CRs are temporary appropriations acts. Figure 1 shows that the duration of individual CRs  enacted from 1999 to 2009 ranged from 1 to 157 days and the number of  CRs enacted in each year ranged from 2 to 21. CRs Provide Interim Funding for Agencies and Programs

During the period studied, fiscal years 1999-2009, every agency operated  under a CR for some period of time. For most, this meant temporarily  operating under a conservative rate of spending and limitations on certain  activities, as required by the standard provisions. These specific provisions—called legislative anomalies—may alleviate  some challenges during the CR period. These provisions provide direction  regarding the availability of funding and demonstrate the temporary nature  of the legislation. The amount  often is based on the prior fiscal year’s funding level or the “current rate”  but may also be based on a bill that has passed either the House or Senate. Legislative Anomalies May Alleviate Some Challenges of Operating during the CR Period

In addition to the standard provisions, CRs contained legislative anomalies  that provided funding and authorities that were different from the  standard provisions. 3). Under these circumstances, agencies have funding certainty  during the CR period. If  the authorization had not been extended, VA would have had to operate  with less funding. Selected Agencies’ Experiences Varied but All Reported That CRs Limited Management Options and Resulted in Inefficiencies

All six case study agencies reported that the most common inefficiencies  were delays to certain activities, such as hiring, and repetitive work,  including having to enter into several short-term contracts or issuing  multiple grants to the same recipient. The effects of the delays and the  amount of additional work varied by agency and by activity and depended  in large part on the number and duration of CRs. Other case study agencies reported similar experiences. Operating under CRs for a Prolonged Period Limited Some Agencies’ Decision- making Options

While some agency officials said that a single, long-term CR allowed for  better planning in the near term, reducing delays and the amount of  repetitive work, others said that operating under the specified rate for  operations for a prolonged period limited their decision-making options,  making trade-offs more difficult. Officials from three  agencies that we reviewed said that having multiyear budget authority— funds that are available for more than one fiscal year—was helpful for  managing funds in the compressed time period after regular  appropriations were enacted. CRs enable federal agencies to continue carrying  out their missions and delivering services until agreement is reached on  their regular appropriations. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this report are to describe:  1.  the history and characteristics of continuing resolutions (CR), and   2.  for selected case study agencies, how CRs have affected agency  operations and what actions have been taken to mitigate the effects of  CRs.
Why GAO Did This Study

In all but 3 of the last 30 years, Congress enacted a continuing resolution (CR) allowing federal agencies to continue operating when their regular appropriations had not been passed. CRs appropriate funds generally through rates for operations--funding formulas frequently referenced to the previous years' appropriations acts or a bill that has passed either the House or Senate--instead of a specific amount. GAO was asked to examine how CRs have changed over time, the effect CRs have had on selected agency operations, and actions that have been taken to mitigate the effects. Accordingly, GAO analyzed CR provisions enacted over the past 10 years and did a case study review of selected agencies that have considerable experience with CRs, represent different ways of providing services, and have different operational capabilities. Case study agencies were the Administration for Children and Families, Bureau of Prisons, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Food and Drug Administration, Veterans Benefits Administration, and Veterans Health Administration.

What GAO Found

Since 1999, all agencies operated under a CR for some period of time. The CRs included 11 standard provisions that provided direction on the availability of funding and demonstrated the temporary nature of CRs. During CR periods, these standard provisions required most agencies to operate under a conservative rate of spending and imposed limitations on certain activities. However, CRs provided some agencies or programs funding or direction different from what was provided by the standard provisions, especially under longer-term CRs. These specific provisions--called legislative anomalies--may alleviate some challenges of operating during the CR period. Over the last decade, the duration of individual CRs ranged from 1 to 157 days and the CR period lasted 3 months on average. All six case study agencies reported that operating within the limitations of the CR resulted in inefficiencies. The most common inefficiencies reported were delays to certain activities, such as hiring, and repetitive work, including issuing multiple grants or contracts. Case study agencies also reported that CRs limited management options, making trade-offs more difficult. Both the limitations in planning and amount of additional work varied by agency and activity and depended in large part on the number and duration of CRs. After operating under CRs for a prolonged period, agencies faced additional challenges executing their budget in a compressed time frame. Officials from three agencies said that multiyear budget authority was helpful for managing funds in these circumstances. CRs enabled agencies to continue to carry out their missions until the irregular appropriations were enacted.