Prior GAO Reports Related to the DATA Act and Data Quality

In November 2017, we issued our first report on data quality as required  by the DATA Act, which identified issues with the completeness and  accuracy of the data that agencies submitted for the second quarter of  fiscal year 2017, use of data elements, and presentation of the data on  Beta.USAspending.gov. OIG Reviews of Agencies’ DATA Act Submissions Varied in Scope and Type of Standards Used

Based on our review of the 53 OIG reports, the scope of all of the OIG  reviews covered their agencies’ submission of spending data for the  second quarter of fiscal year 2017 (i.e., January through March 2017). OIG Reports Show Variations in Agencies’ Use of Data Standards and Quality of Data, and Most OIGs Made Recommendations to Address Identified Deficiencies

According to the OIG reports, about half of the agencies met the OMB  and Treasury requirements for implementation and use of data standards. However, almost three-fourths of OIGs determined that their respective  agencies’ submissions were not complete, timely, accurate, or of quality. Based on their reports and survey responses, certain OIGs also found  data errors related to problems with how Treasury’s DATA Act broker  extracted information from external award reporting systems. Other errors that the OIGs identified may have  been caused by agency-specific internal control deficiencies. As shown in figure 4, our survey results show that  the 40 OIGs that tested a statistical sample of transactions generally  reported higher (projected) overall error rates for the accuracy and  completeness of data than for the timeliness of data. As a  result, the overall error rates are not comparable and a government-wide  error rate cannot be projected. Some examples of agency-specific control deficiencies reported by the  OIGs are as follows. Lack of effective procedures or controls. Recommendations for the agency to work with Treasury, OMB, or other  stakeholders external to the agency to resolve government-wide issues. In  June 2018, OMB issued new guidance requiring agencies to develop data  quality plans intended to achieve the objectives of the DATA Act. Treasury officials told us that they reviewed OIG reports that were publicly  available on Oversight.gov and are collaborating with OMB and the CFO  Council to identify and resolve government-wide issues, including issues  related to the broker, so that agencies can focus on resolving their  agency-specific issues. In addition, OMB, Treasury, and  CIGIE provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate. In its written comments, CIGIE noted that the report provides useful  information on OIG efforts to meet oversight and reporting responsibilities  under the DATA Act. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act)  includes provisions requiring us to review the Offices of Inspector  Generals’ (OIG) mandated reports and issue our own reports assessing  and comparing the completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and quality of the  data that federal agencies submit under the act and the federal agencies’  implementation and use of data standards. Our reporting objectives were to describe  1.  the reported scope of work covered and type of audit standards OIGs  used in their reviews of agencies’ DATA Act spending data;  2.  any variations in the reported implementation and use of data  standards and quality of agencies’ data, and any common issues and  recommendations reported by the OIGs; and  3.  the actions, if any, that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) have reported taking  or planning to take to use the results of OIG reviews to help monitor  agencies’ implementation of the act. We conducted this performance audit from September 2017 to July 2018  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Why GAO Did This Study

The DATA Act was enacted to increase accountability and transparency and, among other things, expanded on the required federal spending information that agencies are to submit to Treasury for posting to a publicly available website. The act also includes provisions requiring a series of oversight reports by agencies' OIGs and GAO.
The objectives of this report are to describe (1) the reported scope of work covered and type of audit standards OIGs used in their reviews of agencies' DATA Act spending data; (2) any variations in the reported implementation and use of data standards and quality of agencies' data, and any common issues and recommendations reported by the OIGs; and (3) the actions, if any, OMB and Treasury have reported taking or planning to take to use the results of OIG reviews to help monitor agencies' implementation of the act.
To address these objectives, GAO reviewed 53 OIG reports issued on or before January 31, 2018, that assessed agencies' first submissions of spending data for the second quarter of fiscal year 2017 and surveyed the OIGs to obtain additional information.

What GAO Found

The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act) requires agencies' Offices of Inspector General (OIG) to issue reports on their assessments of the quality of the agencies' spending data submissions and compliance with the DATA Act. The scope of all OIG reviews covered their agencies' second quarter fiscal year 2017 submissions. The files the OIGs used to select and review sample transactions varied based on data availability, and OIGs performed different types of reviews under generally accepted government auditing standards. Some OIGs reported testing a statistical sample of transactions that their agencies submitted and other OIGs reported testing the full population of submitted transactions. Because of these variations, the overall error rates reported by the OIGs are not fully comparable and a government-wide error rate cannot be projected.
According to the OIG reports, about half of the agencies met Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Department of the Treasury (Treasury) requirements for the implementation and use of data standards. The OIGs also reported that most agencies' first data submissions were not complete, timely, accurate, or of quality.
OIG survey responses show that OIGs generally reported higher (projected) overall error rates for the accuracy of data than for completeness and timeliness. OIGs reported certain errors that involve inconsistencies in how the Treasury broker (system that collects and validates agency-submitted data) extracted data from certain federal award systems that resulted in government-wide issues outside the agencies' control, while other errors may have been caused by agency-specific control deficiencies. For example, OIGs reported deficiencies related to agencies' lack of effective procedures or controls and systems issues. Most OIGs made recommendations to agencies to address identified concerns.
OMB staff and Treasury officials told GAO that they reviewed the OIG reports to better understand issues identified by the OIGs. OMB issued new guidance in June 2018 requiring agencies to develop data quality plans intended to achieve the objectives of the DATA Act. Treasury officials told GAO that they are collaborating with OMB and the Chief Financial Officers Council DATA Act Audit Collaboration working group to identify and resolve government-wide issues.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations in this report. The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) noted that GAO's report provides useful information on OIG efforts to meet oversight and reporting responsibilities under the DATA Act. OMB, Treasury, and CIGIE also provided technical comments that GAO incorporated as appropriate.