OMB and Agencies Have Made Progress Implementing Major Provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002

Overall, OMB and federal agencies have made progress implementing Titles  I and II of the E-Gov Act. OMB and designated federal agencies are taking actions to implement the  provisions of the act in most cases; however, the act’s requirements have  not always been fully addressed. Progress in Implementing Provisions with Statutory Deadlines

In most cases, OMB and designated federal agencies have taken responsive  action to address the act’s requirements with statutory deadlines, although  these have not always been completed within stipulated time frames. For  example, OMB established the Interagency Committee on Government  Information in June 2003, within the deadline prescribed by the act. The  committee is to develop recommendations on the categorization of  government information and public access to electronic information. In one case, OMB has not taken fully responsive action to address the  requirements of the act. Progress in Implementing Provisions without Statutory Deadlines

As with the provisions specifying deadlines, in most cases where deadlines  are not specified, OMB and federal agencies have either fully implemented  the provisions or demonstrated positive action toward implementation. For  example, in May 2003, the E-Gov Administrator issued a memorandum  detailing procedures for requesting funds from the E-Government Fund,  although the act did not specify a deadline for this action. In other  cases, OMB has either taken actions that are related to the act’s provisions  but do not fully address them, or it has not yet made key decisions that  would allow actions to take place. Specifically, OMB has not ensured that a  study on using IT to enhance crisis preparedness and response has been  conducted that addresses the content specified by the act, established a  required program to encourage contractor innovation and excellence in  facilitating the development and enhancement of electronic government  services and processes, or ensured the development and maintenance of a  required repository and Web site of information about research and  development funded by the federal government. Until these issues are  addressed, the government is at risk of not fully achieving the objective of  the E-Government Act to promote better use of the Internet and other  information technologies to improve government services to its citizens,  internal government operations, and opportunities for citizen participation  in government. Recommendations for Executive Action

To ensure the successful implementation of the E-Government Act and its  goal of promoting better use of the Internet and other information  technologies to improve government services to citizens, internal  government operations, and opportunities for citizen participation in  government, we recommend that the Director, OMB, direct the  Administrator of the Office of E-Government to carry out the following  three actions:  ensure that the report to Congress regarding the study on enhancement  of crisis response required under section 214 addresses the content  specified by the act;  establish and promote a governmentwide program, as prescribed by 44  U.S.C. For several sections, the act  requires specific actions, such as the initiation of pilot projects,  establishment of interagency workgroups or committees, development and  issuance of guidance/policies, conduct of a study, or issuance of reports. We analyzed  relevant documentation, including OMB’s fiscal year 2003 report to  Congress on implementation status of the E-Gov Act. The PRA  established the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)  for governmentwide oversight and stated that the Administrator of OIRA  should “serve as principal adviser to the Director  on Federal  information resources management policy.” Under the PRA IRM umbrella,  OIRA is responsible for overseeing  information collection and the control of paperwork, including review  of agency information collection proposals;  statistical policy and coordination;  records management, including oversight of compliance with the   privacy, including oversight of compliance with the Privacy Act;  information security, including oversight of compliance with the Federal  Information Security Management Act;  information disclosure, including oversight of compliance with the  Freedom of Information Act; and   information technology, including oversight of the Clinger-Cohen Act  and promoting the use of information technology “to improve the  productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs,  including through dissemination of public information and the reduction  of information collection burdens on the public.”
The E-Government Act of 2002 added to OMB’s statutory PRA duties with  requirements to promote “electronic government,” defined as government  use of Web-based Internet applications and other information technologies  to enhance access to and delivery of government information and services  and to improve government operations. The Office of Management and Budget  (OMB) and other federal agencies likewise have a variety of activities  under way that address these provisions. Disparities in Access to the Internet: Title II, Section 215

Section 215 of the E-Government Act requires the GSA Administrator to  contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study  on disparities in Internet access for online government services.
Why GAO Did This Study

The E-Government Act (E-Gov Act) of 2002 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 specifically requires the establishment of the Office of Electronic Government within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to oversee implementation of the act's provisions and mandates a number of specific actions, such as the establishment of interagency committees, completion of several studies, submission of reports with recommendations, issuance of a variety of guidance documents, establishment of new policies, and initiation of pilot projects. Further, the act requires federal agencies to take a number of actions, such as conducting privacy impact assessments, providing public access to agency information, and allowing for electronic access to rulemaking proceedings. OMB has linked several of the act's provisions to ongoing e-government initiatives that it has sponsored. While some deadlines specified in the act have passed, many required actions do not have statutory deadlines or have deadlines that have not yet passed. This report responds to a Congressional request that we review the implementation status of major provisions from Titles I and II of the E-Gov Act.

What GAO Found

In most cases, OMB and federal agencies have taken positive steps toward implementing the provisions of Titles I and II of the E-Gov Act. For example, OMB established the Office of E-Government, designated its Assistant Director for Information Technology (IT) and E-Government as the office's Administrator in April 2003, and published guidance to federal agencies on implementing the act in August 2003. In most cases, OMB and federal agencies have taken action to address the act's requirements within stipulated time frames. For example, OMB established the Interagency Committee on Government Information in June 2003, within the deadline prescribed by the act. The committee is to develop recommendations on the categorization of government information and public access to electronic information. Even when deadlines have not yet passed, in all but one case OMB and agencies have taken action to implement the act. For example, federal courts have established informational Web sites in advance of the April 2005 deadline specified by the act, and court officials are taking steps to ensure that the Web sites fully meet the criteria stipulated by the act. Similarly, in most cases where deadlines are not specified, OMB and federal agencies have either fully implemented the provisions or demonstrated positive action toward implementation. For example, in May 2003, the E-Government Administrator issued a memorandum detailing procedures for requesting funds from the E-Government Fund, although the act did not specify a deadline for this action. Although the government has made progress in implementing the act, the act's requirements have not always been fully addressed. Specifically, OMB has not ensured that a study on using IT to enhance crisis preparedness and response has been conducted that addresses the content specified by the act, established a required program to encourage contractor innovation and excellence in facilitating the development and enhancement of electronic government services and processes, or ensured the development and maintenance of a required repository and Web site of information about research and development funded by the federal government. Further, GSA has not contracted with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a required study on disparities in Internet access for online government services. In the first three cases, OMB has either taken actions that are related to the act's provisions but do not fully address them (in the first and second cases) or has not yet made key decisions that would allow actions to take place (in the third case). In the last case, GSA is seeking funding for the required study in fiscal year 2006. Until these issues are addressed, the government may be at risk of not fully achieving the objective of the E-Government Act to promote better use of the Internet and other information technologies to improve government services and enhance opportunities for citizen participation in government.