This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-782 
entitled 'Electronic Government Act: Agencies Have Implemented Most 
Provisions, but Key Areas of Attention Remain' which was released on 
September 14, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 
U.S. Senate: 

September 2012: 

Electronic Government Act: 

Agencies Have Implemented Most Provisions, but Key Areas of Attention 
Remain: 

GAO-12-782: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-782, a report to the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The E-Government Act of 2002 was enacted to promote the use of the 
Internet and other technologies to improve citizen access to 
government information and services, improve government decision 
making, and enhance accountability and transparency. The act 
established an Office of Electronic Government within OMB to oversee 
the act’s implementation and required executive branch agencies to 
take a number of actions aimed at, among other things, using 
technology to better organize, maintain, and make information about 
the operations of the federal government available. 

With the 10th anniversary of the act’s passage approaching, GAO was 
asked to (1) assess OMB’s and agencies’ efforts to fulfill the act’s 
requirements to establish leadership and organizational 
responsibilities and (2) evaluate agencies’ progress in meeting the 
act’s requirements to enhance public access to government information 
and services. To do this, GAO reviewed and analyzed the requirements 
of the act and OMB and agency reports on compliance with these 
requirements, administered a questionnaire to responsible officials at 
24 major agencies, and interviewed agency and OMB officials. 

What GAO Found: 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other agencies have 
taken steps to carry out leadership and organizational 
responsibilities as called for by the E-Government Act. Specifically, 
OMB’s Office of Electronic Government has issued key guidance for 
agencies on complying with the requirements of the act and coordinated 
annual reporting to Congress on agency compliance with the act. In 
addition, the Federal Chief Information Officers Council has taken 
actions, such as publicizing best practices and recommendations for 
more efficient use of information technology and assisting in the 
implementation of the act’s requirements. Further, executive branch 
agencies have made significant progress in carrying out leadership 
responsibilities under the act, including designating officials with 
responsibility for ensuring compliance with the act, issuing internal 
policy and guidance, and developing performance measures. However, 
while OMB and agencies have reported annually on their compliance with 
the act as required, OMB did not always require agencies to report on 
all of the act’s provisions and has not been explicit in communicating 
to Congress provisions that it is not reporting on and the reasons 
why. For example, from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2009, OMB did 
not require agencies to report on how they enhanced public 
participation by electronic means for development and issuance of 
regulations. OMB officials stated that each year’s reporting 
requirements reflected particular administration priorities and were 
tailored to reduce the reporting burden on agencies. 

Agencies have taken numerous actions to address specific requirements 
for enhancing public access to government information. For example: 

* The General Services Administration has established, and agencies 
are using, a framework for electronic signatures. 

* A federal Internet portal was established to provide a consolidated 
point of public access to government information, although challenges 
remain in streamlining federal web operations. 

* Agencies have taken steps to ensure the availability of government 
information and services to individuals with diminished access to the 
Internet and those with disabilities. 

* A website was established to provide the public with information and 
the ability to comment on proposed federal regulations. 

* OMB and agencies have taken steps to improve the accessibility, 
usability, and preservation of government information through, for 
example, organizing website content and electronic records management. 

* OMB has issued policies on protecting the privacy of individuals’ 
personal information on government websites. 

However, OMB has yet to fully establish a repository and website for 
providing public access to information on government investments in 
research and development as required or issued guidance to agencies on 
participating in the site. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is recommending that OMB identify in its annual report to Congress 
the provisions of the act that are not included and why, establish a 
federal research and development repository and website, and issue 
guidance on agency participation in this site. In reviewing a draft of 
the report, OMB indicated that it had no comment. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-782]. For more 
information, contact Valerie C. Melvin at (202) 512-6304 or 
melvinv@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

OMB and Agencies Carried Out E-Government Leadership and 
Organizational Responsibilities, but Reporting Area Needs Attention: 

Federal Agencies Implemented Most Requirements for Promoting Use of 
the Internet and Other Technologies, but Continue to Work to Achieve 
the Act's Purposes: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the National Archives: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Treasury: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: E-Signature Requirements and Agency Responsibilities: 

Table 2: Websites Providing Government Information: 

Table 3: E-Gov Act Requirements Related to Disparate Access: 

Abbreviations: 

CIO: Chief Information Officer: 

E-Gov Act: Electronic Government Act of 2002: 

FOIA: Freedom of Information Act: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

IT: information technology: 

NARA: National Archives and Records Administration: 

OIRA: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: 

OIRM: Office of Information Resource Management: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OSTP: Office of Science and Technology Policy: 

PKI: Public Key Infrastructure: 

R&D: research and development: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 12, 2012: 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Susan M. Collins: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

Almost a decade has passed since the enactment of the Electronic 
Government Act (E-Gov Act) of 2002.[Footnote 1] The major purposes of 
the act include promoting the use of the Internet and emerging 
technologies to provide citizens with government information and 
services, improving decision making by policy makers, and making the 
government more transparent and accountable. Toward these ends, the 
act established the Office of Electronic Government within the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) to oversee the implementation of its 
provisions, and mandated specific actions for federal agencies to 
take, such as improving public access to agency information and 
allowing for electronic access to rulemaking proceedings. 

With the act's 10th anniversary approaching, you requested that we 
review its implementation. Specifically, as agreed with your offices, 
for selected Title I and II sections of the act, our objectives were 
to (1) assess OMB's and agencies' efforts to fulfill the act's 
requirements to establish leadership and organizational 
responsibilities and (2) evaluate agencies' progress in meeting the 
act's requirements to enhance public access to government information 
and services. 

To address these objectives, we identified and reviewed selected 
requirements of the act relevant to each objective, along with their 
legislative history. To determine the extent to which OMB and agencies 
had met these requirements, we collected and reviewed documentation on 
OMB actions to meet leadership responsibilities and interviewed 
officials from OMB's Office of Electronic Government, collected and 
reviewed documentation from the federal Chief Information Officers 
(CIO) Council[Footnote 2] and interviewed a council co-chair, 
interviewed officials from the General Services Administration (GSA) 
and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), 
administered a questionnaire to and conducted follow-up interviews 
with responsible officials at 24 executive branch agencies,[Footnote 
3] obtained and reviewed supporting documentation from these agencies, 
reviewed agencies' annual E-Gov status reports, and reviewed prior GAO 
reports on the E-Gov Act and related subjects. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 to September 
2012, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. A more 
complete description of our objectives, scope, and methodology is 
provided in appendix I. 

Background: 

The E-Government Act defines "electronic government" (e-government) as 
the use by the government of the Internet and other information 
technologies, together with the processes and people needed to 
implement them, to enhance the delivery of information and services to 
the public and others to make improvements in government operations. 
The basic goals of the act are to use e-government to improve the 
effectiveness, efficiency, and quality of government service. 

Prior to the E-Gov Act, federal agencies' management of information 
and technology was largely governed by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.[Footnote 4] These two laws 
gave OMB and other federal agencies responsibility for overseeing 
information and information technology (IT) management in the federal 
government. In May 2000, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs 
established a website to gather public comments on ways to improve 
government through electronic means. Subsequently, in 2001, the chair 
of the committee introduced legislation requiring a variety of e-
government initiatives, which ultimately became the E-Gov Act. In the 
same time period, OMB began working on an e-government strategy, 
primarily through its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
(OIRA) and through the activities of the Associate Director for 
Information Technology and E-Government. 

In February 2002, OMB issued its first E-Government Strategy[Footnote 
5] aimed at improving the quality of services to citizens, businesses, 
governments, and government employees, as well as the effectiveness 
and efficiency of the federal government through the use of IT. The 
strategy also designated 24 high-profile initiatives to lead the 
government's transformation to e-government in areas such as 
regulatory rulemaking, tax filing, disaster assistance, and 
recruitment. When the E-Gov Act was signed into law on December 17, 
2002, it reflected the experiences of both the committee and OMB in 
promoting e-government. 

Title I of the E-Gov Act outlined leadership and organizational 
responsibilities for OMB. Specifically, it expanded OMB's leadership 
role in the management of information and IT by establishing the 
Office of Electronic Government headed by a presidentially appointed 
Administrator (which replaced the position of Associate Director for 
Information Technology and E-Government). The E-Gov Administrator is 
responsible for assisting the Director and Deputy Director of OMB, and 
for working with the OIRA Administrator,[Footnote 6] in setting 
strategic direction for e-government, overseeing the implementation of 
e-government consistent with related laws, and performing e-government 
functions, including: 

* advising the OMB Director on the resources and strategies needed for 
e-government, 

* providing overall leadership and direction on e-government, and: 

* preparing an annual E-Gov Status Report for Congress. 

Title I also codified the CIO Council,[Footnote 7] with the OMB Deputy 
Director for Management as the chair, and detailed its organizational 
structure and responsibilities. As required by the act, membership of 
the council includes CIOs from federal executive agencies, OMB's 
Deputy Director for Management, the E-Government Administrator, and 
the OIRA Administrator. The E-Government Administrator is to lead the 
council on behalf of OMB's Deputy Director for Management, who serves 
as the Council Chair. In addition, Title I established the E-
Government fund for interagency projects. The fund is to be 
administrated by the GSA Administrator, with the assistance of the OMB 
E-Gov Administrator. 

Title II of the act assigned responsibilities for the management and 
promotion of electronic government activities. These include the 
following responsibilities: 

* OMB is to issue privacy guidelines for federal websites and conduct 
studies on integrated reporting and community technology centers. 

* GSA is to develop a framework for the interoperable use of digital 
signatures. 

* GSA also has the responsibility to develop and maintain an 
integrated federal Internet portal for public access to government 
information and to sponsor a study on disparities in Internet access 
and access to government information and services. 

* OMB, NARA, and federal agencies are to ensure the accessibility, 
usability, and preservation of government information. 

* Federal agency heads have the responsibility to lead their agencies 
in complying with the act, develop e-government performance measures, 
sponsor activities using IT, and develop an annual E-Gov status report. 

* OMB is to develop a publicly accessible repository and website about 
research and development funded by the federal government. 

GAO Has Previously Reported on Progress in Implementing the E-Gov Act: 

We have previously reported on various aspects of federal agencies' 
progress in implementing the E-Gov Act. Specifically, in December 
2004, we reported that, in most cases, OMB and federal agencies had 
taken positive steps toward implementing selected provisions of Titles 
I and II of the act.[Footnote 8] For example, we noted OMB's 
establishment of the Office of E-Government and the issuance of its 
first annual report to Congress on implementation of the act. Further, 
we noted that the federal Internet portal had been established. 

We also reported actions that were in progress for other provisions of 
the act. Among these, we noted that GSA and other agencies were 
implementing requirements for using electronic signatures. Also, 
studies by OMB on integrated reporting and community technology 
centers were in progress. In addition, the federal courts and 
regulatory agencies were in the process of developing websites to 
provide information to the public. 

However, even with these accomplishments, we reported that not all 
requirements had been fully addressed. For example, OMB had not 
ensured that a study on using IT to enhance crisis preparedness and 
response had been conducted as required by the act, or ensured 
development and maintenance of a required repository and website of 
information about research and development funded by the federal 
government. 

Accordingly, we made recommendations to the Director of OMB to take 
actions to ensure that the crises preparedness report and the 
development and maintenance of the research and development repository 
and website were carried out as required by the act. We stressed that 
until these issues were addressed, the government risked not fully 
achieving the act's objective to promote better use of the Internet 
and other information technologies to improve government services and 
enhance opportunities for citizen participation in government. OMB 
generally agreed with our recommendations and took actions to 
implement them. 

OMB and Agencies Carried Out E-Government Leadership and 
Organizational Responsibilities, but Reporting Area Needs Attention: 

OMB, the CIO Council, and federal agencies have taken actions to 
fulfill most of the leadership and organizational responsibilities 
required by the E-Gov Act. Specifically, OMB's Office of Electronic 
Government, which was established to provide leadership and 
organizational direction, has issued key guidance on implementing the 
act's requirements and taken other actions to provide leadership and 
direction. In addition, the CIO Council has provided best practices 
and other assistance to agencies consistent with the act's 
requirements, and its current initiatives are focused on developing 
policies regarding newer technologies, such as mobile computing. 
Further, agencies have taken steps to fulfill leadership and 
organizational responsibilities, such as issuing policies and 
guidance, assigning responsibilities to designated officials, and 
developing performance measures that demonstrate progress toward 
agency strategic goals. However, although OMB has generally met the 
annual reporting requirement, it has not always reported on all of the 
provisions called for in the act, and it has not been explicit in 
identifying and explaining these omissions in its reports to Congress. 

OMB's Office of Electronic Government Has Taken Steps to Provide 
Leadership and Organizational Direction: 

Since we last reported in 2004, OMB's Office of E-Government has 
continued to take actions to provide leadership and organizational 
direction for agency e-government efforts. Specifically, the office 
has issued a variety of guidance for agencies aimed at assisting them 
in implementing provisions of the E-Gov Act and carrying out related 
activities. For example, each year, the office has issued 
implementation guidance on specific actions required under the act and 
responsibilities to support ongoing initiatives and new actions. 

The guidance has covered specific provisions of the act, such as those 
related to electronic authentication, the management of agencies' 
websites, and the implementation of privacy provisions of the act, 
among others. In addition, OMB has issued guidance on activities that, 
while not specifically called for by the act, are closely related to 
the goals of e-government. These include guidance on improving public 
access to and dissemination of government information and using the 
Federal Enterprise Architecture's data reference model; an Open 
Government directive calling for increased transparency, 
participation, and collaboration at federal agencies; and guidance on 
the use of social media and third-party websites and applications. 

Further, the office is responsible for coordinating the annual 
reporting on implementation of the E-Gov Act's requirements. It does 
this by issuing reporting instructions to agencies and providing a 
summary report of the agencies' responses to Congress. In addition, 
the office has annually provided to Congress a report on the benefits 
of e-government initiatives more broadly. For example, the fiscal year 
2012 report on e-government benefits[Footnote 9] contains descriptions 
of each e-government initiative and related objectives, costs, 
benefits, risks, and development status, as well as sources and 
distribution of e-government funding. 

OMB's recent efforts to promote the use of new technology to improve 
government information and services have focused on initiatives that 
go beyond the requirements of the E-Gov Act. For example, OMB has 
recognized that changes in technology provide opportunities but also 
present new challenges in making information and services accessible 
to the public and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the 
federal government. Specifically, in December 2010, OMB issued its 25 
Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology 
Management,[Footnote 10] which aimed to address some of these 
challenges, including leveraging the most effective and efficient 
available technologies. 

In April 2012, we reported on the progress OMB and key federal 
agencies had made on selected actions items in OMB's plan.[Footnote 
11] We noted that OMB and key federal agencies had made progress on 
action items in the IT Reform Plan, but highlighted several areas 
where more remained to be done. We made recommendations to three 
agencies to complete key IT reform action items and to OMB to complete 
key action items, accurately characterize the items' status, and 
establish measures for IT reform initiatives. The three agencies 
generally agreed with our recommendations. However, while OMB agreed 
to complete key action items, it disagreed with the latter two 
recommendations, noting that the agency believed it was characterizing 
the items' status correctly and that measures were not warranted. We 
maintained that these actions were necessary. 

Further, in May 2012, OMB released a strategy for digital government, 
Digital Government: Building a 21rst Century Platform to Better Serve 
the American People, which emphasizes that emerging technologies such 
as cloud computing and the widespread use of mobile devices are 
changing expectations about how the government delivers digital 
information and services.[Footnote 12] This strategy outlines three 
objectives: 

* ensure access to digital government information anywhere, anytime, 
on any device; 

* procure and manage devices, applications, and data in smart, secure, 
and affordable ways; and: 

* spur innovation and improve the quality of services by enabling the 
public, entrepreneurs, and government programs to better leverage 
federal data. 

To carry out these objectives, the strategy calls for managing 
information as discrete pieces of open data that can be presented in 
useful ways for the consumer of that information; using shared 
platforms within and across agencies to reduce costs, streamline 
development, and ensure consistency; creating, managing, and 
presenting data in a customer-centric way; and ensuring that these 
services are provided safely and securely. For each of these areas, 
the strategy outlines milestone actions, responsible federal entities, 
and time frames of 1 to 12 months. 

Federal CIO Council Carries Out Responsibilities Identified in Law, 
and Agency CIOs Actively Participate in Council Activities: 

The E-Gov Act codified the CIO Council as the principle interagency 
forum for improving agency practices on matters such as the design, 
modernization, use, sharing, and performance of agency information 
resources. The council's responsibilities include developing 
recommendations for information and IT management policies, 
procedures, and standards; sharing management best practices; and 
working with the Office of Personnel Management to assess and address 
the needs of the federal government's IT workforce. In addition, the 
act requires the CIOs of each of the 24 agencies to participate in the 
functions of the council and monitor the implementation of information 
technology standards for the federal government developed by the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology and promulgated by the 
Secretary of Commerce, including common standards for 
interconnectivity and interoperability, categorization of federal 
government electronic information, and computer system efficiency and 
security. 

The council helps to facilitate the exchange of IT management best 
practices for CIOs to effectively use IT. Through its website, 
[Hyperlink, http://www.cio.gov, the council provides guidance for the 
IT community from OMB, documents created by the council committees, 
and presentations given at council events. The website also includes 
information on e-government areas, such as citizen participation, 
accessibility, records management, and privacy. The council's 
committees help to perform its activities. For example, the Best 
Practices Committee has published recommendations and experiences on 
the CIO Council's website and contributed to the development of 
resources, such as guidance on establishing a federal privacy program. 
Further, the council's Accessibility Committee has a best practices 
library, allowing agencies to share their best practices concerning 
the organization and implementation of Section 508 policies.[Footnote 
13] 

In addition, all of the agencies in our study reported that their CIOs 
participate in the functions of the federal CIO Council. This is 
accomplished in a variety of ways: the agencies reported that their 
CIOs regularly attend the monthly meetings of the council, and chair 
or participate in its committees, subcommittees, working groups, and 
other activities. Agency CIOs are also responsible for the approval of 
information security policy used to promulgate guidance, legislation, 
and directives from the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, OMB, and Congress. 

Agencies Took Actions to Carry Out Leadership Responsibilities: 

According to the act, agency heads are responsible for (1) complying 
with the requirements of the act and (2) ensuring that the information 
resource management policies and guidance established under the act by 
OMB are communicated promptly and effectively to all relevant 
officials within their agency. 

All of the 24 agencies have taken various actions in response to the 
act's requirements by, for example, issuing agencywide policy and 
guidance that addresses compliance with the E-Gov Act. Moreover, to 
ensure compliance with the act, agencies reported that they are 
integrating e-government requirements and activities within their 
standard operating procedures, internal governance mechanisms (e.g., 
investment review boards, capital planning and investment control 
process, working groups, councils, and e-government project management 
offices), policies, and guidance. For example, one agency's Office of 
the CIO works with its IT governance bodies, such as the CIO Executive 
Board, to disseminate guidance to its component CIOs on E-Gov Act 
implementation. Another agency ensured compliance by establishing an E-
Gov Project Management Organization to manage the agency's 
implementation of the act. 

Further, agencies reported taking various approaches to assigning e-
government responsibilities. For example, one agency reported that its 
E-Gov Office is located within the Office of the CIO and serves in a 
coordinating role to facilitate the reporting of e-government-related 
accomplishments and to monitor the funding of selected e-government 
initiatives. Another agency's e-government responsibilities are shared 
by its Office of Information Resource Management (OIRM), Division of 
Information Systems, Division of Administrative Services within OIRM, 
and the CIO. Further, one agency reported that its e-government 
responsibilities were dispersed between its Office of Environmental 
Information and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. In 
addition, many agencies appointed their CIO as the official 
responsible for addressing their E-Gov Act activities. 

Agencies Established Performance Measures, but Challenges Remain: 

According to the act, agencies are to take various actions with regard 
to performance measures. Specifically, agencies are to: 

* develop performance measures that demonstrate how electronic 
government enables progress toward agency objectives, strategic goals, 
and statutory mandates; 

* consider measuring performance in customer service, agency 
productivity, and adoption of innovative information technology; and: 

* link their performance goals as appropriate to key groups, including 
citizens, businesses, and other governments and to internal federal 
government operations. 

Related to the requirements, OMB has instructed agencies that 
performance measures that are both citizen-and productivity-related 
must be linked with each agency's Annual Performance Plan and its 
Strategic Plan, and be used to meet agency objectives, strategic 
goals, and statutory mandates in e-government and IT. Performance 
measures help agency officials to focus on mission and key activities, 
demonstrate the impact of their budget requests, demonstrate benefits 
to the public, and help to inform and support program-level management 
decisions. 

All of the 24 agencies in our study reported developing performance 
measures to demonstrate how e-government initiatives enable progress 
toward meeting their mission (e.g., agency objectives, strategic 
goals, and statutory mandates). For example, agencies provided links 
to their enterprisewide IT goals, including e-government, within their 
agencywide and IT strategic plans. Specifically, one agency had 
performance measures for an e-government initiative that supported its 
goal to strengthen financial integrity and management and internal 
controls. This initiative is responsible for managing, reconciling, 
and delivering timely and accurate reporting of grant and financial 
accounting data for over 160 grant appropriations. Another agency's IT 
strategic priorities included strengthening IT management capabilities 
through its electronic government initiatives to provide IT tools, 
services, and repositories, along with worldwide access to information 
and systems, both internally and to external partners. Further, one 
agency reported that it had developed performance measures that 
demonstrate how e-government enables progress toward meeting its 
mission to expand disaster assistance resources and international 
trade data. 

Additionally, to demonstrate how electronic government helped them to 
achieve agency goals, agencies were required to describe in their 
fiscal year 2011 E-Gov Act reports to OMB how they were reducing 
errors in electronic submissions through agency-sponsored e-government 
initiatives. For example, [hyperlink, http://www.grants.gov] is the 
federal government website that provides information on over 1,000 
grant programs awarded by 26 grant-making agencies and other federal 
grant-making organizations. An agency reported that the website 
reduced application submission error rates by performing data 
validation checks, based on information in agencies' application 
packages, to ensure that the required field in the application forms 
has been appropriately populated. Further, another agency reported 
that, through its electronic data collection system, it had reduced 
respondent burden and improved internal efficiencies by reducing the 
cost of printing, mailing, collecting, and data conversion of paper 
forms. 

All 24 agencies also reported that they tracked customer satisfaction 
in a number of ways, including through the use of agency scorecards 
and the American Customer Satisfaction survey index.[Footnote 14] 
Specifically, one agency reported that it tracked measures related to 
customer service, including satisfaction with the quality and service 
of products and agency program enrollees' satisfaction compared 
against its industry standard. 

Twenty-three agencies reported that they had developed measures of 
agency productivity. For example, one agency reported examples of 
using technology for reducing the cost of transactions, improving 
compliance with government requirements (e.g., public health and 
safety), enhancing national security by facilitating the sharing of 
information among authorized agencies, and providing access to more 
accurate, complete, and timely information. 

Further, 22 agencies reported that they had developed performance 
measures for the adoption of innovative IT, including the appropriate 
use of commercial best practices. One agency's strategic plan included 
a goal describing technology and innovation focusing on accelerating 
the development and adoption of new, effective programs, processes, 
and strategies. Specifically, these included implementing technology 
to connect customers to data, resources, experts, and peers; 
supporting research and development of technology and other 
innovations; and supporting the development of technology to enhance 
accessibility for citizens with disabilities. Three agencies also had 
incorporated research, design, and development of emerging 
technologies within IT policy, while 5 others had related goals and 
strategy measures within their IT strategic plan. 

Twenty-three agencies reported linking performance measures to key 
groups, including citizens, businesses, and other governments, and to 
internal federal government operations. Moreover, in its fiscal year 
2011 E-Gov Status Report, OMB highlighted agencies' accomplishments 
that improve citizen engagement related to the administration's Open 
Government initiative.[Footnote 15] The report stated that the Open 
Government initiative embodies the spirit of the E-Government Act by 
ensuring public trust and establishing a system of transparency, 
public participation, and collaboration.[Footnote 16] OMB provided a 
few highlights of executive agency accomplishments regarding 
initiatives that provide access to the citizens. The agencies 
described initiatives that targeted various groups, including 
consumers, researchers, veterans, and students. 

Eighteen agencies said they planned to continue to work on developing 
performance measures for e-government. For example, one agency 
reported that this was an ongoing process that required staying alert 
to changes and evolution in technology, programs, and processes. 
Another agency described the need for tools to provide accurate 
performance information in a consistent and timely manner. The agency 
will address this by collaborating internally and communicating with 
the public to improve customer service. 

Although agencies have made progress in this area, in September 2011 
we reported on challenges that agencies faced with establishing e-
government initiative performance measures.[Footnote 17] Specifically, 
we reported that four E-Gov Fund projects had defined performance 
metrics that aligned with many, though not all, of their major goals 
and intended benefits. Although the E-Government Administrator (who 
also serves as the Federal CIO) announced the termination of two of 
the projects reviewed in May 2011, the two ongoing projects did not 
yet have fully defined metrics that aligned with all of the major 
goals and intended benefits. Thus, managers and stakeholders could not 
effectively assess project results and provide credible evidence of 
progress, which is particularly important in a resource-constrained 
environment. We recommended that GSA ensure that performance metrics 
that align with all project goals be developed for ongoing e-
government projects. GSA concurred with the recommendations and stated 
that it would work to align goals and performance measures for E-Gov 
Fund projects that lacked such measures. 

Agencies and OMB Submitted Annual E-Gov Reports, but Reports Could 
Benefit from Greater Transparency: 

The E-Gov Act requires each agency to compile and submit to the 
Director of OMB an annual report on the status of its implementation 
of e-government initiatives, compliance with the E-Gov Act, and how e-
government initiatives of the agency improve performance in delivering 
programs to constituencies. Furthermore, the act requires the Director 
of OMB to submit to Congress an annual E-Government status report. 
This report is required to contain (1) a summary of the information 
reported by agencies on the status of their implementation of the act, 
(2) information on the operation of the E-Gov Fund, and (3) 
descriptions of federal government compliance with other goals and 
provisions of the act. OMB has the authority to determine when and how 
agencies are to submit their annual reports. 

All of the 24 agencies have submitted annual reports to OMB. For 
example, in their fiscal year 2011 reports, agencies provided 
information required by OMB, such as descriptions and status of their 
top three e-government IT accomplishments and information on their 
compliance with goals and certain provisions of the act. Specifically, 
this included information on how agencies have implemented the use of 
electronic signatures, utilized management tools to improve the 
dissemination of and access to agency information by the public, and 
complied with Section 508 requirements. 

Fifteen of the agencies stated that their e-government reports had 
value. For example, 7 agencies felt that the reports helped to 
highlight their annual e-government accomplishments, 3 agencies used 
them to evaluate how they were addressing act requirements, and 1 
agency used them to cite effective e-government practices. However, 
the remaining 9 agencies questioned the value of preparing and 
submitting the annual reports to OMB. For example, 1 agency reported 
that it did not use the report for internal program evaluation or 
management. In addition, 3 of these 9 agencies noted that preparing 
the reports required dedicated resources and working within short time 
frames, and that the reports duplicated information they had already 
provided to OMB through other means. 

For its part, OMB has submitted its reports to Congress annually, as 
required by the act. However, it has not consistently met all of the 
reporting requirements. Specifically, while its reports have included 
summaries of the information reported by agencies and information on 
the operations of the E-Gov Fund, they have not always addressed all 
goals and provisions of the act. For example, from fiscal year 2005 to 
fiscal year 2010, OMB did not report on agencies' progress in 
promoting the use of electronic signatures. Further, the agencies were 
not required by OMB to report on how they enhanced public 
participation by electronic means for development and issuance of 
regulations from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2009, but were 
required to describe them from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2011. 
Moreover, since 2010, OMB did not fully address the accessibility, 
usability, and preservation of government information, including the 
organization and categorization of such information. 

In discussing this matter, OMB officials said their guidance does not 
always require agencies to include all the provisions required by the 
act, and, accordingly, OMB does not fully report on these areas. 
Further, OMB officials stated that the reporting guidance they issue 
each year is determined by the administration's priorities. For 
example, OMB has, in certain years, required the agencies to report on 
other accomplishments outside of the act, such as progress related to 
the administration's Open Government initiative. 

However, with the exception of fiscal year 2005, OMB did not include 
in its annual report to Congress any information to explain which 
particular provisions of the act were not being addressed and why. In 
its fiscal year 2005 E-Gov reporting instructions, OMB stated that to 
reduce the burden on agencies, it did not require agencies to report 
on certain provisions of the act related to privacy, since it could 
obtain the information through other means, such as agencies' annual 
reporting on compliance with the Federal Information Security 
Management Act, which includes privacy reporting. Yet, OMB did not 
include such an explanation of its reporting for other years. 
Excluding such information limits the transparency of the E-Gov 
reports and, consequently, their value in informing Congress about 
actions taken to implement the act. 

Federal Agencies Implemented Most Requirements for Promoting Use of 
the Internet and Other Technologies, but Continue to Work to Achieve 
the Act's Purposes: 

OMB, GSA, and other federal agencies have taken numerous actions to 
meet the E-Gov Act's requirements for promoting the use of the 
Internet and other technologies for providing public access to 
government information and services. For example, agencies have been 
using GSA's framework for electronic signatures and have contributed 
to the development and use of the federal Internet portal, [Hyperlink, 
http://www.USA.gov]. In addition, OMB, GSA, and agencies have 
established mechanisms and published reports to identify disparities 
in Internet access and ways to provide such access to those who lack 
it. Further, agencies have addressed requirements for improving the 
transparency of and public involvement in the regulatory process. 
Agencies have also taken actions to improve the organization and 
categorization of government information by adhering to OMB guidance, 
following NARA guidance relating to government information on the 
Internet, sponsoring activities to engage the public in the 
development and implementation of policies and programs, and 
implementing OMB requirements for protecting the privacy of personal 
information collected through agency websites. 

However, key areas of attention remain to accomplish the act's 
purposes of promoting electronic government and use of other 
technologies. For example, while the federal government continues to 
take actions to improve transparency through various websites, we have 
reported on concerns with the accuracy and reliability of this 
information. Also, OMB has not met the act's requirement for 
establishing a website and repository that are to provide information 
about research and development funded by the federal government, which 
would assist the public in tracking the government's investment in 
basic research. 

Agencies Are Using GSA's Framework for Electronic Signatures and Have 
Plans for Expanding Their Use: 

The Senate Committee Report accompanying the E-Gov Act stressed the 
use of electronic signatures (e-signatures) to help promote access to 
government information by achieving the interoperable implementation 
of secure electronic transactions within government. An e-signature is 
a method of signing a message that (1) identifies and authenticates a 
particular person as the source of the electronic message and (2) 
indicates that person's approval of the information contained in the 
electronic message. The E-Gov Act directed the GSA Administrator, 
supported by the Director of OMB, to establish a framework that allows 
for efficient interoperability among executive agencies when using e-
signatures. It also authorized appropriations for GSA to ensure the 
development and operation of a federal bridge certification 
authority[Footnote 18] for e-signature compatibility. Executive 
agencies were required to ensure that their methods for use and 
acceptance of e-signatures were compatible with the framework and 
related policies. Table 1 outlines these requirements and agency 
responsibilities. 

Table 1: E-Signature Requirements and Agency Responsibilities: 

Requirement: Establish a framework to allow efficient interoperability 
among executive agencies when using electronic signatures, including 
processing of digital signatures; 
Agency responsibility assigned: GSA and OMB. 

Requirement: Ensure the development and operation of a federal bridge 
certification authority for digital signature compatibility; 
Agency responsibility assigned: GSA. 

Requirement: Ensure that methods for use and acceptance of electronic 
signatures are compatible with the relevant policies and procedures 
issued by the Director of OMB; 
Agency responsibility assigned: Executive agencies. 

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act. 

[End of table] 

GSA, OMB, and agencies have taken actions to address the requirements 
of this section of the act. Specifically, according to a GSA official, 
the agency established the Federal Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) in 
September 2002,[Footnote 19] which included the federal bridge 
certification authority and common framework for e-signature 
compatibility authorized by the act. GSA has documented its efforts at 
[Hyperlink, http://www.idmanagement.gov], which provides information 
on electronic authentication, including links to information on the 
Federal PKI; the identity, credentialing, and access management 
initiative (formerly the e-authentication initiative); and Homeland 
Security Presidential Directive 12.[Footnote 20] 

Through its fiscal year 2011 E-Gov report to Congress,[Footnote 21] 
OMB provided examples of how agencies were using e-signatures, which 
included processing travel documents, securing sensitive e-mail, and 
verifying information on financial disclosure forms. Additionally, one 
agency noted that it had ongoing efforts to implement provisions of 
the identity, credentialing, and access management initiative by 
accepting e-signatures from other government agencies using the 
personal identity verification cards. Another agency indicated that it 
used an e-signature tool, developed and provided for free to the 
agency by GSA, in submitting comments for the Federal Register. 
Additionally, over half of the agencies in our study reported having 
plans to expand their use of e-signatures. 

Federal Internet Portal Has Provided Benefits, but Challenges Remain: 

The E-Gov Act called for the establishment of a federal Internet 
portal to provide the public with consolidated access to government 
information and services from a single point, organized according to 
function, topic, and the needs of the public rather than agency 
jurisdiction. According to the act, to the extent practicable, the 
portal is to be designed and operated according to specific criteria. 
For example, the portal is to provide information and services 
directed to key groups (e.g., citizens, businesses, and other 
governments). It also is to make Internet-based services relevant to a 
given citizen activity available from a single point, and integrate 
information according to function or topic. Further, the portal is to 
consolidate access to federal information with Internet-based 
information and services provided by state, local, and tribal 
governments. Lastly, the act requires federal agency heads to support 
the efforts of GSA to develop, maintain, and promote an integrated 
Internet-based system of delivering federal government information and 
services to the public via the federal Internet portal. 

GSA and federal agencies have taken various actions to address this 
requirement. As we have previously reported,[Footnote 22] OMB's 2003 
report to Congress identified [hyperlink, http://www.FirstGov.gov] as 
the federal Internet portal prescribed by the act, and we noted that 
it generally adhered to the criteria established by the act. The 
portal was launched in September 2000 as an interagency initiative, 
managed by GSA and supported and assisted by OMB and federal agencies. 
With this support and assistance, GSA established the portal to 
provide the public with access to government information and services, 
and GSA has maintained and promoted it since that time. According to 
GSA, the portal was designed and organized according to online 
services rather than by agency. This allows the public to conduct 
business with the government via the Internet without having to know 
how the government is organized. 

In January 2007, [hyperlink, http://www.FirstGov.gov] became 
[hyperlink, http://www.USA.gov] because, according to GSA, it received 
feedback from the public that the website should have a name that was 
easier to understand and remember. Since that time, GSA has continued 
to maintain and promote the portal, adding increased functionality and 
new information. For example, it has expanded the search functionality 
on USA.gov and added information on mobile applications available for 
download that provide access to information on a variety of government 
services. According to GSA, USA.gov received over 55 million public 
visits in 2011 and currently is linked to over 13 million other sites. 

Almost all agencies in our review indicated that they use, maintain, 
and promote the use of USA.gov--a requirement of the act--primarily 
through links on their agency websites. GSA noted that it also works 
closely with staff in other agencies to push important information to 
the public through guest blog posts on [hyperlink, 
http://www.Blog.USA.gov], targeted e-mail marketing, and the promotion 
of its most popular publications on [hyperlink, 
http://www.Publications.USA.gov]. 

In addition to the effort to use and promote USA.gov, OMB has taken 
steps to improve transparency and participation through other federal 
websites. For example, in response to a Presidential memorandum issued 
on January 21, 2009, OMB issued an open government directive,[Footnote 
23] which, among other things, called for the transparency, 
participation, and collaboration of federal agencies in publishing 
government information online. As a result, citizens can now access 
consolidated government information through [hyperlink, 
http://www.data.gov], [hyperlink, http://www.itdashboard.gov], and 
[Hyperlink, http://www.USAspending.gov]. While these websites can be 
accessed through USA.gov, they are not dependent on USA.gov. These 
websites are described in table 2. 

Table 2: Websites Providing Government Information: 

Website: USA.gov; 
Description: The federal government's official website that provides a 
centralized point of entry where the public can locate government 
information, benefits, and services. 

Website: Data.gov; 
Description: This website is a platform that provides access to 
federal datasets, such as healthcare and unemployment. With a 
searchable data catalog, Data.gov helps the public find, access, and 
download non-sensitive government data and tools in a variety of 
formats. 

Website: IT Dashboard; 
Description: This website shows the government, the public, and other 
stakeholders how federal IT investments are being made by presenting 
information on the cost and schedule of agencies' IT investments. By 
offering insight into the effectiveness of government technology 
programs, the IT Dashboard guides budget and policy decisions 
governing federal IT. 

Website: USAspending.gov; 
Description: This website provides information to the public largely 
from the Federal Procurement Data System, which contains information 
about federal contracts, and the Federal Assistance Award Data System, 
which contains information about federal financial assistance, such as 
grants, loans, insurance, and programs like Social Security. 

Source: GAO analysis of USA.gov, Data.gov, the IT Dashboard, and 
USAspending.gov. 

[End of table] 

We have previously reported on federal websites and noted the benefits 
they provided by making additional federal government information 
available to the public, but also noted challenges that OMB and 
agencies faced related to them.[Footnote 24] Specifically, in 2010 and 
2011, we noted that the accuracy and reliability of data provided on 
[hyperlink, http://www.USAspending.gov] and [Hyperlink, 
http://www.itdashboard.gov] needed to be improved and that OMB should 
ensure complete reporting of information on these websites for a 
comprehensive view into the details of federal performance and 
spending for the public. We recommended that OMB and agencies take 
actions to ensure complete and accurate reporting of federal 
information on these websites. OMB and agencies generally concurred 
with our recommendations. 

In addition, the federal government is facing challenges in managing 
federal agency websites. For example, according to a report published 
as part of the .gov Reform Initiative,[Footnote 25] 56 agencies 
reported maintaining 1,489 domains and an estimated 11,013 websites. 
The agencies acknowledged that by having fewer .gov domains, they 
could improve customer experience, promote consistency in design, 
eliminate duplication and clutter, and improve search results, thus 
providing easier access to information. The .gov Reform Initiative is 
aimed at addressing the state of federal websites by calling for 
agencies to improve customer service and manage their web operations 
more efficiently. 

The use of these websites illustrates how the Internet is allowing the 
public and government to access, deliver, and use services and 
information in ways that, while consistent with the goals of the E-Gov 
Act, are more varied than envisioned when the act was enacted. As the 
Internet evolves, individuals increasingly access information in 
multiple ways, such as through different search engines and links 
among sites. Altogether, these uses reflect a larger and more 
integrated network, and less reliance on a single portal for accessing 
government information. 

Report on Integrating Federal Information and Pilot Projects Completed 
by Deadline: 

The E-Gov Act established two requirements aimed at enhancing the 
interoperability of information systems maintained by the federal 
government and reducing federal information collection burdens on the 
public. As a first requirement, the Director of OMB was to oversee a 
study and report to Congress on the integration of data elements 
collected electronically by agencies under federal statutes that would 
increase interoperability, assist the public in electronically 
submitting information to agencies, and enable citizens to integrate 
information from different agencies. The second requirement called for 
OMB to designate up to five pilot projects to provide input for a 
study on describing progress toward integrating federal information 
systems across agencies. 

OMB has taken actions to address these requirements. Specifically, in 
December 2005, OMB issued the results of its study, Report to Congress 
on Implementation of Section 212 of the E-Government Act of 2002, 
which described how it addressed the first requirement of this section 
of the act. For example, the report highlighted that the development 
and implementation of the Federal Enterprise Architecture[Footnote 26] 
has improved the exchange and use of data between multiple systems in 
order to enhance interoperability between agencies, assist the public 
in submitting electronic information to agencies, and enable people to 
integrate information from different agencies. 

The report also identified five lines of business that OMB stated 
served as the pilot projects to address the second requirement. These 
initiatives reflected President Bush's goal to expand the use of 
electronic information in governmentwide functions: (1) case 
management, (2) federal health architecture, (3) grants management, 
(4) human resource management, and (5) financial management. The 
report highlighted the progress that the projects had made toward 
streamlining and improving data collection systems interoperability 
and public access to cross-agency information. Five separate agencies 
served as managing partners, with responsibility for providing 
leadership and management of the pilot projects. Other agencies served 
as participating members in the pilot projects and provided assistance 
through shared services. For example, they provided expertise in 
certain areas to peer agencies at rates lower than those of comparable 
private sector services. 

OMB provided updates to the five lines of business in its fiscal year 
2012 report to Congress on e-government benefits.[Footnote 27] For 
example, it noted that the grants management line of business had 
resulted in [Hyperlink, http://www.grants.gov], a single portal that 
enables the grants community to find and apply for grants, which has 
reduced or eliminated the need for separate systems across 26 agencies. 

OMB, GSA, and Agencies Implemented Requirements to Address Access 
Limitations: 

The E-Gov Act included requirements for OMB, GSA, and agencies to make 
government information more accessible to persons without access to 
the Internet and to persons with disabilities. Further, the act 
required OMB and GSA to complete studies on community technology 
centers and disparate access to government information on the 
Internet. Table 3 identifies specific requirements in the act related 
to these areas. 

Table 3: E-Gov Act Requirements Related to Disparate Access: 

E-Gov Act requirement: To the extent practicable, agency heads must 
consider the impact on persons without access to the Internet, ensure 
that the availability of government services and information has not 
been diminished for individuals who lack access to the Internet, and 
pursue alternate modes of delivery that would make the information and 
services more accessible to those who lack such access; 
Responsible agency: Federal agencies. 

E-Gov Act requirement: All actions taken by agencies under the act are 
to be in compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
1973. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies 
to ensure that their development, maintenance, and procurement of 
electronic and IT equipment takes into account the needs of people 
with disabilities to have access to and use of information that is 
comparable to that of individuals without disabilities; 
Responsible agency: Federal agencies. 

E-Gov Act requirement: The Administrator of the Office of E-Government 
is to ensure that a study is conducted to evaluate the best practices 
of community technology centers, which provide Internet access to the 
public, and submit a report to Congress on the findings of this study; 
Responsible agency: OMB. 

E-Gov Act requirement: The E-Gov Administrator, in consultation with 
other agencies, is to develop an online tutorial that explains how to 
access government information and services on the Internet; 
Responsible agency: OMB. 

E-Gov Act requirement: GSA is to sponsor a study on disparities in 
Internet access for online government services; 
Responsible agency: GSA. 

Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act. 

[End of table] 

Nearly all 24 agencies described actions they have taken when 
promulgating policies and implementing programs regarding government 
information and services over the Internet to (1) consider the impact 
on persons without access to the Internet, (2) ensure that the 
availability of government information and services was not diminished 
for individuals who lack access to the Internet, and (3) pursue 
alternate modes of delivery to individuals who do not own computers or 
lack access to the Internet. All of the agencies described actions 
they had taken to improve access to information, including the use of 
public events, television, telephone, newspapers, mail, and reading 
rooms for disseminating information about their programs, policy 
decisions, and activities. In addition, 12 agencies told us that they 
have plans to continue to improve access to the Internet for those who 
need it. 

Agencies Implemented Actions to Ensure Accessibility of Information 
for Those with Disabilities: 

The E-Gov Act requires that all actions taken by agencies under the 
act be in compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
1973. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies 
to ensure that the development, procurement, maintenance, or use of 
electronic and IT equipment takes into account the needs of people 
with disabilities. It also requires that agencies ensure that federal 
employees and members of the public with disabilities have access to 
and use of information and data that is comparable to the access of 
those without disabilities. For example, the act requires federal 
agencies developing websites to ensure that citizens with disabilities 
have equal access to the information on those websites. 

In addition, in July 2010, OMB issued a memorandum to assist federal 
agencies with management and implementation of Section 508.[Footnote 
28] The purpose of this memorandum was to make agencies aware of 
existing resources and direct agencies to take stronger steps toward 
improving the acquisition and implementation of accessible technology. 
The memorandum stated that to ensure that persons with disabilities 
have equal access to their government, agencies must buy and use 
accessible electronic and IT equipment. 

All 24 agencies in our study provided examples of actions taken in 
accordance with Section 508. These include utilizing tools that 
improve accessibility of social media; documenting requirements for 
electronic documents; delivering Section-508-associated training; 
updating their websites; and developing agency-specific contract 
language to ensure accessibility is considered for IT projects. Six 
agencies also described having a Section 508 program office or 
coordinator to perform tasks, such as helping to ensure compliance 
with standards, exploring the implementation of technologies, and 
providing technical assistance to system developers. In addition, all 
24 agencies reported using the standards developed by the United 
States Access Board for complying with Section 508, and 18 responded 
that the standards ensured compliance and were adequate and helpful. 
[Footnote 29] 

OMB Completed Study on Community Technology Centers, and Agencies Have 
Taken Actions to Promote Their Use: 

The E-Gov Act required the Administrator of OMB's Office of E-
Government to ensure that a study was conducted to evaluate the best 
practices of community technology centers, which provide computer and 
Internet access to the public, and submit a report to Congress on the 
findings of this study by April 2005. In addition, the act required 
the E-Gov Administrator, in consultation with other federal agencies, 
to develop an online tutorial that would explain how to access 
government information and services on the Internet. 

To meet this requirement, OMB issued the results of its study, Section 
213 of the E-Government Act Report to Congress: Organizations 
Complementing Federal Agency Information Dissemination Programs, in 
April 2005. The report outlined promising practices of community 
technology centers and described their locations around the country. 
For example, the report noted that a promising practice adopted by 
some community technology centers was the implementation of programs 
providing comprehensive technology training and mentoring for high 
school students. Specifically, the report noted that students received 
intensive technology training in learning labs and worked in small 
teams to design, research, and complete multimedia projects. The 
report also identified a promising practice of creating summary 
performance reports of community technology centers that aligned with 
the goals of the act in providing access to government information. 
The report described successes and innovative practices as well as 
whether the centers met their goals. 

Additionally, GSA launched nine online tutorials on December 4, 2007, 
on USA.gov, addressing the requirement to develop online tutorials 
that explain how to access government information and services on the 
Internet. According to OMB, each tutorial was specifically designed to 
teach visitors to the website how to access government information and 
services on the Internet. Examples of the tutorials that were launched 
include: 

* Get It Done Online with Government--provides instruction on how to 
complete government tasks online; 

* Shop Government Auctions and Sales--gives directions on shopping for 
real estate, cars, gifts, and other items available from government 
auctions or stores; 

* Find Government Benefits and Grants--offers information on finding 
government money available through benefits, grants, loans, and 
financial aid; and: 

* Locate In-Person Government Services Near You--provides instructions 
on finding contact information for local government offices. 

GSA Completed Study on Disparate Access: 

The E-Gov Act required GSA to sponsor a study on disparities in 
Internet access for online government services. The study was to focus 
on the increase in online government services, and on whether the 
increase raised particular questions or concerns with respect to 
citizens who rely on government programs, but lack Internet access. 
GSA was to submit a report to Congress on the findings, conclusions, 
and recommendations of the study by December 2004. 

Toward this end, GSA issued its report, Improving Access to the 
Internet: A Report to the Congress as required by the E-Government Act 
of 2002 Section 215, in January 2005. The report discussed differences 
in Internet access and how these differences influenced the 
effectiveness of online government services. The report also provided 
recommendations focused on ensuring citizens' access to government 
services and information, while supporting the benefits of online 
access to these resources. According to GSA, after the report was 
issued, the Federal Communications Commission took over responsibility 
for this section of the act. 

Agencies Implemented Requirements to Improve Public Access to and 
Participation in the Development of Regulations: 

The E-Gov Act requires federal agencies, to the extent practicable, to 
electronically accept submissions of comments on proposed rules, among 
other things, and to make electronic dockets publicly available 
online.[Footnote 30] Overall, this requirement is aimed at improving 
performance in the development of agency regulations by increasing 
access, accountability, and transparency, and enhancing public 
participation in the regulatory process. 

All of the agencies in our study have taken actions to address the 
requirements of this section by participating in [Hyperlink, 
http://www.regulations.gov]. This website allows the public to search 
for and submit comments on proposed regulations and provides the 
public access to electronic dockets.[Footnote 31] In its fiscal year 
2011 E-Gov Report, the Environmental Protection Agency, as the 
managing partner for this initiative, stated that the public had 
submitted 505,000 comments through [Hyperlink, 
http://www.regulations.gov]. 

In addition to using this federal governmentwide docket management 
system, OMB and certain agencies have taken other actions to improve 
the development and issuance of agency regulations and public 
participation in this process. For example, 

* In April 2010, OMB issued a memorandum, Increasing Openness in the 
Rulemaking Process--Use of Regulation Identification Number, requiring 
agencies to use an identification number on all relevant documents 
throughout the entire life cycle of a rulemaking to make it easier for 
the public to find and view all online information relevant to the 
regulatory docket. 

* In May 2010, OMB issued another memorandum, Increasing Openness in 
the Rulemaking Process--Improving Electronic Dockets, providing 
guidance to agencies for compiling and maintaining comprehensive 
electronic regulatory dockets on [Hyperlink, 
http://www.regulations.gov]. 

* In November 2010, the eRulemaking Program[Footnote 32] issued a best 
practices document for federal agencies. This best practices document 
is intended to improve public access to regulatory information and 
encourage public participation through [Hyperlink, 
http://www.regulations.gov]. 

* Lastly, the Department of Labor reported in its fiscal year 2011 E-
Gov report that it has developed a new website that provides the 
public a central point to learn more about the regulatory process and 
specific Department of Labor regulatory activities and facilitates 
access to regulatory material. 

OMB Has Issued Policies on the Organization and Categorization of 
Government Information: 

The E-Gov Act requires the Director of OMB to issue policies directing 
agencies to use standards to enable the organization and 
categorization of government information; define categories of 
government information; and determine priorities and develop schedules 
for the initial implementation of the standards by agencies. Agencies 
are required to report to the Director of OMB on their compliance with 
these policies through their annual E-Gov reports. 

To assist in the implementation of this requirement, OMB issued 
memorandum M-06-02 on December 16, 2005,[Footnote 33] which, among 
other things, required agencies to organize and categorize their 
information intended for public access, make it searchable across 
agencies, and describe how they use formal information models to 
assist with their dissemination activities. Accordingly, all of the 
agencies in our study provided examples of how they fulfilled the 
requirements of OMB's memorandum in their 2006 annual E-Gov 
reports.[Footnote 34] For example, one agency reported that it 
redesigned its website to provide the public with better access to 
information. Another agency reported that it organized available 
information in certain categories on its website and analyzed website 
usage and feedback to ensure the public is obtaining access to the 
information on the website in an efficient manner. 

NARA and Agencies Have Implemented Requirements to Preserve Electronic 
Records: 

The act requires NARA to issue policies that call for agencies to 
apply the Federal Records Act[Footnote 35] to government information 
on the Internet and to other electronic records. Additionally, 
agencies are required to report annually to OMB on compliance with the 
policies issued by NARA. 

Toward this end, NARA and all 24 agencies have taken actions to 
address these requirements. For example, NARA issued Bulletin 2006-02 
[Footnote 36] on December 15, 2005, which provided agencies an 
approach for improving the management of electronic records. According 
to the bulletin, agencies are to, among other things, identify and 
schedule[Footnote 37] all electronic records, and agencies must have 
NARA-approved records schedules for all records in their existing 
information systems.[Footnote 38] 

All of the 24 agencies have reported on their compliance with Bulletin 
2006-02 by describing NARA-approved records schedules, and providing a 
brief explanation of their progress implementing the bulletin. For 
example, one agency noted in its fiscal year 2011 E-Gov Act report 
that it had reported 85 electronic systems to NARA and that 9 of the 
systems were scheduled, while 2 had pending schedules. 

However, as we have previously reported,[Footnote 39] electronic 
records from social media can create challenges in determining who has 
control over the information and how and when content should be 
captured for record-keeping. We noted that NARA had not yet developed 
guidance on effectively capturing records from social media sites and 
recommended that NARA develop such guidance. The agency agreed with 
the recommendation. 

OMB and Agencies Implemented Requirements for Agency-Specific 
Information on Websites: 

The act requires the Director of OMB to promulgate guidance for agency 
websites to include direct links to descriptions of the mission and 
statutory authority of the agency; certain information made available 
to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); information 
about the organizational structure of the agency; and the strategic 
plan of the agency. This also requires agencies to establish a process 
for determining which government information they intend to make 
publicly available through the Internet and by other means. Agencies 
were to, among other things, develop priorities and schedules for 
making government information available and accessible to the public. 
Further, the Director of OMB, working with agencies, is required to 
establish a public domain directory of federal government websites and 
post the directory on the Internet with a link to the federal Internet 
portal. 

OMB and all of the agencies in our study have taken actions to address 
these requirements. For example, OMB issued memorandum M-05-04 on 
December 17, 2004,[Footnote 40] providing guidance for federal agency 
public websites. Among other guidance in this memorandum, OMB called 
for agencies to establish and maintain information dissemination 
product inventories, priorities, and schedules; ensure information 
quality; and establish and enforce agencywide linking policies 
describing management controls for linking to information within and 
beyond the agency. All 24 agencies complied with this requirement and 
provided links to where this information could be found.[Footnote 41] 
In addition, in their 2006 E-Gov reports to OMB, one agency explained 
that it prioritized items to be published on its website based on the 
time sensitivity of the information and another agency formed a work 
group to help develop a standardized information architecture to 
support and enable the most effective and efficient delivery of agency 
information on the website. 

Lastly, through [Hyperlink, http://www.USA.gov], GSA established a 
directory of public federal government websites. Specifically, the 
directory is organized alphabetically by each federal agency's name, 
and the directory contains contact information for each agency, such 
as a link to the agency's website, the agency's phone number, and the 
agency's physical address. OMB, GSA, and agency actions to fulfill 
these requirements have enhanced the public's ability to find 
information about specific agencies' mission and activities. 

Agencies Sponsored Activities Using IT to Engage the Public in the 
Development and Implementation of Policies and Programs: 

The act requires agencies to sponsor activities that use IT to engage 
the public in the development and implementation of policies and 
programs. Accordingly, all 24 agencies in our review reported 
sponsoring such activities. For example, 13 agencies reported 
expanding their use of social media to promote more dialogue with the 
public and to reach a larger audience of stakeholders. These included 
the use of external blogs with comments and other feedback tools that 
allow the public to provide input on agency policies and programs, 
Twitter accounts, or YouTube channels. Six agencies also used the GSA-
sponsored IdeaScale[Footnote 42] website to solicit the public's 
opinions on what information the government should make more publicly 
accessible as part of the President's Open Government initiative. 

OMB Has Issued Guidance on Privacy Notices for Agency Websites: 

The act required the Director of OMB to develop guidance for privacy 
notices on agency websites used by the public and to issue guidance 
for agencies to translate privacy policies into a standardized machine-
readable format.[Footnote 43] 

OMB has taken actions to meet these requirements. Specifically, in 
September 2003, it issued memorandum M-03-22 regarding the 
implementation of the act's privacy provisions, which included privacy 
policies for agency websites.[Footnote 44] Among the requirements 
outlined in this memorandum, OMB required agencies to inform website 
visitors whenever providing information is voluntary; how to grant 
consent for use of voluntary information; and how to grant consent to 
use mandatory information for purposes other than statutorily mandated 
uses. This memorandum also required agencies to use machine-readable 
technology that alerts website users automatically about whether the 
website privacy practices match the user's personal privacy 
preferences. 

All of the 24 agencies in our study have posted privacy notices on 
their websites. For example, according to GSA, one agency has a 
comprehensive privacy policy that clearly explains how that agency 
will handle personal information collected over the Internet. Another 
agency has developed a web standards handbook that requires all of the 
agency's websites, including those of components, to comply with laws 
and directives that require protection of the privacy of the agency's 
website visitors. 

OMB Has Not Fully Established a Required Research and Development 
Website: 

The act required the Director of OMB, in consultation with the 
President's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and other 
relevant agencies, to ensure the development and maintenance of a 
repository that fully integrates, to the maximum extent feasible, 
information about research and development (R&D) funded by the federal 
government. It also calls for the development and maintenance of one 
or more websites upon which all or part of that repository is to be 
made available to and searchable by federal agencies and the public. 
In addition, OMB is to issue guidance necessary to ensure that 
agencies provide all information for the repository. 

However, OMB has not fully established the website for providing 
information on R&D funded by the government. In its fiscal year 2004 
annual E-Gov report, OMB reported that the federal government had 
funded two primary repositories for research and development 
information: RaDiUS and [Hyperlink, http://www.Science.gov]. RaDiUS 
was intended to provide the public and agencies with information about 
federally funded R&D activities. Science.gov was to provide 
information on federal research through links to science websites and 
scientific databases. However, as we previously reported, RaDiUS and 
Science.gov were incomplete and not fully populated, in part, because 
OMB had not issued guidance to ensure that agencies had provided all 
information required for the repositories.[Footnote 45] 

In 2008, RaDiUS was decommissioned because, according to a senior 
official at the National Science Foundation, the data were incomplete, 
users had difficulty using it, and the database was built with 
antiquated technology. With regard to Science.gov, only 11 of the 24 
agencies in our study[Footnote 46] reported providing research 
information to this site. Moreover, 2 agencies in our study reported 
not being aware of any R&D repository. 

In March 2012, OMB officials pointed to an R&D dashboard website being 
developed by OSTP as the site that is now expected to meet the act's 
requirements. According to the OSTP Open Government Plan, the R&D 
dashboard website is expected to make it possible for anyone to track 
the government's investment in basic research. Currently, the website 
provides information on federal investments in research and 
development from 2000 to 2009 for only two agencies.[Footnote 47] 
According to OMB, a timeline has not yet been developed for when all 
agencies are to provide information for the R&D dashboard being 
developed, and guidance has not been issued for agencies to upload 
their information into the website. 

In the absence of an integrated website for providing the public with 
centralized access to the government's investment in basic research 
and guidance to inform agencies about the website, the public does not 
have access to a fully integrated website with information on R&D 
investment funding, as intended by the act. 

Conclusions: 

In the 10 years since enactment of the E-Gov Act, OMB, GSA, NARA, and 
federal agencies have taken many actions to implement its requirements 
to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies 
to improve government service delivery and operations, and public 
participation in government. OMB and the federal CIO Council have 
provided leadership in implementing the act, such as issuing guidance, 
providing coordination, and disseminating knowledge. In addition, 
federal agencies have made organizational changes such as establishing 
e-government offices or positions, disseminating internal policy and 
guidance, and developing performance measures. In these respects, e-
government activities have become integrated to a significant degree 
into agency business processes. 

Nonetheless, while agencies and OMB have reported annually on 
implementation of the act's requirements, these reports have not 
always included information on each provision of the act, and have 
sometimes included information on other, related initiatives, such as 
Open Government, that were higher administration priorities. While 
OMB's actions reflect reasonable steps to help reduce the burden on 
agencies and highlight administration priorities, it has not been 
explicit in communicating to Congress about such changes in priorities 
and provisions that it is not reporting on and the reasons why, 
resulting in reduced transparency. 

OMB, GSA, and agencies have also taken actions to implement most of 
the specific requirements of the act for promoting the use of the 
Internet and other information technologies, such as implementing the 
use of electronic signatures, maintaining and promoting USA.gov, 
implementing policies for improving the accessibility and usability of 
government electronic information, and facilitating public 
participation in the rulemaking process. As a result, the act has 
contributed to increased public access to government information and 
services, although challenges remain in providing consolidated access 
to government information and services, which the .gov Reform 
Initiative is aiming to address. Finally, because OMB has not 
established a timeline or provided guidance for reestablishing the 
required repository to integrate information on agency investments in 
research and development, the public's access to centralized 
information about the government's investment in it is not provided as 
called for by the act. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To further progress toward the E-Government Act's goal of promoting 
better use of the Internet and other information technologies to 
improve government services to citizens, internal government 
operations, and opportunities for citizens' participation in 
government, we recommend that the Director of OMB direct the 
Administrator of the Office of E-Government to take the following 
three actions: 

* identify in its annual E-Gov reports to Congress the provisions of 
the act that are not discussed in the report, and the reasons why, 
including when certain activities may no longer be a priority; 

* develop a timeline for reestablishing the research and development 
repository and website; and: 

* provide guidance to agencies on their participation in the research 
and development repository. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided copies of the draft report for review and comment by OMB, 
NARA, and the 24 executive branch agencies in our study. A paralegal 
specialist in OMB's Office of General Counsel, responding via e-mail 
on behalf of the Office of E-Government and Information Technology, 
stated that the office had no comment regarding the draft report. 
Also, in a written response (reprinted in appendix II), the Archivist 
of the United States said that NARA had no comments on the draft 
report. Among the other agencies, 19 responded via e-mail that they 
had no comments regarding the draft report. One agency--the Department 
of Interior--provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 
appropriate. Three of the agencies--the Departments of Commerce, the 
Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development--provided written comments 
on the report, while one agency--the Department of Agriculture--
provided comments via e-mail. These comments are summarized below. 

* The Acting Secretary of Commerce stated that the department 
concurred with our findings as they apply to the requirements of the E-
Gov Act and achievements of the department in meeting those 
requirements. Commerce's comments are reproduced in appendix III. 

* Treasury's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information Systems and 
Chief Information Officer stated that the department had no comments 
on the report, but that it appreciated GAO's efforts in its 
development. Treasury's comments are reproduced in appendix IV. 

* HUD's Chief Information Officer said that the department reviewed 
the draft report and had no comment. The official added that the 
department remains committed to the standards established by the E-Gov 
Act of 2002. HUD's comments are reproduced in appendix V. 

* A management analyst in the Office of the Chief Information Officer 
wrote, on behalf of Agriculture, that the department concurred with 
the report's findings. The department included examples of actions it 
is taking to implement the administration's digital strategy through a 
cross-functional team representing not only traditional IT lines of 
business but also web managers and digital communications personnel. 
To successfully meet the requirements, the department stated that it 
recognizes the importance of working not only with enterprise 
technology, architecture, and security, but with communications 
personnel who understand customer preferences and needs. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested 
congressional committees, the Director of OMB, the Archivist of the 
United States, and the heads of the 24 executive branch agencies in 
our review. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on 
the GAO website at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-6304 or by e-mail at melvinv@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
are on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report 
are listed in appendix VI. 

Signed by: 

Valerie C. Melvin: 
Director: 
Information Management and Technology Resources Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to (1) assess the Office of Management and 
Budget's (OMB) and agencies' efforts to fulfill the requirements of 
the E-Government Act of 2002 (E-Gov Act) to establish leadership and 
organizational responsibilities and (2) evaluate agencies' progress in 
meeting the act's requirements to enhance public access to government 
information and services. 

To address these objectives, we identified and reviewed selected 
requirements of the act relevant to each objective, along with their 
legislative history. Specifically, for our first objective, we 
identified requirements from Titles I and II of the act that address 
leadership and organizational responsibilities assigned to OMB, the 
federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council, and executive branch 
agencies. These requirements were found in sections 101 (Office of 
Electronic Government, CIO Council, and E-Government Report) and 
section 202 (general responsibilities, performance integration, CIOs, 
and e-government status reports) of the act. For our second objective, 
we identified selected sections of the act containing requirements 
aimed at enhancing public access to government information and 
services and the federal organizations responsible for meeting them. 
These requirements were found in Sections 202 (avoiding diminished 
access, accessibility to people with disabilities, and sponsored 
activities), 203 (electronic signatures), 204 (federal Internet 
portal), 206 (regulatory agencies), 207 (accessibility, usability, and 
preservation of government information including categorizing of 
information, public access to electronic information, agency websites, 
and access to federally funded research and development), 208 (privacy 
protections on agency websites), 212 (integrated reporting and pilot 
projects), 213 (community technology centers), and 215 (disparities in 
access to the Internet). We did not include certain provisions in our 
study, either because we had conducted relevant previous work, such as 
on the E-Gov Fund,[Footnote 48] or because the provision warranted a 
separate or more detailed analysis than could be included in this 
study, such as Section 205 on the federal courts. 

To determine the extent to which OMB and agencies had met these 
requirements, we did the following: 

* Collected and reviewed documentation on OMB actions to meet 
leadership responsibilities, such as OMB's E-Gov implementation plan, 
policies and guidance, and annual OMB E-Gov reports submitted to 
Congress, and met with officials from OMB's Office of Electronic 
Government to discuss actions the office has taken. 

* Collected and reviewed documentation on federal CIO Council actions 
taken to meet its responsibilities, such as issuance of best practices 
and guidance to agencies on meeting requirements of the act, and met 
with the Co-Chair of the federal CIO Council to discuss actions that 
council has taken to meet its responsibilities. 

* Interviewed the General Services Administration's (GSA) Associate 
Administrator of E-Government to discuss specific E-Gov Act 
responsibilities of GSA, such as establishing a framework for the use 
of electronic signatures. 

* Administered a questionnaire to officials tasked with E-Gov 
responsibilities at 24 major executive branch agencies,[Footnote 49] 
requesting information and supporting documentation on actions taken 
to meet requirements of the act, including, among other requirements, 
developing e-government performance measures, avoiding diminished 
access, supporting the federal Internet portal, and developing and 
utilizing electronic signatures. We reviewed the documentation 
received. We also asked agencies to provide input and feedback on the 
support received from OMB, GSA, the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA), and the CIO council in carrying out e-
government activities. 

* Conducted semi-structured interviews with officials from the 24 
agencies to confirm responses to the questionnaire and obtain 
additional supporting documentation and information and analyzed 
officials' responses to determine the agencies' current status in 
implementing the requirements of the act. 

* Collected and analyzed the contents of available annual E-Gov status 
reports for each of the 24 agencies. 

* Reviewed our 2004 report on the implementation of the act to obtain 
information on the status at that time of certain provisions included 
in the study.[Footnote 50] We also reviewed other relevant GAO reports 
related to e-government, social media, and information technology 
management reform.[Footnote 51] 

* Interviewed officials from NARA's records management office 
regarding actions taken to implement provisions of the act dealing 
with electronic records management. 

Our study was aimed at determining whether the agencies in our review 
had complied with requirements of the act, and did not include a 
comprehensive assessment of all actions agencies may have taken to 
carry out e-government responsibilities. 

We conducted our work from October 2011 to September 2012 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the National Archives and Records 
Administration: 

National Archives: 
National Archives And Records Administration: 
8601 Adelphi Road: 
College Park, MD 20740-6001: 
[hyperlink, http://www.archives.gov] 

Via email: 

August 13, 2012: 

Valerie C. Melvin: 
Director, Information Management and Technology Resources Issues: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
44 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Melvin, 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report GAO-12-782, 
Electronic Government Act: Agencies Have Implemented Most Provisions, 
But Key Areas of Attention Remain. We have no comments on the draft 
report. 

If you have questions regarding this information, please contact Mary 
Drak by email at mary.drak@anara.gov or by phone at 301-837-1668. 

Signed by: 

David S. Ferriero: 
Archivist of the United States: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

United States Department of Commerce: 
The Secretary of Commerce
Washington, DC 20230: 

August 13, 2012: 

Ms. Valerie C. Melvin: 
Director, Information Management and Technology Resource Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Melvin: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report from the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled Agencies Have 
Implemented Most Provisions., But Key Areas of Attention Remain (GAO-
12-782). 

We concur with the findings as they apply to the requirements of the 
Electronic Government Act and the achievements of the Department of 
Commerce in meeting those requirements. 

If you have questions regarding this response, please contact Jerry 
Harper in the office of the Chief Information Officer at (202) 482-
0222. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Rebecca M. Blank: 
Acting Secretary of Commerce: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Treasury: 

Department Of The Treasury: 
Washington, D.C. 20220: 

August 7, 2012: 

Cynthia Scott: 
Assistant Director: 
Information Management and Technology Resource Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Scott, 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on GAO's Draft 
Report, "Electronic Government: Agencies Have Implemented Most 
Provisions, But Key Areas of Attention Remain." The Department of
Treasury has no comments on the Report and appreciates GAO's efforts 
in its development. 

Please contact me at 202-622-1200 if you need anything further. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Robyn East: 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information Systems and Chief 
Information Officer: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development: 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: 
Chief Information Officer: 
Washington, DC 204210-3000: 

August 15, 2012: 

Ms. Valerie C. Melvin: 
Director, Information Management and Technology Resources Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Melvin: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled, Electronic 
Government Act: Agencies Have Implemented Most Provisions, But Key 
Areas of Attention Remain (GAO-12-782). The Department of Housing and 
Urban Development reviewed the draft report and has no comment. 

The Department remains committed to the standards established by the E-
Government Act of 2002. The Department will continue to work with the 
Office of Management and Budget and other executive agencies to 
achieve the requirements of the Act. 

If you have any questions, please contact Joyce M. Little, Director. 
Office of Investment Strategics Policy and Management at 
(Joyce.M.Little@hud.gov), or 202-402-7404. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jerry E. Williams: 
Chief information Officer: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Valerie C. Melvin (202) 512-6304, or m [Hyperlink, melvinv@gao.gov] 
elvinv@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, key contributions were made to 
this report by Cynthia J. Scott (assistant director), Virginia 
Chanley, James Crimmer, Jr., Nancy Glover, Ashfaq Huda, Lee McCracken, 
David Plocher, Eric Trout, and Christy Tyson: 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 107-347 (Dec. 17, 2002). 

[2] The federal CIO Council is comprised of the CIOs and Deputy CIOs 
of 28 agencies and is chaired by OMB's Deputy Director for Management. 
It is the principal interagency forum for improving agency practices 
related to the design, acquisition, development, modernization, use, 
sharing, and performance of federal information resources. The CIO 
Council is responsible for developing recommendations for overall 
federal information technology management policy, sharing best 
practices, including the development of performance measures, and 
identifying opportunities and sponsoring cooperation in using 
information resources. 

[3] The 24 agencies included in our study were the Departments of 
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human 
Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the 
Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and 
Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency, General 
Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business 
Administration, Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Agency 
for International Development. 

[4] The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and the 
Clinger-Cohen Act, 40 U.S.C. 11101, et seq. 

[5] OMB, E-Government Strategy (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2002). 

[6] The OIRA Administrator also has responsibilities for overseeing 
federal agency management of information and information technology 
functions under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3504. 

[7] The council was established on July 16, 1996, by Executive Order 
13011. 

[8] GAO, Electronic Government: Federal Agencies Have Made Progress 
Implementing the E-Government Act of 2002, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-12] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 
2004). 

[9] OMB, Report to Congress on the Benefits of the President's E-
Government Initiatives, Fiscal Year 2012. 

[10] OMB, 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information 
Technology Management (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2010). 

[11] GAO, Information Technology Reform: Progress Made; More Needs to 
be Done to Complete Actions and Measure Results, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-461] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 
2012). 

[12] OMB, Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2012). 

[13] Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires federal 
agencies to ensure that their development, procurement, maintenance, 
or use of electronic and IT equipment takes into account the needs of 
people with disabilities to have access to and use of information that 
is comparable to that of individuals without disabilities. 

[14] The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) is an economic 
indicator that measures the satisfaction of consumers across the 
United States. 

[15] OMB, M-10-06, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments 
and Agencies: Open Government Directive (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 
2009). 

[16] Agency Open Government initiatives include promoting increased 
access to and innovation in utilizing government data resources, 
improving responses to Freedom of Information Act requests, and 
promoting greater citizen participation and collaboration in mission 
activities through new media applications. 

[17] GAO, Electronic Government: Performance Measures for Projects 
Aimed at Promoting Innovation and Transparency Can Be Improved, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-775] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 23, 2011). 

[18] This refers to a unifying element to link otherwise unconnected 
agency certification authorities. 

[19] Federal public key infrastructure uses a technique to 
authenticate users and data, protect the integrity of transmitted 
data, and ensure non-repudiation and confidentiality. 

[20] This directive established a policy for a common identification 
standard for federal employees' and contractors' access to federal 
government buildings and IT systems. 

[21] OMB, FY 2011 Report to Congress on the Implementation of The E-
Government Act of 2002 (Mar. 7, 2012). 

[22] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-12]. 

[23] OMB, M-10-06. 

[24] GAO, Electronic Government: Implementation of the Federal Funding 
Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-365] (Washington, D.C.: Mar, 12, 
2010); Information Technology: OMB Has Made Improvements to its 
Dashboard, but Further Work is Needed by Agencies and OMB to Ensure 
Data Accuracy, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2011); and Electronic Government: 
Performance Measures for Projects Aimed at Promoting Innovation and 
Transparency Can Be Improved, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-775] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 
2011). 

[25] This initiative was established as part of President Obama's 
Campaign to Cut Waste and Executive Order 13571, Streamlining Service 
Delivery and Improving Customer Service (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 27, 
2011). 

[26] According to OMB, the Federal Enterprise Architecture is intended 
to facilitate governmentwide improvement through cross-agency analysis 
and identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities 
for collaboration, interoperability, and integration within and across 
agency programs. 

[27] OMB, Report to Congress on the Benefits of the President's E-
Government Initiatives, Fiscal Year 2012. 

[28] OMB, Memorandum for Chief Acquisition Officers and Chief 
Information Officers: Improving the Accessibility of Government 
Information (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2010). 

[29] The United States Access Board is an independent federal agency 
devoted to accessibility for people with disabilities. Under Section 
508 of the Rehabilitation Act, the board was required to develop 
access standards for technology that will become part of the federal 
procurement regulations. In December 2000, the board issued these 
standards, which include standards for making web pages accessible for 
persons with disabilities. 

[30] The "regulatory" or "rulemaking" process refers to the procedures 
federal agencies follow under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) to develop, issue, and amend regulations (also 
called rules). Regulations are used to provide more details to 
implement statutory requirements. They generally are published as 
proposed rules for public notice and comment in the Federal Register, 
and when issued as final rules, have the force and effect of law. 

[31] A docket is a collection or repository of documents related to a 
rulemaking or other action. 

[32] The eRulemaking Program is an interagency project based in the 
Environmental Protection Agency. The development and implementation of 
[hyperlink, https://www.regulations.gov] is also the responsibility of 
the Environmental Protection Agency. 

[33] OMB, M-06-02, Improving Public Access to and Dissemination of 
Government Information in Using the Federal Enterprise Architecture 
Data Reference Model (Washington, D.C.: December 16, 2005). 

[34] Three out of the 24 agencies' fiscal year 2006 annual E-Gov Act 
reports were not available. 

[35] The Federal Records Act, largely codified in 44 U.S.C. Chapters 
21, 29, 31, and 33, requires federal agencies to ensure the management 
and preservation of records needed to document their organization, 
operations, and other activities. NARA oversees agency compliance with 
the act, including by reviewing agency plans and schedules for 
preserving temporary and permanent records. 

[36] NARA Bulletin 2006-02: NARA Guidance for Implementing Section 
207(e) of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 
2005). 

[37] Scheduling is the process by which an agency obtains NARA 
approval for the disposition of agency records when agency business 
need for the records ceases. 

[38] An electronic information system is a system that contains and 
provides access to computerized federal records and other information. 

[39] GAO, Social Media: Federal Agencies Need Policies and Procedures 
for Managing and Protecting Information They Access and Disseminate, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-605] (Washington, D.C.: 
June 28, 2011). 

[40] OMB, M-05-04: Policies for Federal Agency Public Websites 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 2004). 

[41] Examples of this information can be found at [hyperlink, 
http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/about/inventory] or 
[hyperlink, 
http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/information_inventories_schedules.html
]. 

[42] IdeaScale is a social dialogue tool used to gather public 
responses for various electronic forums across the federal government. 

[43] Privacy policies in machine-readable formats are designed to be a 
simple, automated way for users to gain more control over the use of 
their personal information on websites they visit. 

[44] OMB, M-03-22, OMB Guidance for Implementing the Privacy Sections 
of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 2003). 

[45] GAO, Information Security: Coordination of Federal Cyber Security 
Research and Development, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-811] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 
2006). 

[46] The Department of State, Department of the Treasury, General 
Services Administration, Office of Personnel Management, and the U.S. 
Agency for International Development reported that they do not fund 
research and development activities. 

[47] The R&D dashboard currently provides information on federal 
investments in research and development from the National Institutes 
of Health and the National Science Foundation from 2000 to 2009. 

[48] GAO, Electronic Government: Performance Measures for Projects 
Aimed at Promoting Innovation and Transparency Can Be Improved, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-775] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 23, 2011). 

[49] These agencies were the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 
Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland 
Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, 
State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the 
Environmental Protection Agency; General Services Administration; 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science 
Foundation; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Office of Personnel 
Management; Small Business Administration; Social Security 
Administration; and the U.S. Agency for International Development. 

[50] GAO, Federal Agencies Have Made Progress Implementing the E-
Government Act of 2002, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-12] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 
2004). 

[51] GAO, Electronic Government: Implementation of the Federal Funding 
Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-365] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 
2010); Information Technology: OMB Has Made Improvements to its 
Dashboard, but Further Work is Needed by Agencies and OMB to Ensure 
Data Accuracy, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-262] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2011); Social Media: Federal Agencies Need 
Policies and Procedures for Managing and Protecting Information They 
Access and Disseminate, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-605] (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 
2011); and Electronic Government: Performance Measures for Projects 
Aimed at Promoting Innovation and Transparency Can Be Improved, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-775] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 23, 2011). 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

[End of document] 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.