For this report, we reviewed the 11 energy and infrastructure programs  introduced previously. As  discussed earlier, our focus is on the extent to which descriptions of  awards reported by recipients and published on Recovery.gov provide a  basic understanding of what funds are being spent on and what outcomes  are expected. Recovery Act Created Broad Requirements for Reporting on Awards

The act created broad requirements for recipient reporting. Specifically, starting for the period ending  September 30, 2009 (and repeated for the quarter ending December 31),  OMB’s reporting instructions for the Recipient Reporting Data Model  specified that recipients would provide, among other things,  the project name, which should be brief and descriptive;   a project description that captures the overall purpose of the award and  expected outputs and outcomes or results;  an award description that describes the overall purpose, expected  outputs, and outcomes or results of the award, including significant  deliverables and, if appropriate, units of measure;   the project status, which was specified as not started, less than 50  percent complete, completed 50 percent or more, or complete;   an activity description, which categorizes projects and activities; the amount of the award; and   the primary place of performance, which is the physical location of  award activities. A Quarter of the Descriptions of Awards Provide Sufficient Information for Transparency; Some Additional Information Is Publicly Available for Those That Did Not

We estimate that about a quarter of the awards on Recovery.gov for the  nine programs we reviewed were transparent—that is, had sufficiently  clear and understandable information on the award’s purpose, scope,  location, cost, nature of activities, outcomes, and status of work. Recipient-reported information varied widely in its transparency. (The extent to which federal agency and state  agency Recovery Act Web sites have material that supplement  Recovery.gov recipient-reported information is discussed later in this  section.) These did not meet our transparency criteria. Some agencies supplemented OMB’s high-level guidance with program- specific technical assistance on how to meet OMB’s reporting  requirements, including specific instructions on what to write in the  narrative fields. For information  on each agency’s data quality reviews, see appendix XII. In addition to federal and state Web sites, information on the uses of  Recovery Act funds can be found on some recipients’ Web sites and in  other publicly available documents. In general, federal agency officials told us that they have received some  feedback on Recovery Act awards and the award information made  available to the public. These descriptions provide a key mechanism through  which the public can understand clearly how their tax dollars are being  spent and what is likely to be achieved from these expenditures. In doing so, OMB can use its central  position to further mission agencies' efforts to tailor resulting guidance to  their individual situations in a way that furthers the transparency goals  discussed in this report. Recommendations for Executive Action

To further the goals of public understanding of what Recovery Act funds  are being spent on and what results are expected, we recommend that the  Director, Office of Management and Budget, take the following three  actions:   Revise OMB’s recipient reporting guidance, including the Recipient  Reporting Data Model, to provide recipients with clearer general  instructions and examples for narrative fields aimed at fostering more  complete information on the uses of funds and expected outcomes. Work with executive departments and agencies to determine (1)  whether supplemental guidance is needed to meet, in a reasonable and  cost-effective way, the intent of the Recovery Act for reporting on  projects and activities and (2) whether that supplemental guidance or  other agency-proposed technical assistance dealing with narrative  descriptions of awards provides for transparent descriptions of funded  activities. Periodically (1) review, in partnership with executive departments and  agencies, the descriptions of awards—in particular, the narrative  fields—submitted by recipients to determine whether the information  provides a basic understanding of the uses of the funds and the  expected outcomes, and, if not, determine what actions to take,  including encouraging agencies to develop or improve program-specific  guidance and (2) work with the Recovery Board on the board’s  assessments of departments’ and agencies’ data quality reviews to  ensure the adequacy of these reviews and further reinforce actions to  meet transparency goals. OMB officials agreed with our recommendations. Therefore, the agency does not have experience  with how well OMB’s guidance ensures that the public has accurate  information. Additionally, geothermal program officials did not review narrative  description fields in Recovery.gov, which may have led to some reporting  errors. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act  funds allowed transit service to be sustained for nine (9) months. 3. About 30 Percent of Federal Buildings Fund Descriptions Met Our Transparency Criteria

We assessed the transparency of descriptive information for Federal  Building Fund awards available on Recovery.gov, as described in the  report. 3. Additional Information on Methodology

To identify the information that is required to be included as part of the  descriptions of awards funded by the Recovery Act, we reviewed the  reporting requirements contained in the act, OMB’s guidance, Recovery.gov  reporting instructions, and supplemental agency reporting guidance that  were applicable for the quarter ending December 31, 2009. The state  and local officials that we contacted were those that were part of a  judgmental sample of 52 awards we selected from those that we had  previously contacted as part of our work to report bimonthly on how the  Recovery Act is being implemented and from our search of media stories  about Recovery Act awards. The federal agencies update their data  at different frequencies.
Why GAO Did This Study

A hallmark of efforts to implement the $862 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) is to be transparent and accountable about what the money is being spent on and what is being achieved. To help achieve these goals, recipients are to report every 3 months on their award activities and expected outcomes, among other things. This information is available on Recovery.gov, the government's official Recovery Act Web site. As requested, this report covers 11 federal programs focused on broadband, energy, transportation, federal buildings, and civil works activities, representing $67 billion in Recovery Act funding. Primarily, the report (1) describes how the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and federal agencies implemented the act to report funds' uses and (2) assesses the extent to which descriptions of awards meet GAO's transparency criteria. It also describes reported uses of funds for the 11 programs. GAO reviewed requirements for reporting in the act and OMB's guidance. Based on these requirements, GAO developed a transparency assessment and applied it to a probability sample of descriptions from 14,089 recipient reports. In addition, GAO reviewed 52 projects in detail in states that it had contacted as part of its bimonthly reviews and interviewed federal, state, and local officials about their experiences with reporting descriptions of awards.

What GAO Found

This report focuses on one aspect of transparency and accountability: the extent to which descriptions of awards found on Recovery.gov foster a basic understanding of award activities and expected outcomes. Section 1512 of the act created broad requirements for recipient reporting. The act does not further explain these requirements. To implement the act, OMB provided generic guidance instructing recipients to report narrative information, among other things, that captures the overall purpose of the award and expected results. GAO estimates that, for the nine programs with funds awarded by December 31, 2009, 25 percent of the descriptions met its 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. Two factors may have influenced what GAO found. First, GAO's results were somewhat more positive for programs in which the federal agencies provided program-specific materials that supplemented OMB's guidance with detailed information on what recipients should include in the narrative fields. The highway, transit, and geothermal programs that GAO reviewed tended to have more transparent descriptions compared with programs that only supplied general guidance. Second, officials in many programs told GAO that they did not typically include the narrative fields in their data quality reviews. While an estimated three-quarters of the recipient-reported information did not fully meet GAO's transparency criteria--thus potentially hampering understanding of what is being achieved with Recovery Act funding--GAO found that federal and state Recovery Act Web sites, in some cases, provided additional information that could aid the public in understanding what its tax dollars are being spent on and what outcomes are expected. GAO collected information on the reported uses of funds from federal agencies for the 11 programs it reviewed. These uses ranged from improving infrastructure to improving Internet access. Agencies have obligated program funds at different rates, which may be due, in part, to whether the programs were new, existing, or received sizable funding increases. GAO also asked the federal agencies and selected state agencies in its review about how they make Recovery Act project information available to the public and what feedback they have received. Each agency has established a Recovery Act Web site, as have states, some state auditors and Inspectors General, and some recipients. These sites contain varying amounts of information, such as program objectives, lists of projects, and interactive maps.

What GAO Recommends

To further public understanding of what Recovery Act funds are being spent on and the expected results, GAO recommends that the Director, OMB, (1) revise the agency's recipient reporting guidance to remedy the unclear examples and enhance instructions for completing narrative fields; (2) work with agencies to determine whether supplemental guidance is needed to meet the intent of the act and whether that supplemental guidance or other technical assistance proposed by agencies dealing with narrative descriptions of awards provides for transparent descriptions of funded activities; and (3) periodically review, in partnership with federal agencies, the recipients' descriptions of awards to determine whether the information provides a basic understanding of the uses of the funds and expected outcomes, and, if not, encourage agencies to develop or improve program-specific guidance, as well as work with the Recovery Board as the board reviews the results of agencies' data quality reviews to further reinforce actions to meet transparency goals. In commenting on a draft of this report, OMB agreed with GAO's recommendations. OMB and the federal agencies provided a number of specific comments, many of which GAO incorporated.