Recipients in all 50 states reported jobs created or retained with Recovery  Act funding provided through a wide range of federal programs and  agencies. Table 1 shows the distribution of jobs created or retained across  the nation as reported by recipients on Recovery.gov. Recipients of Recovery Act Funds We Contacted Appear to Have Made Good Faith Efforts to Ensure Complete and Accurate Reporting, but It Will Take Time to Improve Data Quality

While recipients GAO contacted appear to have made good faith efforts to  ensure complete and accurate reporting, GAO’s fieldwork and initial  review and analysis of recipient data from www.recovery.gov, indicate  that there are a range of significant reporting and quality issues that need  to be addressed. Because this effort  will be an ongoing process of cumulative reporting, our first review  represents a snapshot in time. Initial Observations on Recipient Reporting Data Identify Areas Where Further Review and Guidance Are Needed

We performed an initial set of edit checks and basic analyses on the  recipient report data available for download from Recovery.gov on  October 30, 2009. As shown in table 3, we identified 3,978 prime  recipient reports where FTEs were reported but no dollar amount was  reported in the data fields for amount of Recovery Act funds received and  amount of Recovery Act funds expended. There were also 9,247 reports that showed no FTEs but did  show some funding amount in either or both of the funds received or  expended data fields. Various Interpretations of How to Report FTEs Produced Questionable Data on Jobs Created or Retained

Under OMB guidance, jobs created or retained were to be expressed as  FTEs. We found that data were reported inconsistently even though  significant guidance and training was provided by OMB and federal  agencies. While FTEs should allow for the aggregation of different types of  jobs—part-time, full-time or temporary—differing interpretations of the  FTE guidance compromise the ability to aggregate the data. In section 5.2 of the June 22  guidance, OMB states that “the estimate of the number of jobs required by  the Recovery Act should be expressed as ‘full-time equivalents’ (FTE),  which is calculated as the total hours worked in jobs retained divided by  the number of hours in a full time schedule, as defined by the recipient.”  Further, “the FTE estimates must be reported cumulatively each calendar  quarter.” In section 5.3, OMB states that “reporting is cumulative across  the project lifecycle, and will not reset at the beginning of each calendar or  fiscal year.”
FTE calculations varied depending on the period of performance the  recipient reported on. For example, in the case of federal highways  projects, some have been ongoing for six months, while others started in  September 2009. Particularly given the scale of the project and how  quickly it was implemented, within several months, the ability of the  reporting mechanisms to handle the volume of data from the range of  recipients represents a solid first step in the data collection and reporting  process for the fulfillment of the section 1512 mandate. As shown in table 6, more than three quarters of the prime recipient  reports were marked as having undergone agency review. Less than one  percent was marked as having undergone review by the prime recipient. e  e with the reporting requirements. Although there were problems of inconsistent  interpretation of the guidance, the reporting process went well for  highway projects. We also reviewed federal and  state guidance and other documentation. GAO Will Continue to Follow These Issues and Highlight Concerns in Subsequent Reports

As recipient reporting moves forward, we will continue to review the  processes that federal agencies and recipients have in place to ensure the  completeness and accuracy of data, including reviewing a sample of  recipient reports across various Recovery Act programs to assure the  quality of the reported information. Job losses in October 2009 numbered 190,000. We  examined these contracts and confirmed these requirements.
Why GAO Did This Study

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) requires recipients of funding from federal agencies to report quarterly on jobs created or retained with Recovery Act funding. The first recipient reports filed in October 2009 cover activity from February through September 30, 2009. GAO is required to comment on the jobs created or retained as reported by recipients. This report addresses (1) the extent to which recipients were able to fulfill their reporting requirements and the processes in place to help ensure data quality and (2) how macroeconomic data and methods, and the recipient reports, can be used to assess the employment effects of the Recovery Act. GAO performed an initial set of basic analyses on the final recipient report data that first became available at www.recovery.gov on October 30, 2009; reviewed documents; interviewed relevant state and federal officials; and conducted fieldwork in selected states, focusing on a sample of highway and education projects.

What GAO Found

On October 30, www.recovery.gov (the federal Web site on Recovery Act spending) reported that more than 100,000 recipients reported hundreds of thousands of jobs created or retained. Given the national scale of the recipient reporting exercise and the limited time frames in which it was implemented, the ability of the reporting mechanism to handle the volume of data from a wide variety of recipients represents a solid first step in moving toward more transparency and accountability for federal funds. Because this effort will be an ongoing process of cumulative reporting, GAO's first review represents a snapshot in time. While recipients GAO contacted appear to have made good faith efforts to ensure complete and accurate reporting, GAO's fieldwork and initial review and analysis of recipient data from www.recovery.gov , indicate that there are a range of significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed For example, GAO's review of prime recipient reports identified the following: Erroneous or questionable data entries that merit further review: (1) 3,978 reports that showed no dollar amount received or expended but included more than 50,000 jobs created or retained; (2) 9,247 reports that showed no jobs but included expended amounts approaching $1 billion, and (3) Instances of other reporting anomalies such as discrepancies between award amounts and the amounts reported as received which, although relatively small in number, indicate problematic issues in the reporting. Coverage: While OMB estimates that more than 90 percent of recipients reported, questions remain about the other 10 percent. Quality review: While less than 1 percent were marked as having undergone review by the prime recipient, over three quarters of the prime reports were marked as having undergone review by a federal agency. Full-time equivalent (FTE) calculations: Full-time equivalent (FTE) calculations: Under OMB guidance, jobs created or retained were to be expressed as FTEs. GAO found that data were reported inconsistently even though significant guidance and training was provided by OMB and federal agencies. While FTEs should allow for the aggregation of different types of jobs--part time, full time or temporary--differing interpretations of the FTE guidance compromise the ability to aggregate the data. Although there were problems of inconsistent interpretation of the guidance, the reporting process went relatively well for highway projects. Transportation had an established procedure for reporting prior to enactment of the Recovery Act. In the cases of Education and Housing, which do not have this prior reporting experience, GAO found more problems. Some of these have been reported in the press. State and federal officials are examining these problems and have stated their intention to deal with them.