According to OMB staff, plans for updating the inventories are on  indefinite hold as OMB re-evaluates next steps for what type of  information will be presented in the inventories and how it will be  presented based on (1) recent legislative actions that could affect the  information required for the inventories; (2) a lack of stakeholder  feedback; and (3) insufficient funding for,related to, presenting the inventories in a web-based format on   and technological challenges  Performance.gov. Agencies Used Various Approaches to Define Their Programs, Which Limits the Comparability of Programs within and across Agencies

		Agencies Used Different Approaches to Define Their Programs Based on OMB’s Guidance

GPRAMA requires agencies to identify how they define the term  “program,” consistent with guidance provided by the Director of OMB. In addition, the lack of comparability may also be the result of agencies  not working across organizational boundaries when developing their  inventories. One of OMB’s stated purposes for the inventories  is to facilitate coordination among programs that contribute to similar  outcomes. In a Few Instances, Several Agencies Did Not Include Activities in Their Inventories Based on OMB’s Criteria for Determining What Constitutes a Program

OMB’s guidance directed agencies to work with OMB to determine the  appropriate primary approach (or mix of approaches) and level of  aggregation/disaggregation to be used to define their programs. Agencies Generally Did Not Present Program-level Budget Information in Their Inventories but DATA Act Implementation Could Provide More Detailed and Consistent Data

GPRAMA requires agencies to identify for each program in their  inventories:  the program activities that are aggregated, disaggregated, or  consolidated to be considered a program by the agency; and  funding for the current and two previous fiscal years (for the  inventories published in May 2013, that would have been fiscal years  2013, 2012, and 2011). According to OMB’s 2014 update to its guidance, it is  working with agencies to merge implementation of the DATA Act and  federal program inventory requirements to the extent possible, but has  not yet determined its implementation strategy. Agency reporting for both  sets of requirements is web-based, which could more easily enable  linkages between the two sites or incorporating information from each  other. The Senate version of the Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act would  require this linkage in lieu of incorporating this budget information on the  program inventory site. Agencies Defined the Purposes of Their Programs but Did Not Consistently Show How Programs Contribute to Agency Missions, Goals, and Results

GPRAMA requires agencies to describe for each program in their  inventories  the purposes of the program and  the program’s contribution to the agency’s mission and goals. OMB’s review of the inventories did not always identify instances where  agencies omitted this information. Agencies Did Not Take Steps to Ensure Inventories Provide Useful Information for Stakeholders, including Congress

OMB’s 2012 guidance directed agencies to work with key stakeholders,  which can include Congress, state and local governments, third party  service providers, and the public, to validate that their program  inventories would be both internally and externally recognizable. Identifying All Federal Programs and Providing Sorting Capabilities Could Help Provide a More Coherent Picture of Federal Involvement in Particular Areas

GPRAMA requires OMB to ensure that the inventory information provided  by agencies and published on Performance.gov presents a coherent   As our annual reports on fragmentation,  picture of all federal programs.overlap, and duplication have stated, the federal program inventory could  be a key tool for addressing crosscutting issues. As noted earlier  in the report, the lack of such a comprehensive list makes it difficult to  determine the scope of the federal government’s involvement in particular  areas and, therefore, where action is needed to address crosscutting  issues. While the inventories published in May  2013 were individual agency documents, OMB’s guidance and staff have  stated that eventually the inventory would move to a more dynamic, web- based approach—originally planned for the May 2014 update and now on  hold. This web-based approach could make it easier to tag and sort  related or similar programs. In commenting on a  draft of the report, OMB staff agreed with this recommendation. Such a list, along with related  budget and performance information, could help decision makers  determine the scope of the federal government’s involvement,  investment, and performance in a particular area, which in turn could help  pinpoint where action is needed to better address or avoid fragmentation,  overlap, and duplication. The executive branch has taken some initial steps to develop program  inventories with related budget and performance information. In May 2013, the 24 agencies published  inventories, providing information about 1,524 programs they collectively  identified. As a result, agencies used different  approaches to identify their programs, which, in turn, led to a lack of  comparability for similar programs across agencies. This was illustrated  by our analysis of agency inventories for STEM education and nuclear  nonproliferation programs, in which we could only exactly match a small  fraction of the programs covered by our past work on fragmentation,  overlap, and duplication in those areas. According to OMB staff, the  flexibility provided in guidance is derived from lessons learned from the  pilot effort—that agencies are different for valid and legitimate reasons  and a one-size-fits-all approach would not work for all agencies. If agencies worked together to more consistently define their  programs, it could also help them identify where they have programs that  contribute to similar outcomes, and therefore opportunities to collaborate. In addition, OMB did not include  tax expenditures in the inventory effort. To be useful, information must meet  various users’ needs for accuracy, completeness, consistency, reliability,  and validity, among other factors. Agency officials also told us they did  not consult with external stakeholders, including Congress. Although  OMB’s 2012 guidance instructed agencies to seek this input, none of  them did. By consulting with stakeholders to understand their needs,  agencies would better ensure that the information provided in the  inventories is useful for stakeholder decision making. To better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, we  recommend the Director of OMB take the following five actions: direct agencies to collaborate with each other in defining and  identifying programs that contribute to common outcomes, and provide a time frame for what constitutes “persistent over time”  that agencies can use as a decision rule for whether to include  short-term efforts as programs; define plans for when additional agencies will be required to develop  include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory effort by designating tax expenditure as a program type in relevant developing, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, a  tax expenditure inventory that identifies each tax expenditure and  provides a description of how the tax expenditure is defined, its  purpose, and related performance and budget information. To help ensure that the information agencies provide in their inventories  is useful to federal decision makers and key stakeholders, and to provide  greater transparency and ensure consistency in federal program funding  and performance information, we recommend the Director of OMB take  the following three actions:  revise relevant guidance to direct agencies to  consult with relevant congressional committees and stakeholders  on their program definition approach and identified programs  when developing or updating their inventories, and  identify in their inventories the performance goal(s) to which each  program contributes; and ensure, during OMB reviews of inventories, that agencies consistently  identify, as applicable, the strategic goals, strategic objectives, agency  priority goals, and cross-agency priority goals each program supports. OMB staff told us that until they had  firmer plans on how program inventory and DATA Act implementation  would be merged, they could not determine if implementing these three  recommendations would be feasible. This report is part  of our response to that mandate. Our specific objectives for this report  were to (1) assess how OMB and agencies defined and identified the  programs contained in the inventories, (2) examine the extent to which  the inventories provide useful information for federal decision makers,  and (3) examine the extent to which the inventories provide a coherent  picture of the scope of federal involvement in particular areas. To address all three objectives, we assessed the implementation of  relevant GPRAMA requirements by the Office of Management and  Budget (OMB) and the 24 agencies that developed program inventories,  which were published on Performance.gov in May 2013. requires OMB to make publicly available on a central governmentwide  website, a list of all federal programs identified by agencies. A-11, Part 6) and related leading practices  from our past work on managing for results, such as those related to  involving Congress and stakeholders in performance management  activities and ensuring performance information is useful to decision  makers. Additionally, to address our first objective, we selected two areas of  fragmentation, overlap, and duplication from our annual reports—science,  technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and nuclear  nonproliferation programs—and compared the lists of programs  developed by our work to those contained in agency inventories.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO's reports over the past 4 years have found more than 90 areas where opportunities exist for the executive branch or Congress to better manage, reduce, or eliminate fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. GPRAMA calls for the creation of a list (inventory) of all federal programs, along with related budget and performance information, which could make it easier to determine the scope of the federal government's involvement in particular areas and, therefore, where action is needed to address crosscutting issues, including instances of fragmentation, overlap, or duplication.
GPRAMA requires GAO to periodically review its implementation. This report is part of GAO's response to that mandate and examines (1) how OMB and agencies defined programs, (2) the extent to which inventories provide useful information for decision makers, and (3) the extent to which inventories provide a coherent picture of the scope of federal involvement in particular areas. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed the 24 inventories using GPRAMA requirements, OMB guidance, and related leading practices from GAO's past work, and interviewed OMB staff and agency officials. For the first objective, GAO also selected two areas of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication identified in past GAO work—STEM education and nuclear nonproliferation—and compared the lists of programs developed in its past work to those contained in agency inventories. The two areas were selected based on various factors, including the number of agencies involved and whether those agencies published an inventory.

What GAO Found

To date, the approach used by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and agencies has not led to the inventory of all federal programs, along with related budget and performance information, envisioned in the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA). In developing the inventory, OMB allowed for significant discretion in several areas—leading to a variety of approaches for defining programs and inconsistencies in the type of information reported. The inconsistent definitions, along with agencies not following an expected consultation process, led to challenges in identifying similar programs in different agencies. As a result of these limitations, the inventory is not a useful tool for decision making. OMB is considering options for enhancing the inventory.
GPRAMA requires OMB to publish a list of all federal programs on a central governmentwide website. It also requires OMB to issue guidance, and agencies to identify and provide to OMB for publication information about each program— including how they defined their programs in line with OMB's guidance. OMB is taking an iterative approach to implement these requirements. Based on experiences from a pilot involving 11 agencies in 2012, OMB issued guidance allowing agencies flexibility to define their programs using different approaches, but within a broad definition of what constitutes a program—a set of related activities directed toward a common purpose or goal. According to OMB staff, this was based on a lesson learned from the pilot effort: a one-size-fits-all approach does not work well; agencies and their stakeholders use the term “program” in different ways because agencies achieve their missions through different programmatic approaches. In May 2013, OMB published the inventories developed by 24 agencies, which used various approaches to define and identify 1,524 programs (see table below).
Because agencies used different approaches, similar programs across agencies may not be identifiable. To illustrate the shortcomings of the inventory, GAO attempted to locate in relevant agencies' inventories the various science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and nuclear nonproliferation programs identified in GAO's past work. GAO was unable to identify in the inventories a large majority of the programs previously identified in its work: 9 of the 179 programs matched exactly and 51 others were identified based on program descriptions.
The lack of comparability may also be the result of agencies not working with each other when developing their inventories. One of OMB's stated purposes for the inventories is to facilitate coordination among programs that contribute to similar outcomes. However, agencies did not work together to consistently define their programs. Increased coordination could help agencies identify where they have programs that contribute to similar goals and thus, opportunities to collaborate in achieving desired outcomes.
The 24 inventories developed by agencies in 2013 did not provide the programs and related budget and performance information required by GPRAMA. This limits the usefulness of the inventories to various decision makers, including Congress and stakeholders. To be useful, the inventories must meet various users' needs for accuracy, completeness, consistency, reliability, and validity, among other factors. Specific steps OMB and agencies could take to ensure the inventories are more useful to decision makers include:
Presenting program-level budget information. Although GPRAMA requires agencies to identify program-level funding, OMB did not direct agencies to include this information in their 2013 inventories—it was to be part of a planned May 2014 update. However, OMB subsequently put the 2014 update on hold to determine how to merge these requirements with implementation of the federal spending information to be reported under the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). Reporting for both laws is web-based, which could more easily enable linkages between the two sites or incorporating information from each other. The Senate version of a bill, the Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act of 2014, which is currently under consideration, would require this linkage in lieu of incorporating budget information on the program inventory site.
Providing complete performance information . GPRAMA and OMB's guidance require agencies to describe each program's contribution to the agency's goals. However, there are instances where agencies omitted that information. For example, agencies did not consistently show how some or all of their programs supported strategic goals (in 7 of 24 inventories) or strategic objectives (in 13 of 24 inventories). Ensuring agencies illustrate this alignment would better explain how programs support the results agencies are achieving.
Consulting with stakeholders . None of the agencies sought input on their inventories from external stakeholders, such as Congress, state and local governments, and third-party service providers, although OMB's 2012 guidance instructed agencies to do so. In several instances, agency officials stated that they thought OMB was soliciting feedback on all inventories. By consulting with stakeholders to understand their needs, agencies would better ensure that the information provided in the inventories is useful for stakeholder decision making.
Other features of OMB's approach further limit the program inventories' ability to present a coherent picture of all federal programs, as required by GPRAMA. First, to date, OMB has only included 24 agencies in this effort. Second, while not specified by GPRAMA, tax expenditures were not included in the 2013 inventory. Tax expenditures, which represent a reduction in a taxpayer's tax liability through credits, deductions, or other means, resulted in $1.1 trillion in forgone revenue in fiscal year 2013, nearly the same amount as discretionary spending that year. By including tax expenditures, OMB could help ensure that agencies are properly identifying their contributions to the achievement of agency goals, as OMB's guidance directs them to do. Finally, OMB's guidance and staff have stated that eventually the inventory will move to a more dynamic, web-based presentation. This could make it easier to tag and sort related or similar programs, for instance, by type of program or contribution to the same or similar goals. Covering additional agencies and tax expenditures in the federal program inventory, along with web-based sorting capabilities, would help decision makers determine the scope of the federal government's involvement in a particular area, and therefore where action is needed to better address fragmentation, overlap, or duplication.

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes several recommendations to OMB. To present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, GAO recommends OMB revise its guidance to direct agencies to collaborate when defining and identifying programs that contribute to a common outcome, define plans for expanding implementation beyond the current 24 agencies, and include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory. In addition, to improve the usefulness of the information in inventories GAO recommends OMB ensure agencies consistently identify the various goals each program supports, and consult with stakeholders when developing or updating their inventories.
OMB staff generally agreed with these recommendations, although they neither agreed nor disagreed with three of GAO's recommendations related to including tax expenditures and additional performance information. OMB staff stated that until they had firmer plans on how program inventory and DATA Act implementation would be merged, they could not determine if implementing those recommendations would be feasible.