategies: Partner agency contributions (Some partner agencies
also separately funded their own specific component projects.)
Initiative: Enterprise Human Resources Integration;
Managing partner: Office of Personnel Management;
Funding strategies: Managing partner funded, fee for service.
Initiative: e-Payroll;
Managing partner: Office of Personnel Management;
Funding strategies: Managing partner funded, fee for service, E-
Government Fund.
Initiative: e-Records;
Managing partner: National Archives and Records Administration;
Funding strategies: Managing partner funded.
Initiative: e-Rulemaking;
Managing partner: Environmental Protection Agency;
Funding strategies: Partner agency contributions.
Initiative: e-Training;
Managing partner: Office of Personnel Management;
Funding strategies: Managing partner funded, fee for service, E-
Government Fund.
Initiative: e-Travel;
Managing partner: General Services Administration;
Funding strategies: Managing partner funded.
Initiative: e-Vital;
Managing partner: Social Security Administration;
Funding strategies: Managing partner funded.
Initiative: Expanding Electronic Tax Products for Businesses;
Managing partner: Department of the Treasury;
Funding strategies: Managing partner funded.
Initiative: Federal Asset Sales;
Managing partner: General Services Administration;
Funding strategies: Managing partner funded.
Initiative: Geospatial One-Stop;
Managing partner: Department of the Interior;
Funding strategies: Partner agency contributions.
Initiative: GovBenefits;
Managing partner: Department of Labor;
Funding strategies: Partner agency contributions.
Initiative: Grants.gov;
Managing partner: Department of Health and Human Services;
Funding strategies: Partner agency contributions.
Initiative: Integrated Acquisition Environment;
Managing partner: General Services Administration;
Funding strategies: Partner agency contributions.
Initiative: International Trade Process Streamlining;
Managing partner: Department of Commerce;
Funding strategies: Managing partner funded (Partner agencies also
separately funded their own specific component projects.)
Initiative: IRS Free File;
Managing partner: Department of the Treasury;
Funding strategies: Managing partner funded.
Initiative: Project SAFECOM;
Managing partner: Department of Homeland Security;
Funding strategies: Partner agency contributions.
Initiative: Recreation One-Stop;
Managing partner: Department of the Interior;
Funding strategies: Partner agency contributions, E-Government Fund.
Initiative: Recruitment One-Stop;
Managing partner: Office of Personnel Management;
Funding strategies: Managing partner funded, participating agencies
assessed fees.
Initiative: USA Services;
Managing partner: General Services Administration;
Funding strategies: Managing partner funded, fee for service.
Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.
[End of table]
A common strategy used in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 was to reach
agreement among the participating agencies on monetary contributions to
be made by each--10 of the 25 initiatives used this strategy.
Initiatives used different approaches in determining how much an agency
should contribute. For example, some adopted complex allocation
formulas based on agency size and expected use of the initiative's
resources, while others decided to have each agency contribute an equal
share. In most cases, the funding strategy and allocation formula
adopted for an initiative was determined by its governing board, with
input from partner agencies and OMB. To further reinforce the strategy
of having partner agencies make financial contributions, OMB generally
reflected planned agency allocations in its annual budget guidance to
partner agencies, known as passback instructions.
The remaining 15 initiatives used other funding approaches.
Specifically, for 7 of the 15, the managing partner contributed all
necessary funds. Seven others[Footnote 6] used a combination of
managing partner funding and other sources, such as charging fees for
services provided, or received support from the E-Government Fund,
established by the E-Government Act of 2002.[Footnote 7]
The E-Government Fund was intended to be used to support projects that
enable the federal government to expand its ability to conduct
activities electronically. The Director of OMB, supported by the E-
Government Administrator, is responsible for determining which projects
are to receive support from the E-Government Fund. Table 2 summarizes
support from the E-Government Fund given to the 25 OMB- sponsored
initiatives in fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Table 2: E-Government Fund Money Allocated to the 25 OMB-Sponsored e-
Gov Initiatives in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004:
Dollars in millions.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Appropriated: $5;
Initiatives supported: Business Gateway, e-Payroll, Recreation One-
Stop, e-Training;
Spent: $3.1.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Appropriated: $3;
Initiatives supported: Business Gateway;
independent verification and validation of the 25 e-government
initiatives;
Spent: $2.3.
Total;
Appropriated: $8;
Spent: $5.4.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the General Services
Administration.
Note: Table does not reflect all activities for which E-Government Fund
money was allocated in each fiscal year.
[End of table]
As shown in table 2, $5.4 million of the available $8 million in the E-
Government Fund was spent on, among other things, 4 of the 25
initiatives. In addition to its use for the e-gov initiatives, OMB also
used the E-Government Fund to support development of its "lines of
business" initiatives[Footnote 8] (a total of $1.9 million) in fiscal
years 2003 and 2004.
Although Agencies Generally Contributed Amounts as Planned, Shortfalls
Nevertheless Occurred:
For fiscal years 2003 and 2004, agencies generally made funding
contributions in the amounts originally planned by the managing
partners of the 10 initiatives that relied on funding contributions.
Table 3 shows the specific numbers of partner agencies that made such
contributions as planned.
Table 3: Numbers of Contributing Partner Agencies by Initiative:
Initiative: Disaster Management;
Fiscal year 2003: Number of funding partners: 9;
Fiscal year 2003: Partners contributing as planned: 5;
Fiscal year 2004: Number of funding partners: 8;
Fiscal year 2004: Partners contributing as planned: 6.
Initiative: e-Authentication;
Fiscal year 2003: Number of funding partners: 14;
Fiscal year 2003: Partners contributing as planned: 8;
Fiscal year 2004: Number of funding partners: 15;
Fiscal year 2004: Partners contributing as planned: 13.
Initiative: e-Loans;
Fiscal year 2003: Number of funding partners: 5;
Fiscal year 2003: Partners contributing as planned: 4;
Fiscal year 2004: Number of funding partners: 5;
Fiscal year 2004: Partners contributing as planned: 4.
Initiative: e-Rulemaking;
Fiscal year 2003: Number of funding partners: 9;
Fiscal year 2003: Partners contributing as planned: 7;
Fiscal year 2004: Number of funding partners: 35;
Fiscal year 2004: Partners contributing as planned: 9.
Initiative: Geospatial One-Stop;
Fiscal year 2003: Number of funding partners: 8;
Fiscal year 2003: Partners contributing as planned: 7;
Fiscal year 2004: Number of funding partners: 8;
Fiscal year 2004: Partners contributing as planned: 6.
Initiative: GovBenefits;
Fiscal year 2003: Number of funding partners: 10;
Fiscal year 2003: Partners contributing as planned: 10;
Fiscal year 2004: Number of funding partners: 10;
Fiscal year 2004: Partners contributing as planned: 9.
Initiative: Grants.gov;
Fiscal year 2003: Number of funding partners: 11;
Fiscal year 2003: Partners contributing as planned: 11;
Fiscal year 2004: Number of funding partners: 12;
Fiscal year 2004: Partners contributing as planned: 11.
Initiative: Integrated Acquisition Environment;
Fiscal year 2003: Number of funding partners: 31;
Fiscal year 2003: Partners contributing as planned: 19;
Fiscal year 2004: Number of funding partners: 24;
Fiscal year 2004: Partners contributing as planned: 21.
Initiative: Project SAFECOM;
Fiscal year 2003: Number of funding partners: 9;
Fiscal year 2003: Partners contributing as planned: 4;
Fiscal year 2004: Number of funding partners: 7;
Fiscal year 2004: Partners contributing as planned: 6.
Initiative: Recreation One-Stop;
Fiscal year 2003: Number of funding partners: 4;
Fiscal year 2003: Partners contributing as planned: 4;
Fiscal year 2004: Number of funding partners: 4;
Fiscal year 2004: Partners contributing as planned: 4.
Initiative: Total;
Fiscal year 2003: Number of funding partners: 110;
Fiscal year 2003: Partners contributing as planned: 79;
Fiscal year 2004: Number of funding partners: 128;
Fiscal year 2004: Partners contributing as planned: 89.
Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided data.
Note: The count of agencies contributing as planned also includes
partner contributions that were greater than planned.
[End of table]
Although most contributions were made in the amounts planned, 6 of the
10 initiatives experienced funding shortfalls from their planned
budgets in fiscal year 2003, and 9 experienced shortfalls in fiscal
year 2004. Shortfalls in fiscal year 2003 totaled approximately $31
million (22 percent) of a planned budget of $138.7 million. In fiscal
year 2004, shortfalls totaled approximately $25.4 million (20 percent)
of a planned $124.2 million. The rationale provided by agencies for
contributions that were less than planned included (1) substitution of
in-kind resources in lieu of funds, (2) lack of budget guidance from
OMB reflecting the original planned amounts, (3) inability to obtain
congressional approval to reprogram funds from other accounts, and (4)
organizational realignments associated with creation of DHS in fiscal
year 2003. Figure 2 shows the shortfalls in contributions for each
fiscal year and the primary rationale provided by agencies for those
shortfalls.
Figure 2: Shortfalls in Contributions and Agency Rationale for Fiscal
Years 2003 and 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
As shown in figure 2, in some cases partner agencies negotiated with
the initiatives' managing partners for reductions in monetary
contributions, which often included an agreement for transfer of in-
kind resources. For example, in fiscal year 2004, the Social Security
Administration provided in-kind resources in lieu of requested funding
to the e-Authentication initiative, managed by GSA. Specific details of
all initiative shortfalls and associated agency explanations can be
found in appendix II.
Most of the shortfalls that occurred in each fiscal year were
concentrated in one or two of the initiatives. For example, shortfalls
in fiscal year 2003 experienced by the Project SAFECOM initiative--
which is to serve as the umbrella program within the federal government
to help local, tribal, state, and federal public safety agencies
improve public safety response through more effective and efficient
interoperable wireless communications--accounted for 57 percent of the
total shortfall in that year. According to program officials, these
shortfalls resulted from two major causes: (1) the inability of the
Departments of Justice and the Interior to obtain congressional
approval to reprogram funds from other accounts and (2) the impact of
organizational realignments associated with the creation of DHS in
fiscal year 2003. SAFECOM officials reported that the fiscal year 2003
shortfalls resulted in delays in the development of standards and
architecture efforts related to communications interoperability. For
example, the timeline for development of a methodology for assessing
communications interoperability nationwide was postponed until
sufficient funding could be made available.
In fiscal year 2004, shortfalls experienced by the e-Rulemaking and
Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) initiatives accounted for
nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the total shortfall. The e-Rulemaking
initiative, managed by EPA, received only $5,850,208 (51 percent) of
its planned fiscal year 2004 budget of $11,505,000 in partner agency
contributions. Although the initiative's funding plan had called for an
expanded number of funding partners (from 9 to 35) over the previous
fiscal year, OMB did not reflect that plan with passback instructions
to the new funding partners. According to OMB officials, the disconnect
between the initiative's funding strategy and OMB's passback
instructions represented a "timing problem," in that the passback
instructions were based on the previously defined project scope of 9
partners. However, according to e-Rulemaking's funding plan for fiscal
year 2004, the project's scope had already been broadened at the time
OMB issued its passback instructions. Without passback instructions in
fiscal year 2004, planned partner agencies did not make contributions,
except in a few instances.[Footnote 9] E-Rulemaking officials reported
that the resulting shortfall in funds, compounded with delays in
reaching agreements regarding contributions from other agencies,
required them to significantly scale back agency migration to the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), the centerpiece of the
initiative. Specifically, the number of agencies planned to migrate to
the system in its first phase of implementation was reduced from 10 to
5, and 2 of those represented only component organizations rather than
entire agencies.[Footnote 10]
In IAE's case, the shortfall in fiscal year 2004 also resulted in part
from OMB passback instructions to the Department of Energy not
reflecting the amount originally planned by GSA. According to OMB and
GSA officials, the passback instructions did not reflect the planned
amount due to an administrative error. IAE officials reported that as a
result of this shortfall, implementation of several planned systems
applications was postponed indefinitely. In addition, IAE received a
smaller than anticipated contribution in fiscal year 2004 from the
Department of Defense, because Defense provided in-kind resources in
lieu of the originally planned funding contribution.
Contributions Were Often Made Late in the Fiscal Year:
Although initiatives generally received funding contributions from
federal agencies in the amounts planned, in most cases, funds were
contributed in the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year.
Specifically, seven of the initiatives reported that they had finalized
half or more of their agreements with partner agencies in the third or
fourth quarter of the fiscal year. In providing a rationale for
contributions made late in the fiscal year, officials from both
managing and funding partner agencies reported that the administrative
burden associated with drafting, negotiating, and signing interagency
agreements, as well as the timing of appropriations bill enactment,
contributed to these delays.
For illustrative purposes, figure 3 shows the timing of funding
obligations for one of the initiatives, IAE. As the figure shows, most
funding obligations were finalized in the last quarter of the fiscal
year.
Figure 3: Finalization of Agency Funding Obligations by Quarter for One
e-Gov Initiative:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Both managing and funding partner agencies reported that the extended
process of drafting, negotiating, and signing interagency agreements
contributed significantly to the timing of funding contributions in
fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Officials from 5 of the 10 initiatives that
relied on funding contributions from partner agencies specifically
cited the administrative burden as a factor in interagency agreements
being reached in the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year.
Officials from the Geospatial One-Stop initiative, managed by Interior,
reported that potential partner agencies that could have provided
modest funding contributions were sometimes not invited to do so
because the resource investment required to reach interagency
agreements was prohibitively high.
In addition to the administrative burden associated with finalizing
interagency agreements, managing and funding partner agencies also
attributed the timing of contributions to the enactment of
appropriations bills relatively late in the fiscal year. For example,
in fiscal year 2003, appropriations were not enacted for most agencies
until February 20, 2003, almost 5 months into the fiscal year.[Footnote
11] Further, managing partner agencies did not begin the process of
establishing memorandums of understanding with partner agencies until
after relevant appropriations had been enacted. Although OMB instructed
agencies in fiscal year 2004 to make their funding obligations to
managing partner agencies within 45 days of enactment of
appropriations, agencies reported that this deadline was rarely
achieved.
According to OMB officials overseeing the initiatives, partner agencies
should make every effort to provide promised contributions as early as
possible within a funding cycle because of the benefits in facilitating
implementation of the initiatives. However, for both fiscal years,
agency officials generally did not report that obtaining funds late in
the fiscal year caused their initiatives to suffer significant setbacks
in executing planned tasks or achieving planned goals. Further, several
agency officials noted that the process of drafting and negotiating
memorandums of understanding among agencies had improved over time and
was becoming more efficient in fiscal year 2005, for example, than in
the two fiscal years we examined.[Footnote 12] These officials
attributed the greater efficiency to increased knowledge and experience
among officials involved in managing the e-gov initiatives.
Conclusions:
Most e-gov initiative partner agencies made contributions as planned to
the 10 initiatives that relied on such contributions in fiscal years
2003 and 2004, although shortfalls occurred for a variety of reasons.
In fiscal year 2004, the e-Rulemaking and IAE initiatives experienced
shortfalls when OMB did not reflect the initiatives' funding plans in
budget guidance to partner agencies. Without corresponding budget
guidance from OMB, partner agencies generally did not make planned
contributions, and as a result, officials had to delay implementation
of elements of the planned initiatives.
Agreements on contributions often were not finalized until late in the
fiscal year, in large part because the administrative burden in
obtaining funds through interagency agreements was cumbersome. However,
managing partners generally did not report significant disruptions in
their planned milestones and objectives, and several commented that the
interagency agreement process was becoming more efficient over time.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
In order to avoid errors and to better assist the managing partner
agencies in obtaining funds to execute the OMB-sponsored e-gov
initiatives, we recommend that the Director of OMB take steps to ensure
that OMB's budget guidance to partner agencies correctly reflects the
funding plans of each of the initiatives that rely on funding
contributions.
Agency Comments:
We received oral comments on a draft of this report from
representatives of OMB's Office of E-Government, including the
Associate Administrator for E-Government and Information Technology.
These representatives generally agreed with the content of our draft
report and our recommendation and provided technical comments, which
have been incorporated where appropriate.
OMB officials stated that, while there had been some problems in
administering the funding of the e-government initiatives in fiscal
years 2003 and 2004, agencies had made substantial progress in fiscal
year 2005 in executing memorandums of understanding as early as
possible. Specifically, OMB officials reported that as of April 8,
2005, about 80 percent of fiscal year 2005 funding commitments had been
finalized. Although we did not evaluate fiscal year 2005 as part of our
review, we noted in the report that the process of drafting and
negotiating memorandums of understanding among agencies had reportedly
improved over time. As described in the report, agency officials
attributed the greater efficiency to increased knowledge and experience
among officials involved in managing the e-gov initiatives.
Unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we
plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At
that time, we will provide a copy of this report to the Director of
OMB. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Should you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-6240 or John de Ferrari, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-
6335. We can also be reached by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov and
deferrarij@gao.gov, respectively. Other key contributors to this report
included Barbara Collier; Felipe Colón, Jr; Wilfred Holloway; Sandra
Kerr; Frank Maguire; and Jamie Pressman.
Signed by:
Linda D. Koontz:
Director, Information Management Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were, for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, to (1) determine
whether federal agencies made contributions in the amounts planned to
the 10 e-gov initiatives that relied on such contributions, and (2)
determine the timing of these contributions and reasons for any
contributions made late in each fiscal year.
To determine whether federal agencies made monetary contributions to
OMB-sponsored e-gov initiatives for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 in the
amounts planned, we analyzed detailed funding data and supporting
documentation from both managing partner and funding partner agencies.
This documentation included the initiative's agreed-upon funding plans
for both fiscal years, as well as signed interagency agreements for
each contribution. We also held follow-up discussions with agency
officials to clarify the timing and amounts of contributions. For
example, to determine shortfalls, we compared planned contributions
with amounts obligated by funding partner agencies in their signed
agreements and obtained rationale from agency officials regarding any
differences.
We determined the timing of partner agency contributions based on when
in the fiscal year funds were obligated--the dates on which formal
agreements such as memorandums of understanding and/or interagency
agreements were signed by both managing and funding partner agencies.
We also obtained rationale from agency officials regarding the major
reasons why monetary contributions were made late in the fiscal year.
Our work was conducted in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, from
September 2004 to April 2005, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Funding for Initiatives Relying
on Financial Contributions from Partner Agencies:
Disaster Management:
Managing partner agency: Department of Homeland Security (DHS):
Purpose: Provide federal, state, and local emergency managers online
access to disaster management-related information, planning, and
response tools.
Funding: Disaster Management project officials reported that their
fiscal year 2003 and 2004 funding plans were developed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and communicated to partner agencies
through passback instructions. In fiscal year 2003, seven of nine
partner agencies were to make equal contributions totaling
approximately $1.5 million each, with DHS contributing a larger share
than the others. In fiscal year 2004, for most partners the per-partner
contribution was decreased to $681,250, again with DHS contributing a
larger share. The decrease was due to a rescoping of the initiative
that cancelled plans to develop new tool sets and reduced funding for
the Disaster Management Web portal. Table 4 details contributions to
the initiative for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Table 4: Disaster Management Contributions for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Funding partner: Agriculture;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,480,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $681,250;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Commerce;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,480,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $681,250;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration was legally restricted from contributing to e-gov
initiatives.
Funding partner: Defense;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,480,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $681,250;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Environmental Protection Agency;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,480,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $681,250;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Health and Human Services;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,480,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $681,250;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Homeland Security;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $11,800,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $10,230,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
moved to DHS in fiscal year 2003;
unpaid amount was subsequently paid by DHS in fiscal year 2004;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $14,296,924;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Interior;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,163,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: President's fiscal year 2003 budget did not
include Interior funding;
amount re-requested but still unpaid in fiscal year 2004;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $1,844,250;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Reprogramming request denied by Congress.
Funding partner: Justice;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,480,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Reprogramming request denied by Congress;
amount re-requested and paid in fiscal year 2004;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $1,480,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Transportation;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,480,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $1,016,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Transportation Security Administration and
Coast Guard moved to DHS in fiscal year 2003;
amount was subsequently paid by DHS in fiscal year 2004;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: N/A.
Total;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $23,323,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $18,646,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $21,027,424;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $18,501,924.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS-provided data.
[A] The fiscal year 2004 planned amount reflects revisions due to
revised cost estimates. Note that fiscal year 2004 planned requests
include unpaid fiscal year 2003 amounts from Interior and Justice. The
fiscal year 2004 DHS request also includes $1.57 million unpaid from
DHS/FEMA and unpaid amounts from two former Transportation agencies,
the Transportation Security Administration and Coast Guard.
[End of table]
Funding shortfalls occurred that were related to two funding partner
agencies: Interior did not make planned fiscal year 2003 or fiscal year
2004 contributions, and Commerce did not make its planned fiscal year
2004 contribution. Interior officials stated that their request to
reprogram funds in 2004 to support Disaster Management was not approved
by Congress. Commerce officials reported that they did not make their
fiscal year 2004 contribution because Commerce's appropriations bill
included a restriction preventing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the principal Commerce participant for Disaster
Management, from contributing fiscal year 2004 funds to any of the e-
gov initiatives.
DHS officials reported that the late timing of contributions was
predominantly the result of agencies having to reformulate internal
financial plans to meet the unforeseen e-government requirement. For
example, Justice and two agencies transferred from Transportation made
their fiscal year 2003 contributions in fiscal year 2004 for a variety
of reasons. Justice officials reported that they were not permitted to
reprogram the required funds during fiscal year 2003. Instead, they
negotiated with OMB to make their fiscal year 2003 contribution in
fiscal year 2004. A portion of Transportation's fiscal year 2003
contribution was delayed by the transfer of key organizations--the
Coast Guard and Transportation Security Administration--to DHS.
According to Disaster Management officials, interruptions caused by
late funding contributions and shortfalls included a delay in adding
new responder groups to Disaster Management Interoperability Services
(DMIS),[Footnote 13] delays in holding meetings and workshops with the
emergency management community (including first responders) to
facilitate development of interoperability standards, and delays in
implementing an alternative site to ensure continuity of operations for
the DMIS and DisasterHelp.gov servers.
e-Authentication:
Managing partner agency: General Services Administration (GSA):
Purpose: Minimize the burden on businesses, the public, and government
when obtaining services online by providing a secure infrastructure for
online transactions, eliminating the need for separate processes for
the verification of identity and electronic signatures.
Funding: In fiscal year 2003, e-Authentication had 14 funding partner
agencies, and the funding plan called for $25 million in agency
contributions to be divided among these partners based on criteria such
as expected transaction volume and agency size. For fiscal year 2004,
the total funding requirement was divided equally among the partner
agencies ($377,000 per partner), with GSA contributing a larger amount
($600,000). On June 29, 2004, the e-Authentication project manager sent
a memorandum out to members of the Executive Steering Committee
explaining that the new federated identity architecture approach that
the initiative had decided to adopt could be completed at a lower cost
($1.86 million less) than the original approach (developing an e-
authentication gateway),[Footnote 14] and therefore, the initiative was
reducing expected fiscal year 2004 agency contributions from $377,000
to $244,361. Table 5 details contributions to the initiative for fiscal
years 2003 and 2004.
Table 5: e-Authentication Contributions for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Funding partner[A]: Agriculture;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,200,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $244,361;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner[A]: Commerce;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $500,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $244,361;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $234,969;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: NOAA was legally restricted from
contributing to e-gov projects in fiscal year 2004.
Funding partner[A]: Defense;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $2,500,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $244,361;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner[A]: Education;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $2,500,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $2,000,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Negotiated reduction;
Education agreed to lead a proof-of-concept effort;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $244,361;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner[A]: Energy;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $244,361;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner[A]: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $2,300,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $350,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Negotiated reduction;
included agreement for in- kind resources and grant to be administered
by EPA;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $244,361;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner[A]: General Services Administration;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $2,800,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $600,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner[A]: Health and Human Services;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $500,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $244,361;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner[A]: Housing and Urban Development;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $300,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $279,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Negotiated reduction;
agency did not have enough funds available;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $244,361;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner[A]: Justice;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $244,361;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner[A]: Labor;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $2,000,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $244,361;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner[A]: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $500,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $450,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Negotiated reduction;
agency did not have enough funds available;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $244,361;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner[A]: Social Security Administration;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $3,000,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $244,361;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: In-kind resource provided in lieu of
requested funds.
Funding partner[A]: State;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $2,000,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: N/A.
Funding partner[A]: Treasury;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $3,200,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $3,179,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Negotiated reduction;
agency did not have enough funds available;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $244,361;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner[A]: Veterans Affairs;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,700,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $244,361;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner[A]: Total;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $25,000,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $22,458,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[B]: $4,021,054;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $3,767,301.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA-provided data.
[A] In July 2003, the Executive Steering Committee voted to add an
additional 10 members (the Departments of Energy, Justice, Homeland
Security, the Interior, and Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Personnel
Management, the Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Agency for
International Development); however, only two members (Energy and
Justice) were asked to contribute in fiscal year 2004. Funds were to be
requested of all 10 members in fiscal year 2005.
[B] Planned amounts reflect the fiscal year 2004 reduction based on the
lower cost of the federated identity architecture approach.
[End of table]
GSA officials reported that five agencies did not make their full
monetary contributions as planned in fiscal year 2003 and two agencies
did not do so in fiscal year 2004. In each of these instances,
reductions were negotiated between GSA and the funding partner agency
and generally included a provision for in-kind resources (e.g., staff
time) in lieu of the full monetary amount. For example in fiscal year
2003, in lieu of the $2.3 million contribution planned for EPA, GSA
agreed to a $350,000 cash transfer; a $125,000 grant to be funded,
administered, and managed by EPA; and various in-kind contributions. As
another example, the Department of Education agreed to lead a proof-of-
concept effort to test the use of its federal student aid personal
identification number identity credential through the planned E-
Authentication gateway in lieu of providing the full requested monetary
amount. Project officials reported that NASA, the Treasury, and Housing
and Urban Development's contributions were reduced because these
agencies simply did not have the funds available to contribute the
planned amounts. In fiscal year 2004, the Social Security
Administration provided in-kind resources in lieu of its planned
funding contribution. Finally, in fiscal year 2004, Commerce did not
make its full planned contribution because a stipulation in the fiscal
year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill prohibited NOAA from spending any
fiscal year 2004 appropriations on the OMB-sponsored e-government
initiatives.
GSA officials reported that the administrative burden associated with
the memorandum of understanding process and appropriations enacted late
in the fiscal year contributed to the late timing of contributions in
fiscal years 2003 and 2004. For example, the officials noted that in
some cases proposed memorandums of understanding that had already been
signed by GSA officials were lost in the process of traversing partner
agency offices, resulting in the need to obtain signatures from high-
level officials multiple times.
e-Loans:
Managing partner agency: Department of Education:
Purpose: Create a single point of access for citizens to locate
information on federal loan programs, and improve back-office loan
functions.
Funding: Although the funding allocation for each of the e-Loans
initiative's five partners is very simple ($397,000 per agency for both
fiscal years), the initiative is somewhat unusual in that the managing
partner does not centrally manage all the funds or activities of the
initiative. Rather, the initiative is divided into four work streams
with partner agencies taking the lead on specific work streams. The
lead agencies used their own funding up to $397,000 per fiscal year,
and if planned costs exceeded that amount, they obtained contributions
from other funding partner agencies. For example, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development manages one of the four work streams and
used its own fiscal year 2003-2004 funds to support it, as well as
receiving contributions from Agriculture in 2003 and 2004 and from
Veterans Affairs in 2004. Table 6 details monetary contributions to the
e-Loans initiative for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Table 6: e-Loans Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Funding partner: Agriculture;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $397,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $397,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Education;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $397,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $397,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Housing and Urban Development;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $397,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $397,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Small Business Administration;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $397,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $175,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Negotiated reduction due to reduced contract
costs for work stream deliverable;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $397,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $97,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Negotiated reduction;
work could be supported under existing contract at no additional cost.
Funding partner: Veterans Affairs;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $397,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $397,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Total;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,985,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $1,763,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,985,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $1,685,000.
Source: GAO analysis of Education-provided data.
[End of table]
Two shortfalls from planned amounts were associated with the Small
Business Administration (SBA); however, both instances represent
negotiated reductions. In fiscal year 2003, as a result of e-Loans
budget negotiations between SBA and OMB and the expected contract cost
of work stream deliverables, SBA's fiscal year 2003 contribution was
reduced. Education officials stated that this decision was supported by
the partner agencies. In fiscal year 2004, SBA originally intended to
spend $300,000 of its $397,000 commitment for activities that SBA
subsequently determined could be supported under an existing contract
at no additional cost. Accordingly, SBA reallocated the funds to
support other e-gov work.
Education officials noted that all partner agencies were affected by
the enactment of appropriations late in fiscal years 2003 and 2004,
which affected agencies' ability to transfer or make funds available.
Nevertheless, the officials reported that despite the timing of
appropriations, partner agencies made their contributions in a timely
manner.
e-Rulemaking:
Managing partner agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
Purpose: Allow citizens to easily access and participate in the
rulemaking process. Improve access to, and quality of, the rulemaking
process for individuals, businesses, and other government entities
while streamlining and increasing the efficiency of internal agency
processes.
Funding: In fiscal year 2003, the e-Rulemaking project management
office requested $100,000 apiece from nine partner agencies to support
the initiative's activities. These allocations were reflected in OMB's
passback instructions to the agencies. In addition, the Department of
Transportation--the former managing partner of the initiative--was
asked to transfer $5 million to EPA. For fiscal year 2004, the
initiative's funding workgroup developed a plan allocating a budget of
$11.5 million among 35 anticipated funding partners, based on criteria
such as agency budget size and average number of rules issued per year.
OMB, however, issued passback instructions to only eight of the nine
agencies that had funded the initiative in fiscal year 2003 and
DHS.[Footnote 15] Table 7 details contributions to the initiative for
fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Table 7: e-Rulemaking Contributions for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Funding partner: Agriculture;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $775,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Commerce;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $300,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Commodity Futures Trading Commission;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $85,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Defense;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $100,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $775,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Education;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $150,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Energy;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $100,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $300,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $186,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Environmental Protection Agency;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $100,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $775,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Federal Communications Commission;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $300,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $85,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Federal Election Commission;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $185,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: N/A.
Funding partner: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $300,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Federal Maritime Commission;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $85,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Federal Reserve Board;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $150,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Federal Trade Commission;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $85,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: General Services Administration;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $150,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Health and Human Services;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $100,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $775,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Homeland Security;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $750,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Housing and Urban Development;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $100,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $300,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Interior;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $750,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Justice;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $300,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Labor;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $100,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $775,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $150,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: National Archives and Records Administration;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $85,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: In-kind resource provided in lieu of
requested funds.
Funding partner: National Science Foundation;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $85,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $100,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Agency unable to contribute funds to
development;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $150,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Office of Management and Budget;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $85,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: No reason given.
Funding partner: Office of Personnel Management;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $150,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $85,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Security and Exchange Commission;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $300,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Small Business Administration;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $150,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $25,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Social Security Administration;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $300,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: State;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $150,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Transportation;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $5,100,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $4,847,500;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: In-kind resources provided in lieu of full
requested amount;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $775,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $544,208;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Balance to be paid in fiscal year 2005.
Funding partner: Treasury;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $100,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $775,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Veterans Affairs;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $300,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Total;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $5,900,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $5,732,500;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned[A]: $11,505,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $5,850,208.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA-provided data.
[A] Planned amount reflects the amount requested by the e-Rulemaking
project management office based on the plan approved by the
initiative's funding workgroup.
[End of table]
E-Rulemaking officials reported that the combination of shortfalls and
late contributions negatively affected the initiative, specifically in
fiscal year 2004. In fiscal year 2003, two agencies, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Transportation, did not make their full
contributions as planned. Although OMB's passback to NRC for fiscal
year 2003 included the $100,000 amount allocated to each partner, NRC
asserted that it was not subject to OMB's budget guidance because it
derives most of its budget from user fees. Accordingly, NRC did not
make its planned contribution. Transportation, the former managing
partner of the initiative, provided monetary funds and in-kind support
in lieu of its full planned contribution in fiscal year 2003. In fiscal
year 2004, Transportation did not make its full contribution because it
believed the amount should be reduced because of the transfer of the
Transportation Security Administration and the Coast Guard to DHS in
fiscal year 2003. However, based on subsequent discussions between E-
Rulemaking and Transportation officials, Transportation officials told
us that they have agreed to pay the remaining fiscal year 2004 balance
in fiscal year 2005. Additionally, the Department of Energy did not
make its full contribution as planned because the OMB passback did not
reflect the planned amount. This occurred because OMB erroneously
assessed the Department of Energy at the same total contribution to e-
gov initiatives in the passback as it had the Department of Education
(the two departments have similar abbreviations).
In fiscal year 2004, although e-Rulemaking requested funds from 35
agencies based on the budget workgroup's funding plan, OMB issued
passback instructions to just nine agencies, resulting in a shortfall
of $5.6 million, nearly half of the initiative's planned budget. Of the
agencies that did not receive passback instructions, only three
agencies contributed monetary resources in fiscal year 2004, and one
agency contributed in-kind resources in lieu of funds. E-Rulemaking
officials reported that they were not provided with an explanation as
to why OMB did not issue passback instructions to all 35 agencies as
had been planned. According to OMB officials, the disconnect between
the initiative's funding strategy and OMB's passback instructions
represented a "timing problem," in that the passback instructions were
based on the previously defined project scope of nine partners. The OMB
officials did not state that the planned expansion of e-Rulemaking was
inappropriate, noting that fiscal year 2005 passback instructions did
reflect the larger number of partners. However, without passback
instructions in fiscal year 2004, planned partner agencies did not make
contributions, except in a few instances.[Footnote 16] E-Rulemaking
officials reported that the resulting shortfall in funds, compounded
with delays in receiving funds from other agencies, required them to
scale back agency migration to the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS), the centerpiece of the initiative. Specifically, although the
initiative planned to migrate 10 agencies to the FDMS in its first
phase of implementation, the revised schedule now includes only 5
agencies, 2 of which are component agencies of larger
departments.[Footnote 17]
Geospatial One-Stop:
Managing partner agency: Department of the Interior:
Purpose: Provide federal and state agencies with a single point of
access to map-related data to enable consolidation of redundant data.
Funding: Planned contributions to the Geospatial One-Stop initiative
were initially distributed among the agencies that were major federal
geospatial data producers or were members of the Federal Geographic
Data Committee. Partner agency concurrence in both fiscal years was
obtained at a meeting hosted by the Interior. Partners willing to
contribute more than the minimum $100,000 agency allocation indicated
their intention to do so. Table 8 details funding for the initiative
for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Table 8: Geospatial One-Stop Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Funding partner: Agriculture;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $135,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $135,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Commerce;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $200,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $300,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $100,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: NOAA was legally restricted from
contributing to e-gov projects in fiscal year 2004.
Funding partner: Defense[A];
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $425,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $625,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $425,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $624,200.
Funding partner: Environmental Protection Agency;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $160,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $160,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Homeland Security[B];
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $100,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $100,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Interior;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $245,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,925,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $225,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Requested $1.5 million increase was not
funded by Congress;
$200,000 in in-kind resources provided.
Funding partner: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $200,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $200,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Transportation;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $200,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $100,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Negotiated reduction due to in-kind
resources provided;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $200,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Total;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,665,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $1,765,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $3,445,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $1,744,200.
Source: GAO Analysis of Interior provided data.
[A] The Defense components involved were the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[B] Upon formation of DHS, e-gov funding moved from FEMA to DHS
department level.
[End of table]
Although the Geospatial One-Stop initiative experienced no shortfalls
from its overall planned budget in fiscal year 2003, one agency,
Transportation, contributed less than planned because in-kind resources
were provided in lieu of the full requested amount. In fiscal year 2004
there were two shortfalls. Geospatial One-Stop officials reported that
shortfall from Interior arose because its fiscal year 2004 requested
increase was not funded by Congress and an agreement was made for
Interior to provide $200,000 of in-kind resources in lieu of monetary
funds. Additionally, there was a shortfall of $200,000 from Commerce
because of the prohibition on NOAA contributing funds to e-government
projects in fiscal year 2004.
Project officials stated that extensive paperwork and staff time were
invested in getting agreements drafted, reviewed, finalized, and
signed. Some potential partners who could have participated at a lower
level of funding were not invited because of the high overhead required
to establish interagency agreements. The project officials stated their
belief that the considerable amount of staff time required for managing
the cross-agency approach to funding could be more effectively used
carrying out the actual work of the project. They also stated that the
burden of the administrative overhead to administer agreements made it
infeasible to allocate costs fairly among partner agencies.
GovBenefits:
Managing partner agency: Department of Labor:
Purpose: Provide a single point of access for citizens to locate and
determine potential eligibility for government benefits and services.
Funding: Planned funding partner contributions for the GovBenefits
initiative were based on a funding plan developed in October 2002 that
placed each of the 10 partner agencies, including Labor, into one of
three categories based on the anticipated volume of benefit program
information each agency would generate for the GovBenefits Web site.
The same approach was used in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. As managing
partner, Labor contributed the largest share. Table 9 details
GovBenefits funding for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Table 9: GovBenefits Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Funding partner: Agriculture;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,019,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,019,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Education[A];
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,019,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,019,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Energy;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $491,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $491,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Health and Human Services;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,019,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,019,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Homeland Security;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $491,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $491,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Housing and Urban Development;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,019,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,019,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Labor;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $2,000,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $4,000,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Social Security Administration;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,019,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,019,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: State;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $755,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $755,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Veterans Affairs;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,019,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,019,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Total;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $9,851,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $11,851,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $11,360,000.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor-provided data.
[A] In addition to its fiscal year 2003 contribution, the Department of
Education transferred $500,000 to the GovBenefits initiative to build a
Web site for the e-Loans initiative, which is not reflected in the
planned or obligated amount.
[End of table]
The GovBenefits initiative received all planned contributions from
funding partners in fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year 2004, only one
agency, DHS, failed to make its contribution as planned, resulting in a
$491,000 shortfall. According to OMB officials, the planned allocation
for GovBenefits was erroneously not included in its annual budget
guidance to DHS. GovBenefits project officials reported that funding
partner agencies transferred funds as soon as memorandums of
understanding were agreed upon.
Grants.gov:
Managing partner agency: Health and Human Services:
Purpose: Create a single portal for all federal grant customers to
find, apply for, and ultimately manage grants online.
Funding: Planned contributions for Grants.gov's 11 partner agencies
were allocated based on a fiscal year 2002-2004 funding algorithm that
classified grant-making agencies by size. In addition to the 11 partner
agency requests, OMB identified development, modernization, and
enhancement funds in specific agencies' budgets for Grants.gov
funding.[Footnote 18] Health and Human Services also received
contributions in fiscal year 2004 from the Department of Energy and
GSA. Table 10 details funding for Grants.gov for fiscal years 2003 and
2004.
Table 10: Grants.gov Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Funding partner: Agriculture;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $450,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $445,500;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Commerce;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $450,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $225,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $118,038;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: NOAA legally restricted from contributing to
e-gov initiatives; in-kind resource provided in lieu of full requested
amount.
Funding partner: Defense;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $450,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,442,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Education;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,365,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $855,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Health and Human Services;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,365,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,902,500;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Homeland Security;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $450,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $635,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Housing and Urban Development;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,365,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,076,500;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Justice;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $910,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $805,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Labor;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $910,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $630,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: National Science Foundation;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $910,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $455,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Transportation;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,365,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $682,500;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,132,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Total;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $9,990,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $10,286,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $10,179,038.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by Health and Human Services.
Note: The table reflects agency contributions allocated by year, but
these were not necessarily provided during that year. For example, the
National Science Foundation provided its entire fiscal year 2002-2004
contribution in fiscal year 2002. Most Grants.gov partners provided
funding in one fiscal year that covered more than one fiscal year.
[End of table]
In addition, Grants.gov received funding of $799,800 in fiscal year
2004 from nonpartner agencies. These funds consisted of $262,000 from
the Department of Energy and $537,800 from the GSA.
Grants.gov received all of its planned partner contributions from its
funding partner agencies in fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year 2004,
Grants.gov received almost all of its planned partner contributions
from its funding partner agencies; the exception was Commerce, because
of the appropriations bill restriction on NOAA contributing funds to e-
gov initiatives. Commerce contributed in-kind resources in lieu of the
full requested funds in fiscal year 2004.
Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE):
Managing partner agency: General Services Administration:
Purpose: Create a secure business environment that will facilitate and
support the cost-effective acquisition of goods and services by
agencies, while eliminating inefficiencies in the current acquisition
environment.
Funding: In addition to funding from GSA's General Supply Fund, the IAE
initiative relied on monetary contributions from partner agencies in
fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Planned contributions were allocated based
on each agency's procurement volume as reported in the Federal
Procurement Data System. Table 11 details funding for the IAE
initiative for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Table 11: Integrated Acquisition Environment Partner Contributions for
Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Funding partner: Agriculture;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $635,334;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $740,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $759,909;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Broadcasting Board of Governors;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $6,868;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Decision made not to pursue funding;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: N/A.
Funding partner: Commerce;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $205,196;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $204,997;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $245,229;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $129,385;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: NOAA legally restricted from contributing to
e-gov initiatives.
Funding partner: Defense;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $8,585,596;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $14,652,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $8,083,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Negotiated reduction;
in-kind resources provided in lieu of full requested amount.
Funding partner: Education;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $79,846;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $95,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Energy;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $4,792,480;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $93,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $5,344,555;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $95,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Planned amount not reflected in OMB
passback.
Funding partner: Environmental Protection Agency;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $190,600;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $228,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $4,293;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Decision not to pursue funding;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: N/A.
Funding partner: Executive Office of the President;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $2,576;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Decision not to pursue funding;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: N/A.
Funding partner: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $26,615;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: FEMA transfer to DHS in fiscal year 2003;
unpaid amount included in DHS's fiscal year 2004 request;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: N/A.
Funding partner: General Services Administration;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $3,250,507;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $3,869,486;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Health and Human Services;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $794,168;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $953,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Homeland Security;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $206,910;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Coast Guard contribution (moved from
Transportation to DHS in fiscal year 2003);
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $944,090;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $1,181,000.
Funding partner: Housing and Urban Development;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $66,968;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $81,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Interior;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $371,756;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $446,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Justice;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $734,068;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $556,492;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Labor;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $240,397;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $288,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $2,729,361;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $2,120,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Negotiated reduction;
agency did not have enough funds available;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $2,183,104;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: National Archives and Records Administration;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $4,293;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: N/A.
Funding partner: National Science Foundation;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $15,454;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $18,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $6,868;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Agency restriction on spending funds on
development;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $8,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Office of Personnel Management;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $24,040;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $29,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Peace Corps;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $2,576;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Decision made to not pursue funding in
subsequent year;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: N/A.
Funding partner: Securities and Exchange Commission;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $2,576;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Decision made to not pursue funding;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: N/A.
Funding partner: Small Business Administration;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $6,010;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $7,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Smithsonian Institution;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $8,586;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Decision made to not pursue funding;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: N/A.
Funding partner: Social Security Administration;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $95,300;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $57,217;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: State;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $364,888;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $438,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Transportation;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $418,119;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $181,830;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Coast Guard and Transportation Security
Administration moved to DHS in fiscal year 2003; Coast Guard
contribution was made apart from Transportation, unpaid TSA amount was
included in DHS fiscal year 2004 request;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $171,514;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Treasury;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $557,205;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $443,280;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $65,251;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $78,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Veterans Affairs;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,510,206;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,812,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Total;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $25,798,001;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $20,505,866;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $33,707,876;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $22,010,387.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA-provided data.
[End of table]
IAE project officials reported that for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the
Department of Energy contribution was lower than the planned amount
because of an error by OMB that assessed the Department of Energy the
same amount as the Department of Education (the two departments have
similar abbreviations). This resulted in nearly a $10 million shortfall
over fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Officials reported that this
indirectly impacted the initiative and reported that several
applications were postponed and are now indefinite because the funds
were not available at that time. In fiscal year 2004, remaining
shortfalls from the planned amount represented negotiated reductions.
For example, as reported by both IAE and DOD officials, DOD contributed
less than the planned amount, instead providing in-kind support (e.g.,
staff time and existing IT resources) for project activities.
Commerce's fiscal year 2004 shortfall was again attributable to the
fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill language that prohibited NOAA from
contributing to any of the e-gov initiatives.
GSA officials reported that continuing resolutions and "red-tape"
issues such as paperwork and lost documents prolonged the transfer of
funds. Specifically noted was the administrative burden on both the
managing and funding partner agencies in crafting interagency
agreements. Although in fiscal year 2003, requests were made from the
smaller agencies (including the Broadcasting Board of Governments, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Executive Office of the
President, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Smithsonian
Institution, and the Peace Corps), only the Peace Corps made its
requested contribution. The IAE project manager reported that a
decision was made that the administrative costs to process the
memorandum of understanding and funding requests could not be offset by
the funds collected and therefore fiscal year 2003 contributions were
not pursued and funds were not sought from these agencies in fiscal
year 2004.
Project SAFECOM:
Managing partner agency: Department of Homeland Security:
Purpose: Serve as the umbrella program within the federal government to
help local, tribal, state, and federal public safety agencies improve
public safety response through more effective and efficient
interoperable wireless communications.
Funding: According to SAFECOM project officials, contributions were
determined by OMB and communicated through budget passback
instructions. Table 12 summarizes funding for fiscal years 2003 and
2004.
Table 12: Project SAFECOM Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Funding partner: Agriculture;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,431,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,520,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Defense;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $3,345,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,770,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Energy;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,431,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,430,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $3,435,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: FEMA transfer to DHS in fiscal year 2003;
unpaid amount was not re-requested in fiscal year 2004;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: N/A.
Funding partner: Health and Human Services;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,431,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $1,520,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Homeland Security;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: N/A;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $12,520,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Interior;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $1,431,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: President's fiscal year 2003 budget did not
include Interior funding; amount re-requested in fiscal year 2004,
still unpaid;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $2,951,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Comment: Reprogramming request denied.
Funding partner: Justice;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $9,485,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Reprogramming request denied by Congress;
negotiated a reduced amount to be paid in fiscal year 2004;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $4,312,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Transportation;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $3,435,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $0;
Fiscal year 2003: Comment: Transportation Security Administration
transfer to DHS in fiscal year 2003; unpaid amount was not re-requested
in fiscal year 2004;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: N/A.
Funding partner: Treasury;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $9,485,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $9,500,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $0;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: N/A.
Total;
Fiscal year 2003: Planned: $34,909,000;
Fiscal year 2003: Obligated: $17,138,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $26,023,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: $23,072,000.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS-provided data.
[End of table]
SAFECOM officials reported experiencing shortfalls and receiving funds
from partner agencies late in the fiscal year. As we previously
reported, SAFECOM has been managed by three different agencies since
its inception.[Footnote 19] In fiscal year 2003, SAFECOM received only
about $17 million of the $34.9 million OMB had allocated as
contributions from funding partners. According to program officials,
these shortfalls resulted from two major causes: (1) the inability of
the Departments of Justice and the Interior to obtain congressional
approval to reprogram funds from other accounts and (2) the impact of
organizational realignments associated with the creation of DHS in
fiscal year 2003. SAFECOM officials reported that the shortfall
experienced in fiscal year 2003 resulted in delays in the development
of the standards and architecture efforts related to communications
interoperability. For example, the timeline of the National Baseline
Methodology and Assessment of communications interoperability was
extended until sufficient funding was available. According to agency
officials, Justice was not authorized to reprogram funds and negotiated
to provide its fiscal year 2003 allocation in fiscal year 2004. The
total amount contributed was a reduced amount negotiated with OMB.
Although SAFECOM re-requested Interior's unpaid fiscal year 2003
contribution in addition to its fiscal year 2004 allocation, Interior
officials reported that their reprogramming request was denied.
According to DHS officials, fiscal year 2003 unpaid amounts from FEMA
and the Transportation Security Administration were not re-requested in
fiscal year 2004 at the direction of the DHS Under Secretary for
Management.
SAFECOM officials also reported that in fiscal year 2004, they were
unable to collect funding resources in a timely manner because of
enactment of the fiscal year 2004 appropriation bill late in the fiscal
year. Project officials reported that this affected the initiative's
progress by delaying start dates for certain tasks and creating breaks
in project service and performance.
Recreation One-Stop:
Managing partner agency: Department of the Interior:
Purpose: Provide a single-point-of-access, user-friendly, Web-based
resource to citizens, offering information and access to government
recreational sites.
Funding: The Recreation One-Stop initiative relied on monetary
contributions from four partner agencies, including Interior, in fiscal
years 2003 and 2004. Additionally, the initiative received $800,000
from the E-Government Fund[Footnote 20] in fiscal year 2003. According
to project officials, Recreation One-Stop partners agreed that agencies
receiving major benefits from the initiative would contribute $50,000
annually, and agencies receiving fewer benefits would contribute
$25,000 annually, with the managing partner contributing a larger
share. Table 13 details contributions for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
Table 13: Recreation One-Stop Funding for Fiscal Years 2003-2004:
Funding partner: Agriculture;
Fiscal year[A] 2003: Planned: $50,000;
Fiscal year[A] 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $50,000[A];
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Defense (Corps of Engineers);
Fiscal year[A] 2003: Planned: 50,000;
Fiscal year[A] 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $50,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Interior;
Fiscal year[A] 2003: Planned: 200,000;
Fiscal year[A] 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $200,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Funding partner: Smithsonian Institution;
Fiscal year[A] 2003: Planned: 25,000;
Fiscal year[A] 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $25,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Total;
Fiscal year[A] 2003: Planned: $325,000;
Fiscal year[A] 2003: Obligated: Same;
Fiscal year 2004: Planned: $325,000;
Fiscal year 2004: Obligated: Same.
Source: GAO analysis of Interior-provided data.
Note: Recreation One-Stop also received $800,000 from the E-Government
Fund in fiscal year 2003.
[A] USDA's Forest Service directly paid for a Recreation One-Stop
activity, in lieu of funds coming through the managing partner.
[End of table]
Recreation One-Stop officials reported that all fiscal year 2003 and
2004 planned contributions had been received; however, officials noted
that the logistics of transferring funds according to agency-specific
procedures was time-consuming, and as a result funding requests from
"minor partners" were eliminated for fiscal year 2006.
FOOTNOTES
[1] For more information on the objectives and progress of these
initiatives, see GAO, Electronic Government: Initiatives Sponsored by
the Office of Management and Budget Have Made Mixed Progress, GAO-04-
561T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24, 2004).
[2] These initiatives are Disaster Management, e-Authentication, e-
Loans, e-Rulemaking, Geospatial One-Stop, GovBenefits, Grants.gov,
Integrated Acquisition Environment, Project SAFECOM, and Recreation One-
Stop.
[3] These instances include monetary contributions by the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Federal Trade Commission, and the
Small Business Administration; the National Archives and Records
Administration made an in-kind contribution in lieu of funds.
[4] Appropriations for fiscal year 2003, which began on October 1,
2002, were not enacted for most agencies until February 20, 2003.
Appropriations for fiscal year 2004, which began on October 1, 2003,
were not enacted for most agencies until January 23, 2004.
[5] Office of Management and Budget, E-Government Strategy (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 27, 2002).
[6] The Consolidated Health Informatics initiative was supported by in-
kind contributions (no monetary funds).
[7] 44 U.S.C. 3604.
[8] In March 2004, OMB announced the launch of a task force to examine
five lines of business: case management, federal health architecture,
grants management, human resources management, and financial
management.
[9] Three agencies contributed funds: Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, Federal Trade Commission, Small Business Administration.
One agency, the National Archives and Records Administration,
contributed in-kind resources in lieu of funds.
[10] The agencies originally included for phase 1 implementation
included the Departments of Education, Energy, Health and Human
Services, the Interior, and Transportation and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, the Federal Reserve System, the General
Services Administration, the National Archives and Records
Administration, and the Small Business Administration. Agencies
scheduled to migrate to FDMS in phase 1 now include EPA, Housing and
Urban Development, the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (a
component of Agriculture), portions of the Department of Homeland
Security, and the National Archives and Records Administration.
[11] Public Law 108-7. Fiscal year 2003 began on October 1, 2002.
[12] We did not include fiscal year 2005 in our review because data for
that year were not complete at the time of our review.
[13] Disaster Management Interoperability Services provides information
on interoperability services to the responder community.
[14] For more information regarding the initiative's original approach,
see GAO, Electronic Government: Planned E-Authentication Gateway Faces
Formidable Development Challenges, GAO-03-952 (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
12, 2003).
[15] In fiscal year 2004, OMB did not issue passback instructions to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for funding contributions to e-
Rulemaking.
[16] Three agencies contributed funds: the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Small Business
Administration. One agency, the National Archives and Records
Administration, contributed in-kind resources in lieu of funds.
[17] The agencies originally included for phase 1 implementation
included the Departments of Education, Energy, Health and Human
Services, the Interior, and Transportation and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, the Federal Reserve System, the General
Services Administration, the National Archives and Records
Administration, and the Small Business Administration. Agencies
scheduled to migrate to FDMS in phase 1 now include EPA, Housing and
Urban Development, the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service
(component of Agriculture), portions of DHS, and National Archives and
Records Administration.
[18] The agencies that contributed development, modernization, and
enhancement funds included the Departments of Agriculture, Defense,
Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and
Urban Development, Labor, and Justice and the U.S. Agency for
International Development.
[19] GAO, Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications
Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration, GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 16, 2004).
[20] Title I, Section 101 of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Section 3604
of Title 44) establishes the E-Government Fund, which is to be used to
support projects that enable the federal government to expand its
ability to conduct activities electronically.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
