Reporting Mechanism Limits the Amount of Information on Local Project Descriptions

Detailed information on how subrecipients are spending their Recovery Act  funds is limited, in part because data collection for Recovery.gov, through  FederalReporting.gov, does not provide specific narrative fields for  collecting information on how each subrecipient is using its funds. Because OMB and Education guidance instructs prime recipients to  include information about subrecipients in the information they report on  FederalReporting.gov, a state is required to report information that  captures the overall purpose of the award, including how subrecipients  have used the funds. Providing detailed information on how each subrecipient is using the funds  within the character limitation would be extremely challenging, if not  impossible for some states. Education  officials reported they provided this information to recipients to ease the  burden of Recovery Act reporting. Few State Project Descriptions Fully Met Our Criteria for Transparency; Many Only Used Education’s Suggested Standard Language

We found that 9 percent of the awards for the three programs we reviewed  were transparent—that is, they had sufficiently clear and understandable  information on the award’s purpose, scope, location, award amount, nature  of activities, outcomes, and status of work. We determined that 13 percent  contained most, but not all, of this information. We did not find any descriptions that did not include at least some  of the information needed to inform the public. Most states (78 percent) only partially met our transparency criteria  because their description contained much less information and met only a  few attributes of our criteria. We found that for all three education programs, descriptions that contained  only Education’s suggested standard language were less transparent than  those that entered information specific to the program and activities  conducted in their states. For example, the suggested  language for the ESEA Title I, Part A program instructed states to enter  “Improve teaching and learning for students most at risk of failing to meet  State Academic Achievement Standards.” While the use of such language  by states may facilitate the process of reporting their section 1512 data (i.e.,  reduce the reporting burden), it does not provide information on what  funds are being spent on (e.g., professional development, technology, or  testing assessments) and it provides the public with little information on  how funds are being used at the local level. For example, we collected  information from seven LEAs in Texas that reported they used ESEA Title I,  Part A Recovery Act funds for technology purchases for at-risk students,  but the information in Texas’ Recovery Act ESEA Title I, Part A project  description contains only the standard language discussed above. Guidance on reporting requirements for Recovery Act grants that  pass through a prime recipient to a subrecipient should balance the need  for transparency with the reporting burden and these system limitations. Providing more information than offered  in Education’s standard language, such as an overview analysis of how  localities are spending the funds and the anticipated results, could help the  public gain a better understanding of how the funds are being used. Recommendation for Executive Action

In order to provide the public with more useful information on how  Recovery Act funds are being used, we recommend that the Secretary of  Education, in consultation with OMB, remove the standard language for  one field—the quarterly activities/project description field—from its  guidance and instruct states to include, to the extent possible, information  on how the funds are being used and potential project outcomes or results. The award description  information is taken directly from Recovery.gov. State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) sub-recipients created and retained jobs in several  categories. Place of performance (city, state, zip code)
Bismarck, North Dakota  585050602 Less Than 50% Completed Special Education - Grants to States, Recovery Act Special Education - Grants to States, Recovery Act The purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are to ensure that  all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education  (FAPE) that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their  unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent  living; to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are  protected; and to assist States, localities, educational service agencies, and Federal  agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities; to assist States in the  implementation of a statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplanary,  interagency system of early intervening services for infants and toddlers with disabilities  and their families; to ensure that educators and parents have the necessary tools to  improve educational results for children with disabilities by supporting system  improvement activities; coordinated research and personnel preparation; corrdinated  technical assistance, dissemination, and support; and technology developement and  media services; and to assess, and ensure the effectiveness of, efforts to educate children  with disabilities. These funds covered 234  schools. Scope and Methodology

To understand how the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and  Education facilitated implementation of Recovery Act requirements for  recipients to describe the use of funds, we reviewed the Act for reporting  requirements. This assessment was based on the requirements of the  Recovery Act; OMB’s guidance, including OMB’s Recipient Reporting Data  Model; the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006;  and professional judgment.
Why GAO Did This Study

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provides $70.3 billion for three education programs--the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF), Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Title I), and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Act requires recipients to be accountable for how these funds are being used and what is being achieved. To help attain the level of transparency needed for accountability, recipients are to report quarterly on their award activities and expected outcomes. This information is available to the public on Recovery.gov, the government's official Recovery Act Web site. This report covers three Education programs funded by the Recovery Act. It (1) describes what the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Education (Education) did to facilitate implementation of requirements for recipients to describe the use of funds and (2) assesses the extent to which award descriptions are transparent It also describes reported fund uses for a sample of subrecipients. GAO reviewed requirements for reporting in the Act as well as guidance provided by OMB and Education. GAO assessed the transparency of descriptions for the three education programs on Recovery.gov.

What GAO Found

Both OMB and Education provided guidance to recipients on how to meet the Recovery Act requirement that they report quarterly on the amount and use of the funds they have received. OMB's guidance was generic for all agencies and instructed recipients to report narrative information that captures the overall purpose of the award, describes projects or activities, and states the expected results. Education's guidance was supplemental and program specific to its formula grants that pass through states as the prime recipient to subrecipients, which are local educational agencies (LEA) and institutions of higher education. However, the Recovery Act reporting system does not provide specific narrative fields for collecting information on how each subrecipient is using the funds. Instead, the states are tasked with reporting on fund use throughout the state, and the reporting system limits the amount of narrative information states may enter. For states with many subrecipients, including detailed information on how each subrecipient is using the funds would be extremely challenging, if not impossible. To ease the reporting burden for prime recipients, Education's guidance provided recipients with suggested standard language for use in important narrative fields. GAO determined that 9 percent of the descriptions fully met our transparency criteria; that is, they had sufficiently clear and complete information on the award's purpose, scope and nature of activities, location, cost, outcomes, and status of work. Most descriptions did not include sufficient information on local fund use. Specifically, while 13 percent had most but not all information, the remaining 78 percent contained much less information and only partially met attributes for transparency. We did not find any descriptions that did not include at least some of the information needed to inform the public. Descriptions limited to Education's standard language were less transparent than those with specific information on the programs and activities subrecipients conducted in the state. For example, officials from seven Texas LEAs told us they used ESEA Title I Recovery Act funds for technology purchases for at-risk students, although the information in Texas' project description uses only the standard language. Guidance on reporting requirements for Recovery Act grants that pass through a prime recipient to a subrecipient should balance the need for transparency with the reporting burden and these system limitations. While most states cannot provide information on how each subrecipient is using its funds, providing more information than Education's standard language, such as an overview analysis of how localities are spending the funds, could help the public gain a better understanding of how the funds are being used.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education, in consultation with OMB, remove the suggested language for the project description field from its guidance and instruct states to include information, to the extent possible, on how the funds are being used and potential project outcomes or results.