	Transparency Efforts Under Way Focus on Standardizing Data to Integrate Systems and Enhance Spending Oversight

The GAT Board, the Recovery Board, and OMB, have initiatives under  way to improve the accuracy and availability of federal spending data. The GAT Board, with a mandate of providing strategic direction, has four  working groups charged with developing approaches for improving the  quality of data in federal contract, grants, and financial management  systems, and for expanding the availability of these data to improve  oversight of federal funds. Through these working groups, the GAT Board has begun to develop  approaches to (1) standardize data elements across systems; (2) link  financial management systems with award systems so that spending data  can be reconciled with obligations; and (3) use the data to help identify  and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. However, the GAT Board’s mandate  does not provide it with the authority to implement these reforms;  therefore, it must rely on its working groups’ lead agencies to implement  approaches that it has approved. Current efforts are focused on identifying approaches to  standardize contract and grant award data elements to improve data  accuracy, and to date some progress has been made, such as:
Based in part on work of the GAT Board for the Federal Acquisition  Regulatory Council, DOD proposed a regulation requiring federal  agencies to use a uniform procurement identifier—a number that  could be attached to a contract so it can be tracked across various  systems throughout the procurement process. As Transparency Efforts Get Under Way, Opportunities Remain to Incorporate Lessons Learned from the Recovery Act

In many cases, the transparency initiatives of the GAT and Recovery  Boards, OMB, and key federal agencies build on lessons learned from the  operation of existing transparency systems. Because agencies did not collect spending data in a consistent manner,  the most expedient approach for Recovery Act reporting was to collect  data from fund recipients, which placed additional burden on them to  provide these data. Given the longer time frames to develop current transparency initiatives,  OMB and the GAT Board are working toward greater data consistency by  focusing on data standards. Their plans,  however, do not include long-term steps, such as working toward uniform  award identifiers that would improve award tracking with less burden on  recipients. Second, we found that early in the development of both the Recovery Act  reporting system and its procedures, federal officials listened to the  concerns of recipients and made changes to guidance in response, which  helped ensure they could meet those requirements. As we learned through our  work examining Recovery Act implementation, without similar outreach  under the current initiatives, reporting challenges may not be addressed,  potentially impairing the data’s accuracy and completeness, and  increasing burden on those doing the reporting. In contrast, authority for  implementing the current transparency initiatives is not as clearly defined  and authority for expanding transparency is centered in an executive  order rather than legislation. Moreover, unlike under the Recovery  Act, new transparency initiatives are being funded through existing  agency resources using agency personnel, as separate funding is  unavailable. Going forward,  without clear, legislated authority and requirements, the ability to sustain  progress and institutionalize transparency initiatives may be jeopardized  as priorities shift over time. In our recently released report, we recommended that OMB and the GAT  Board develop a long-term strategy for implementing data standards  across the federal government and for obtaining input from federal fund  recipients. The GAT Board, OMB and other cognizant agencies generally agreed  with our recommendations and identified actions underway or planned,  which they believe will operationalize comprehensive transparency  reforms and help them obtain stakeholder input. Our recently issued report also suggested that Congress could consider  legislating transparency requirements and establish clear lines of  authority to ensure that recommended approaches for improving  spending data transparency are implemented across the federal  government. Appendix I: Government Accountability and Transparency Board and Work Group Agency Partners

The Government Accountability and Transparency Board (GAT Board) is  composed of the following 11 members designated by the President from  among agency inspectors general, agency chief financial officers or  deputy secretaries, and senior officials from OMB.
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government spends more than $3.7 trillion annually, with more than $1 trillion awarded through contracts, grants, and loans. Improving transparency of this spending is essential to improve accountability. Recent federal laws have required increased public information on federal awards and spending.
This testimony is based on GAO's recently issued report GAO-13-758 . It addresses (1) the status of transparency efforts under way and (2) the extent to which new initiatives address lessons learned from the Recovery Act. GAO reviewed relevant legislation, executive orders, OMB circulars and guidance, and previous GAO work, including work on Recovery Act reporting. GAO also interviewed officials from OMB, the GAT Board, and other federal entities; government reform advocates; associations representing fund recipients; and a variety of contract and grant recipients.

What GAO Found

Several federal entities, including the Government Accountability and Transparency Board (GAT Board), the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (Recovery Board), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), have initiatives under way to improve the accuracy and availability of federal spending data. The GAT Board, through its working groups, developed approaches to standardize key data elements to improve data integrity; link financial management systems with award systems to reconcile spending data with obligations; and leverage existing data to help identify and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. With no dedicated funding, GAT Board plans are incremental and leverage ongoing agency initiatives and resources designed to improve existing business processes as well as improve data transparency. These initiatives are in an early stage, and some progress has been made to bring greater consistency to contract and grant award identifiers. The GAT Board's mandate is to provide strategic direction, not to implement changes. Further, while these early plans are being developed with input from a range of federal stakeholders, the GAT Board and OMB have not developed mechanisms for obtaining input from non-federal fund recipients.
Lessons from implementing the transparency objectives of the Recovery Act could help inform these new initiatives:
Standardize data to integrate systems and enhance accountability. Similar to the GAT Board's current focus on standardization, the Recovery Board recognized that standardized data would be more usable by the public and the Recovery Board for identifying potential misuse of federal funds. However, reporting requirements under the Recovery Act had to be met quickly. Because agencies did not collect spending data in a consistent manner, the most expedient approach was to collect data from fund recipients, even though similar data already existed in agency systems. Given the longer timeframes to develop current transparency initiatives, OMB and the GAT Board are working toward greater data consistency by focusing on data standards. Their plans, however, do not include long-term steps, such as working toward uniform award identifiers, that would improve award tracking with less burden on recipients.
Obtain stakeholder involvement as reporting requirements are developed. During the Recovery Act, federal officials listened to the concerns of recipients and made changes to guidance in response, which helped ensure they could meet those requirements. Without similar outreach under the current initiatives, reporting challenges may not be addressed, potentially impairing the data's accuracy and completeness, and increasing burden on those reporting.
Delineate clear requirements and lines of authority for implementing transparency initiatives. Unlike the present efforts to expand spending transparency, the Recovery Act provided OMB and the Recovery Board with clear authority and mandated reporting requirements. Given this clarity, transparency provisions were carried out successfully and on time. Going forward, without clear, legislated authority and requirements, the ability to sustain progress and institutionalize transparency initiatives may be jeopardized as priorities shift over time.

What GAO Recommends

In its report GAO recommended that the director of OMB, with the GAT Board, develop a long-term plan to implement comprehensive transparency reform, and increase efforts for obtaining stakeholder input to ensure reporting challenges are addressed. Further, Congress should consider legislating transparency requirements and establishing clear authority to implement these requirements to ensure that recommended approaches for improving transparency are carried out across the federal government. The GAT Board, OMB and other cognizant agencies generally concurred with GAO's recommendations.