Electronic Government
Performance Measures for Projects Aimed at Promoting Innovation and Transparency Can Be Improved Gao ID: GAO-11-775 September 23, 2011In Process
The $34 million appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 2010 for the E-Gov fund was distributed among 16 projects in six investment areas, as defined by GSA. One investment area--Improving Innovation, Efficiency, and Effectiveness and Federal IT--accounted for $10 million of the fiscal year 2010 appropriation. This area included an initiative on federal cloud computing--the use of Internet-based computing services. The remaining investment areas supported projects promoting government transparency, collaboration, and public participation and a project for developing best practices for IT management. Among other benefits, the 16 projects are expected to improve data quality and foster cross-agency knowledge sharing and communication as well as increase public access and use of federal datasets. As of May 2011, the four E-Gov projects GAO selected for more detailed review had made varying progress toward their goals. For example, a cloud computing security initiative was still being developed; a dashboard for displaying target and actual customer service metrics had been developed in a pilot with four agencies, but had not been publicly released; a platform for government employees and contractors to use web-based networking and collaboration tools was in limited deployment; and a website (Data.gov) that allows the public to find, download, and use government-generated data had been fully launched. In addition, the four projects had defined performance metrics that aligned with many, though not all, of their major goals and intended benefits. Although the E-Gov Administrator (who serves as the Federal Chief Information Officer) announced the termination of two of the four reviewed projects in May 2011, the two ongoing projects do not yet have fully defined metrics that align with all of their major goals and intended benefits. Thus, managers and stakeholders cannot effectively assess project results and provide credible evidence of progress, which is particularly important in a resource-constrained environment. GAO is recommending that GSA ensure that performance metrics that align with all project goals be developed for ongoing E-Gov projects. In written comments on a draft of this report, GSA concurred with GAO's recommendation.
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: Valerie C. Melvin Team: Government Accountability Office: Information Technology Phone: (202) 512-6304GAO-11-775, Electronic Government: Performance Measures for Projects Aimed at Promoting Innovation and Transparency Can Be Improved
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-775
entitled 'Electronic Government: Performance Measures for Projects
Aimed at Promoting Innovation and Transparency Can Be Improved' which
was released on September 23, 2011.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate:
September 2011:
Electronic Government:
Performance Measures for Projects Aimed at Promoting Innovation and
Transparency Can Be Improved:
GAO-11-775:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-775, a report to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Congress enacted the Electronic Government (E-Gov) Act in 2002 to
promote better use of the Internet and other information technologies
(IT), thereby improving government services for citizens, internal
government operations, and opportunities for citizen participation in
government. Among other things, the act established the E-Gov Fund to
support projects that expand the government‘s ability to carry out its
activities electronically. The act also created the Office of
Electronic Government within the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). The Administrator of this office is to assist the OMB Director
in approving projects to be supported by the E-Gov Fund. The General
Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for administering the
fund and notifying Congress of how the funds are to be allocated to
projects approved by OMB. GAO was asked to (1) identify and describe
the projects supported by the E-Gov Fund, including the distribution
of fiscal year 2010 funds among the projects and their expected
benefits; and (2) for selected projects, identify their progress
against goals. To do this, GAO reviewed project and funding
documentation, analyzed project goals, and interviewed agency
officials.
What GAO Found:
The $34 million appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 2010 for the E-
Gov fund was distributed among 16 projects in six investment areas, as
defined by GSA (see table).
Table: Distribution of Fiscal Year 2010 E-Gov Fund Appropriation:
Investment area: Improving Innovation, Efficiency, and Effectiveness
and Federal IT;
E-Gov fund resources: $10 million.
Investment area: Citizens Engagement and Access;
E-Gov fund resources: $5 million.
Investment area: Federal Funding and Accountability Act Initiative;
E-Gov fund resources: $9.5 million.
Investment area: Efficient Federal Workforce;
E-Gov fund resources: $5 million.
Investment area: Accessible and Transparent Government;
Information/Data.gov
E-Gov fund resources: $3 million.
Investment area: E-Gov Project Management Best Practices;
E-Gov fund resources: $1.5 million.
Investment area: Total;
E-Gov fund resources: $34 million.
Source: GSA, OMB, and Treasury data.
[End of table]
One investment area-”Improving Innovation, Efficiency, and
Effectiveness and Federal IT-”accounted for $10 million of the fiscal
year 2010 appropriation. This area included an initiative on federal
cloud computing”-the use of Internet-based computing services. The
remaining investment areas supported projects promoting government
transparency, collaboration, and public participation and a project
for developing best practices for IT management. Among other benefits,
the 16 projects are expected to improve data quality and foster cross-
agency knowledge sharing and communication as well as increase public
access and use of federal datasets.
As of May 2011, the four E-Gov projects GAO selected for more detailed
review had made varying progress toward their goals. For example, a
cloud computing security initiative was still being developed; a
dashboard for displaying target and actual customer service metrics
had been developed in a pilot with four agencies, but had not been
publicly released; a platform for government employees and contractors
to use web-based networking and collaboration tools was in limited
deployment; and a website (Data.gov) that allows the public to find,
download, and use government-generated data had been fully launched.
In addition, the four projects had defined performance metrics that
aligned with many, though not all, of their major goals and intended
benefits. Although the E-Gov Administrator (who serves as the Federal
Chief Information Officer) announced the termination of two of the
four reviewed projects in May 2011, the two ongoing projects do not
yet have fully defined metrics that align with all of their major
goals and intended benefits. Thus, managers and stakeholders cannot
effectively assess project results and provide credible evidence of
progress, which is particularly important in a resource-constrained
environment.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that GSA ensure that performance metrics that
align with all project goals be developed for ongoing E-Gov projects.
In written comments on a draft of this report, GSA concurred with
GAO‘s recommendation.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-775]. For more
information, contact Valerie C. Melvin at (202) 512-6304 or
melvinv@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Briefing for Staff Members of the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
Appendix II: Comments from the General Services Administration:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Distribution of Fiscal Year 2010 E-Gov Fund Appropriation:
Abbreviations:
A&A: authorization and assessment:
API: application programming interface:
CIO: Chief Information Officer:
CMS: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:
DMS: Dataset Management System:
E-Gov: Electronic Government:
FedRAMP: Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program:
FFATA: Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act:
GSA: General Services Administration:
IRS: Internal Revenue Service:
IT: information technology:
NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
SAJACC: Standards Acceleration to Jumpstart the Adoption of Cloud
Computing:
SSA: Social Security Administration:
VA: Department and Veterans Affairs:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 23, 2011:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Electronic Government (E-Gov) Act of 2002[Footnote 1] was enacted
with the general purpose of promoting better use of the Internet and
information technology (IT) to improve government services for
citizens, internal government operations, and opportunities for
citizen participation in government. Among other things, the act
established the E-Gov Fund,[Footnote 2] which is to be used to support
projects that enable the federal government to expand its ability to
conduct activities electronically. The act also created, within the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of Electronic
Government, to be headed by an Administrator. The E-Government
Administrator is to assist the Director of OMB in approving projects
to be supported by the E-Gov Fund. The General Services Administration
(GSA) is responsible for administration of the fund[Footnote 3] and is
required to submit to Congress a notification of how the funds are to
be allocated to projects approved by OMB. In fiscal year 2010,
Congress appropriated $34 million[Footnote 4] to the fund.
At your request, we reviewed the projects supported by the E-Gov Fund.
Specifically, our objectives were to (1) identify and describe the
projects supported by the fund, including the distribution[Footnote 5]
of the funds appropriated in fiscal year 2010 among the projects, as
well as their expected benefits; and (2) for selected projects,
identify project progress against goals.
On May 25, 2011, we provided to committee staff written briefing
slides that outlined the results of our study; on May 31, 2011, we met
with them to discuss our findings, conclusions, and recommendation.
During our discussion, the committee staff requested that we update
our study results to reflect recent decisions and actions by OMB and
GSA regarding two E-Gov Fund projects that were terminated subsequent
to our review.
The purpose of this report is to provide the updated briefing slides
to you and to officially transmit our recommendation to the
Administrator of GSA. Appendix I of this letter provides the updated
slides, which include details on our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2010 to September 2011
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Our study highlighted the following:
The E-Gov Fund was distributed among 16 projects in six investment
areas defined by GSA in notifications to Congress. Table 1 shows the
investment areas and planned spending, the projects in each investment
area, and the distribution of funds to each project.
Table 1: Distribution of Fiscal Year 2010 E-Gov Fund Appropriation:
Investment area: Improving Innovation, Efficiency, and Effectiveness
of Federal IT;
Project: FedRAMP (Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program);
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $1.91 million.
Project: Apps.gov;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $0.75 million.
Project: E-Mail as a Service;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $0.50 million.
Project: SAJACC (Standards Acceleration to Jumpstart the Adoption of
Cloud Computing);
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $1.00 million.
Project: Data center inventory and consolidation planning;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $0.88 million.
Project: USA.gov redesign;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $0.26 million.
Project: Mobile Apps;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $0.60 million.
Project: Payment Information Repository Proof of Concept;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $1.35 million.
Project: Invoicing Standards Pilot;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $0.15 million.
Project: Data.gov (Innovative functionality)[B];
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $2.50 million.
Project: (Undistributed)[C];
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $0.10 million.
Project: Subtotal;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $10.00 million.
Investment area: Citizens Engagement and Access/Web 2.0;
Project: Citizen Engagement Platform;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $1.51 million.
Project: Citizen Challenge Platform;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $1.00 million.
Project: Citizen Services Dashboard;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $2.49 million.
Project: Subtotal;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $5.00 million.
Investment area: Federal Funding and Accountability Act Implementation;
Project: USAspending.gov and dashboards;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $9.50 million.
Investment area: Efficient Federal Workforce;
Project: FedSpace;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $5.00 million.
Investment area: Accessible and Transparent Government
Information/Data.gov;
Project: Data.gov (Basic functionality)[B];
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $3.00 million.
Investment area: E-Gov Project Management Best Practices;
Project: Project Management Best Practices;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $1.50 million.
Investment area: Total;
E-Gov Fund resources[A]: $34.00.
Source: GSA, OMB, and Treasury data.
[A] As of November 30, 2010.
[B] Funds for Data.gov were distributed between two investment areas;
for simplicity, we treat Data.gov as one project.
[C] As of November 30, 2010, $100,000 was undistributed.
[End of table]
As the table shows, one investment area supported nine innovation
projects,[Footnote 6] including projects supporting an initiative on
federal cloud computing. For example, the FedRAMP project (Federal
Risk and Authorization Management Program) aims to define and
implement a set of controls and common processes for conducting
security assessments and authorizations of cloud computing systems
offering services to agencies. The remaining investment areas
supported six projects[Footnote 7] promoting the open government
principles of transparency, collaboration, and public participation
and one project to develop best practices for IT management. For
example, the goal of the Citizen Challenge Platform project is to
provide a platform for agencies to post challenges and the public to
submit solutions. The intended benefits of the 16 projects include
improving government services for citizens, internal government
operations, and opportunities for citizen participation in government.
Further details on each project are provided in the briefing (app. I).
As of May 2011, the four E-Gov Fund projects we selected for more
detailed review (FedRAMP, Citizen Services Dashboard, FedSpace, and
Data.gov) had made varying progress toward their goals and had defined
performance metrics that aligned with many, though not all, major
goals and intended benefits.[Footnote 8]
* The FedRAMP project had released a draft proposal for security
assessments and continuous monitoring for cloud computing systems;
however, it had not yet finalized the proposal or begun
implementation, initially expected to occur in September 2010. GSA
officials attributed the delay to the need to collaborate with a wide
range of stakeholders to gain agreement on controls and other issues.
Further, the project had defined performance metrics addressing the
initial adoption of the program by agencies, such as number of
customers, but metrics related to goals such as improving consistency
and fostering cross-agency knowledge sharing and communication of best
practices had not yet been defined.
* The Citizen Services Dashboard was to promote customer service
across the federal government by displaying metrics online for top
citizen-facing services. The project worked with four pilot agencies
to select and define an initial set of customer services and metrics
that would be most meaningful for the public (for example, for the
Social Security Administration, one chosen service was retirement
benefits; a related metric was speed of processing). However, at the
time of our review, the dashboard had not yet been publicly released.
According to GSA officials, this did not occur because of funding
uncertainties. One performance metric, increasing the number of
services displayed, had been defined, but metrics for goals such as
driving service improvements had not yet been fully defined.
* The FedSpace project was to provide a platform for executive branch
employees and contractors to use collaboration and networking tools to
increase cross-agency collaboration and knowledge sharing. The project
implemented a collaboration website and made it available for pilot
testing and use by federal employees. However, according to officials,
funding uncertainties had inhibited the expansion of the pilot to full
deployment, originally scheduled for September 2010. A number of
performance metrics related to increased site participation had been
defined, but metrics for goals such as improving business processes
had not yet been defined.
* The Data.gov project had made progress toward its goals, which
include increasing public access and use of federal datasets. For
example, the site deployed "community pages"--collections of
information on specific topics, such as the "Semantic Web."[Footnote
9] The performance metrics defined for Data.gov address a range of
goals, and the number of metrics has increased since the project's
inception to address more aspects of project goals.
In May 2011, two of the four projects were terminated. Specifically,
Congress passed an appropriation for fiscal year 2011 that provided $8
million for the E-Gov Fund,[Footnote 10] for which $35 million had
been requested. On May 24, the Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO)
announced that as a result of the reduced funding, the scope of
several projects would be altered: among other things, the FedSpace
and Citizen Services Dashboard projects would be terminated, and
planned enhancements to other projects would be postponed. According
to the CIO's announcement, each of these initiatives would be
revisited if the E-Gov Fund received the $34 million requested for
fiscal year 2012.
As of June 2011, GSA officials stated that they had not been able to
identify opportunities for collaborations that would make it
financially feasible to continue using the capabilities developed by
the FedSpace and Citizen Services Dashboard projects. Thus, the
officials told us that they were taking the systems off-line and
planned to archive and store the system software so that it could be
revived and made operational if funding to sustain operations were to
become available in the future.
Conclusions:
The fiscal year 2010 E-Gov Fund appropriation supported 16 projects
that aimed to improve IT and promote innovation, collaboration, public
participation, and transparency. The projects we reviewed had made
varying progress toward their goals and had begun to define metrics to
measure success. Additionally, the projects could potentially lead to
benefits including cost savings and efficiency, customer service
transparency, and governmentwide collaboration and information
sharing. However, defining performance metrics and aligning these with
project goals would help ensure that managers and stakeholders can
assess project results and provide credible evidence of progress,
which is particularly important in a resource-constrained environment.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
We are recommending that for any E-Gov Fund projects that continue to
be supported, the Administrator of the General Services Administration
ensure that performance metrics are developed that align with those
project goals, especially those that currently lack such metrics.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in
appendix II, GSA's Administrator stated that the agency concurred with
our recommendation and will work to align goals and performance
measures for E-Gov Fund projects that currently lack such measures.
The agency also provided a technical comment on the draft report,
which we have addressed as appropriate.
We also provided a draft of this report to the Office of Management
and Budget and the Departments of Commerce and the Treasury. The three
agencies provided e-mail responses, stating that they had no comments
on the draft report.
We are sending copies of this report to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, the Administrator of the General Services
Administration, the Secretaries of Commerce and the Treasury, and
other interested parties. This report will also be available at no
charge on GAO's website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Should you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-6304 or melvinv@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Valerie C. Melvin:
Director, Information Management and Human Capital Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Briefing for Staff Members of the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
Electronic Government: Projects Aimed at Promoting Improvement,
Innovation, and Transparency:
Briefing for Staff Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs:
May 25, 2011:
These briefing slides have been updated to reflect changes to
electronic government projects that occurred subsequent to the
identified briefing date.
Overview:
Introduction:
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Objective 1 Results: E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions:
Objective 2 Results: Progress of Selected E-Gov Projects:
Conclusions:
Recommendation:
Agency Comments:
Attachment 1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
Introduction:
The Electronic Government (E-Gov) Act of 2002[Footnote 11] was enacted
with the general purpose of promoting better use of the Internet and
other information technologies to improve government services for
citizens, internal government operations, and opportunities for citizen
participation in government. Among other things, the act established
the Electronic Government Fund,[Footnote 12] which is to be used to
support projects that enable the federal government to expand its
ability to conduct activities electronically.
The act also created, within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
the Office of Electronic Government, to be headed by an Administrator.
The E-Government Administrator is to assist the Director of OMB in
approving projects to be supported by the E-Gov Fund. The General
Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for administration of the
fund[Footnote 13] and is required to submit to Congress a notification
of how the funds are to be allocated to projects approved by OMB.
In fiscal year 2010, Congress appropriated $34 million to the fund,
which has been used to support, among other things, projects aimed at
expanding federal use of cloud computing[Footnote 14] as well as other
goals. These funds are "no-year" funds; that is, funds that remain
available for an indefinite period of time.
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
You asked that we review the projects supported by the E-Gov Fund.
Specifically, as agreed with your office, our objectives were to (1)
identify and describe the projects supported by the E-Gov Fund,
including the distribution[Footnote 15] of the funds appropriated in
fiscal year 2010 among the projects, as well as their expected
benefits, and (2) for selected projects, identify project progress
against goals.
To address our first objective, we reviewed project and funding
documentation (such as vision statements, business cases, project
plans, schedules, program management briefings, and expenditure plans)
and interviewed cognizant agency officials.
To address our second objective, we analyzed project goals for four of
the projects, which we identified in project documentation (such as
project plans and schedules) and through discussions with agency
officials. We selected these projects based primarily on those that had
the largest distributions from the E-Gov Fund. For the selected
projects, we identified project progress and the extent to which goals
and benefits were achieved, based on our review of management review
briefings and other relevant documentation, as well as functionality of
Web sites and interviews with agency officials. Attachment 1 contains
additional details on our objectives, scope, and methodology.
In addition, following our May 2011 briefing, we agreed with your
office to update our study results to reflect recent developments with
regard to the projects: specifically, the termination of two of the
projects that we had selected for detailed review. To do so, we
reviewed OMB's announcement of the termination and consulted cognizant
GSA officials.
We performed the initial audit work from April 2010 through May 2011;
the work to update the initial audit was performed from June through
September 2011. We conducted our work in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
Results in Brief:
The $34 million that Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2010 for the
E-Gov Fund was distributed among 16 projects in six investment areas.
One investment area supported nine innovation projects,[Footnote 16]
including projects supporting an initiative on federal cloud computing.
For example, the FedRAMP project (Federal Risk and Authorization
Management Program) aims to define and implement a set of controls and
common processes for conducting security assessments and authorizations
of cloud computing systems offering services to agencies. The remaining
investment areas supported one project to develop best practices for
information technology management and six projects promoting the open
government principles of transparency, collaboration, and public
participation. For example, the goal of the project called "FedSpace"
was to promote cross-agency collaboration and knowledge sharing by
providing a platform for executive branch employees and contractors to
use Web 2.0[Footnote 17] networking and collaboration tools. The
intended benefits of the 16 projects include improving government
operations, promoting public participation in government activities,
and improving electronic services to citizens.
Results in Brief:
The four selected projects, FedRAMP, Citizen Services Dashboard,
FedSpace, and Data.gov, made varying progress toward their goals. As of
late May 2011, the projects were in different stages of maturity:
FedRAMP was still being developed; the Citizen Services Dashboard had
been developed in a pilot with four agencies, but was not publicly
released; FedSpace was in limited deployment; and Data.gov was a fully
launched Web site. The four projects had defined performance metrics
that aligned with many, though not all major goals and intended
benefits, with more mature projects having more numerous and well-
aligned goals.
* The FedRAMP project is to develop and implement a process for
conducting joint or shared security assessments, authorizations, and
continuous monitoring for cloud computing systems intended for multi-
agency use. It released a draft proposal, including a set of baseline
security controls, for public comment, and it is currently working to
address comments and develop a process for implementation. However, it
has not yet finalized the proposal or begun implementation, initially
expected to occur in late 2010. GSA officials attributed the delay to
the need to collaborate with a wide range of stakeholders to gain
agreement on controls and other issues. The project has defined
performance metrics addressing the initial take-up of the program, such
as number of customers, but metrics related to goals such as improving
consistency have not yet been defined.
* The Citizen Services Dashboard (subsequently terminated) was to
promote customer service across the federal government by displaying
metrics online for top citizen-facing services. The project worked with
four pilot agencies to select and define an initial set of customer
services and metrics that would be most meaningful for the public (for
example, for the Social Security Administration, one chosen service was
retirement benefits; a related metric is speed of processing). However,
the dashboard had not been publicly released. According to GSA
officials, the dashboard had not yet been released to the public
because of funding uncertainties. One performance metric, increasing
the number of services displayed, had been defined, but metrics for
goals such as driving service improvements had not yet been defined.
* The FedSpace project (subsequently terminated) was to provide a
platform for executive branch employees and contractors to use
collaboration and networking tools to increase cross-agency
collaboration and knowledge sharing. The project implemented a
collaboration Web site and made it available for pilot testing and use
by federal employees. However, according to officials, funding
uncertainties inhibited the expansion of the pilot to full deployment,
originally scheduled for September 2010. A number of performance
metrics related to increased site participation were defined, but
metrics for goals such as improving business processes were not yet
defined.
* The purpose of the Data.gov Web site is to provide public access to
datasets collected or developed by federal agencies. Through
maintaining and enhancing the site, the Data.gov project is making
progress toward goals that include increasing public access and use of
federal datasets. For example, the site deployed "community pages"--
collections of information on specific topics, such as the "Semantic
Web."[Footnote 18] The performance metrics defined for Data.gov address
a range of goals, and the number of metrics has increased since the
project's inception to address more aspects of project goals.
Defining performance metrics and aligning these with project goals will
be important for ensuring that managers and stakeholders can assess
project results and provide credible evidence of progress, particularly
in a resource-constrained environment. We are recommending that for
those projects that continue to be supported, GSA ensure that
performance metrics are developed that align with those project goals
that currently lack such metrics.
We provided a draft of the initial briefing for review and comment to
GSA, OMB, and the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce (which
received E-Gov Fund support for certain projects). In written comments,
the GSA Administrator stated that the agency concurred with our
recommendation. Also, GSA and OMB both provided technical comments,
which we incorporated into the draft as appropriate. OMB offered no
further comment on the draft. The Departments of the Treasury and
Commerce had no comments on the draft.
Background:
A long-standing goal of the Congress has been to improve the
performance and transparency of the federal government by use of
information technology (IT). This was, for example, a major goal of the
E-Government Act of 2002[Footnote 19]. Under the act, the Administrator
of OMB's Office of Electronic Government is responsible for assisting
the Director of OMB in carrying out the act and other e-government
initiatives, including overseeing the distribution of funds from the E-
Gov Fund and ensuring appropriate administration and coordination of
the fund. The current E-Gov Administrator has also been designated the
federal Chief Information Officer (CIO).
Other responsibilities of the E-Gov Administrator include:
* promoting innovative use of IT by agencies;
* leading the activities of the CIO Council;
* working with the Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs in setting strategic direction for e-government
under relevant laws, including the Paperwork Reduction Act and the
Clinger-Cohen Act; and:
* working with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Administrator and other OMB offices to oversee implementation of e-
government under the act and other laws.
According to the act, projects supported by the E-Gov Fund may include
efforts to make federal government information and services more
readily available to members of the public, making it easier for the
public to apply for benefits, receive services, pursue business
opportunities, submit information, and conduct transactions with the
federal government. Such projects may also include efforts to enable
federal agencies to take advantage of IT in sharing information and
conducting transactions with each other and with state and local
governments.
Current and past Administrations have also focused on using IT to
improve the effectiveness of government. In its Analytical Perspectives
on the fiscal year 2010 budget,[Footnote 20] the current Administration
described leveraging the power of technology to transform the federal
government, with a focus on:
* promoting a more transparent, participatory, and collaborative
government through the adoption of innovative Web 2.0 technologies;
* modernizing and improving the effectiveness of government services
through the adoption of modern IT systems;
* securing federal systems and national information infrastructure;
and:
* saving money by improving the IT investment planning process through
leveraging investments for wider use across federal agencies,
eliminating duplicative and poorly managed projects, and streamlining
IT procurement.
The focus on transparency, participation, and collaboration in the
Analytical Perspectives reflects the Administration's emphasis on these
as important principles for open government, as described in a
presidential memorandum of January 2009.[Footnote 21] This memorandum
directed OMB and GSA to work with executive agencies to develop
recommendations for an Open Government Directive. When issued in
December 2009,[Footnote 22] this directive required, among other
things, that agencies publish government information online, develop
Open Government Plans, and improve the quality of government
information. For example, the directive required each agency, within 45
days, to identify and publish online in an open format[Footnote 23] at
least three high-value datasets and to designate a high-level senior
official to be accountable for the quality of federal spending
information publicly disseminated through USAspending.gov and similar
Web sites.
Cloud Computing:
As part of its focus on adopting modern IT systems, the Analytical
Perspectives also highlighted cloud computing, an emerging form of
delivering computing services, as having the potential to provide IT
services more quickly and at a lower cost than traditional methods.
This form of computing relies on Internet-based services and resources
to provide computing services to customers, potentially freeing them
from the burden and costs of maintaining the underlying infrastructure.
Cloud computing takes advantage of several broad evolutionary trends in
IT, including the use of virtualization;[Footnote 24] the decreased
cost and increased speed of networked communications, such as the
Internet; and overall increases in computing power. Examples of cloud
computing include Web-based e-mail applications and common business
applications that are accessed online through a browser, instead of
through a local computer. Depending on the type of service offered,
cloud offerings may be referred to as Software as a Service (such as
offering e-mail or other applications), Platform as a Service (such as
providing the capability for customers to deploy applications), or
Infrastructure as a Service (such as providing data storage or other
computing resources).[Footnote 25]
In May 2010, we reported on information security issues associated with
cloud computing.[Footnote 26] We concluded, among other things, that
cloud computing presents both possible benefits and risks. Benefits
include those related to the use of virtualization (such as faster
deployment of patches) and economies of scale (such as potentially
reduced costs for disaster recovery). Risks include dependence on a
vendor's security practices and assurances, dependency on the vendor,
and concerns related to sharing of computing resources.
We noted that governmentwide cloud computing security initiatives were
under way, but significant work remained. For example, OMB had not yet
finished its cloud computing strategy, GSA faced challenges in
completing a procurement for cloud computing services owing partially
to information security concerns, and NIST had not yet issued cloud-
specific security guidance. We noted also that although the CIO Council
was developing a shared assessment and authorization process,[Footnote
27] which could help foster adoption of cloud computing, this process
remained incomplete.
Accordingly, we made recommendations to OMB, GSA, and NIST regarding
cloud computing security, including that:
* OMB establish milestones for completing a strategy, ensuring that it
addresses the information security challenges associated with cloud
computing, and have the CIO Council develop a plan, with milestones,
for completing a governmentwide security assessment and authorization
process for cloud services;
* GSA ensure that security is considered in its planned procurement of
cloud computing services; and:
* NIST issue guidance related to cloud computing security.
All three agencies generally concurred with our recommendations. In
January, NIST issued a set of draft guidelines, and in February 2011,
OMB issued a strategy.[Footnote 28]
E-Gov Fund Appropriation in Fiscal Year 2010:
In fiscal year 2010, Congress appropriated $34 million to the E-Gov
Fund, administered by GSA.[Footnote 29] Under the E-Gov Act, before the
funds could be transferred to any agency, GSA was required to submit to
the Congress a notification and description of how the funds are to be
allocated and how the expenditure would further the purposes of the
act. In addition, the House report accompanying the 2010 appropriations
bill directed GSA to submit a detailed expenditure plan before
obligation of funds, describing the projects selected and their budget,
timeline, objectives, and expected benefits.[Footnote 30] GSA submitted
a plan in December 2009, as well as a later modification (July 2010);
according to the letter accompanying the plan, it was to serve both as
the expenditure plan and as the notification required in the act.
According to GSA, OMB and GSA collaborated in developing the budget
request and expenditure plan for the E-Gov Fund, involving other
participating agencies and the CIO Council.
According to the expenditure plan, as modified in July 2010, these
funds were to be divided among six investment areas, as shown in table
1.
Table 1: Planned Use of Fiscal Year 2010 E-Gov Fund Appropriation (as
Modified in July 2010):
Investment areas: 1. Improving Innovation, Efficiency and Effectiveness
and Federal IT;
Planned spending: $10.0 million.
Investment areas: 2. Citizens Engagement and Access/Web 2.0;
Planned spending: $5.0 million.
Investment areas: 3. Federal Funding and Accountability Act
Implementation;
Planned spending: $9.5 million.
Investment areas: 4. Efficient Federal Workforce;
Planned spending: $5.0 million.
Investment areas: 5. Accessible and Transparent Government Information/
Data.gov;
Planned spending: $3.0 million.
Investment areas: 6. E-Gov Project Management Best Practices;
Planned spending: $1.5 million.
Investment areas: Total;
Planned spending: $34.0 million.
Source: GSA.
[End of table]
Oversight Board:
To oversee the projects, an E-Gov Fund Projects Oversight Board was
established; the board's charter was approved in July 2010. It
describes the board as responsible for executive review, opportunity
and risk management, and decision-making of the E-Gov Fund technology
projects and advising the federal CIO on critical matters and project
direction, as appropriate. According to the charter, the oversight
board is to provide recommendations to the federal CIO regarding:
* approval, disapproval, or modification of funding of E-Gov Fund
projects;
* corrective actions for investments not meeting cost, schedule, or
benefit expectations;
* project terminations at key milestones or when they fail to meet
performance, cost, or schedule criteria;
* migration paths for transitioning pilot projects to production
environments; and:
* approval of funding and strategy for transitioning pilot projects to
ongoing operational status.
In addition, the board is to meet at least once a month.
The charter describes the membership of the board, shown in table 2.
Table 2: Membership of E-Gov Fund Projects Oversight Board:
Role: Chair;
Agency: OMB;
Member: Deputy Administrator for E-Government
and Information Technology.
Role: Co-chairs;
Agency: GSA;
Member: Associate Administrator for the Office of Citizen Services and
Innovative Technologies;
Member: Deputy Associate Administrator for the
Office of Governmentwide Policy.
Role: Voting members:
Agency: OMB;
Member: E-Gov Portfolio Manager for General Government.
Agency: OMB;
Member: Federal Chief Architect.
Agency: Role: OMB;
Member: Role: E-Gov Capital Planning Policy Lead.
Agency: Role: GSA;
Member: Role: E-Gov Project Portfolio Officer.
Agency: Role: Treasury;
Member: Role: E-Gov Project Portfolio Officer.
Agency: Role: CIO Council (excluding OMB);
Member: Role: Two representatives, appointed by the federal CIO.
Agency: Role: OMB;
Member: Role: General Government Resource Management Officer.
Agency: GSA;
Member: Chief Financial Officer's Office.
Role: Nonvoting members;
Agency: (varies);
Member: E-Gov Program Managers.
Source: GSA and OMB data.
[End of table]
Recent Changes to E-Gov Fund Resources:
On October 1, 2010, GSA notified the Congress that during the fiscal
year 2011 Continuing Resolution (CR) period, it intended to use $1.8
million for E-Gov Fund projects and activities, specifying that this
amount would support efforts to improve transparency in federal
spending data, including management of USAspending.gov[Footnote 31] and
the IT Dashboard[Footnote 32] (these projects were funded by the $9.5
million planned for "Federal Funding and Accountability Act
Implementation" in table 1).
On March 7, 2011, GSA notified the Congress of its intention to change
its expenditure plan for the E-Gov Fund and redistribute those funds
remaining from the $34 million in fiscal year 2010 appropriated funds
and the $1.8 million referred to in its October 2010 letter. According
to the notification, these unspent funds amounted to approximately $2.6
million. To meet short-term requirements until additional funds were
appropriated, GSA intended to focus the $2.6 million on funding the
operation of systems supported by the E-Gov Fund, including
USAspending.gov. The distribution was as shown in table 3.
Table 3: Planned Use of Remainder of Fiscal Year 2010 E-Gov Fund
Appropriation and Funds from Fiscal Year 2011 CR (per March 2011
Notification):
Investment areas: Transparency and Accountability in Government
Information;
Planned spending: $1.82 million.
Investment areas: Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness of Federal IT;
Planned spending: $0.78 million.
Investment areas: Total;
Planned spending: $2.60 million.
Source: GSA.
[End of table]
According to GSA officials, the first area in table 3 combines
investment areas 3 and 5 in table 1 ("Federal Funding and
Accountability Act Implementation" and "Accessible and Transparent
Government Information/Data.gov"). The second combines the other areas.
The most recent (April 2011) appropriation for fiscal year 2011
provided $8 million for the E-Gov Fund,[Footnote 33] for which $35
million had been requested. At a Senate hearing on April 12,[Footnote
34] the federal CIO said that the implications of the cut were still
being evaluated, "but we are going to have to make some tough decisions
around which systems are going to have to go off-line versus what can
be supported with $8 million in funds." GSA officials told us they were
also considering options for transferring projects to other portfolios.
Following the April 12 hearing, the federal CIO announced on May 24
that, as a result of the reduced funding, plans for the E-Gov Fund for
fiscal year 2011 were revisited, and the scope of several projects was
altered. The CIO stated, among other things, that two projects,
FedSpace and the Citizen Services Dashboard, would be terminated, and
planned enhancements to other projects would be postponed.
Additionally, the CIO stated that each of these initiatives would be
revisited if the E-Gov Fund received the $34 million requested for
fiscal year 2012.
Objective 1 Results: E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions:
The E-Gov Fund supported 16 projects with the $34 million appropriated
for fiscal year 2010. The bulk of the projects were led by GSA in its
role as provider of services to government agencies. In addition, funds
were provided to NIST for a cloud standards effort, and to the
Department of the Treasury for efforts regarding invoicing and federal
payment information.
Table 4 shows the distribution of funds among the projects in the
expenditure plan before the request for redistribution of March 7,
2011. The projects are listed according to the investment areas in the
expenditure plan as amended in July 2010.[Footnote 35] The table also
presents GSA's estimated balance of funds remaining for each project
before the redistribution.[Footnote 36]
E-Gov Fund Project Descriptions:
Table 4: Distribution of Fiscal Year 2010 E-Gov Fund Appropriation
before March 2011 Redistribution:
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects:
1. Improving Innovation, Efficiency and Effectiveness and Federal IT:
Federal Cloud Computing Initiative:
Expenditure plan investment areas and projects: FedRAMP (Federal Risk
and Authorization Management Program);
Lead agency: GSA;
E-Gov Fund resources [A]: $1.91 million;
Estimated balance before redistribution[B]:
