Reports related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 http://gao.gov/recovery/related-products/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:22:24 -0500 GAO http://www.gao.gov/images/title_object.jpg http://www.gao.gov/ Feed provided by GAO. Click to visit. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10224t.pdf This testimony discusses the report being issued today on the first set of recipient reports made available in October 2009 in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act's section 1512 requirement. On October 30, Recovery.gov (the federal Web site on Recovery Act spending) reported that more than 100,000 recipients had reported hundreds of thousands of jobs created or retained. GAO is required to comment quarterly on the estimates of jobs created or retained as reported by direct recipients of Recovery Act funding from federal agencies. In the first quarterly GAO report, being released today, we address the following issues: (1) the extent to which recipients were able to fulfill their reporting requirements and the processes in place to help ensure recipient reporting data quality and (2) how macroeconomic data and methods, and the recipient reports, can be used to help gauge the employment effects of the Recovery Act. Because the recipient reporting effort will be an ongoing process of cumulative reporting, our review represents a snapshot in time. At this juncture, given the national scale of the recipient reporting exercise and the limited time frames in which it was implemented, the ability of the reporting mechanism to handle the volume of data from a wide variety of recipients represents a solid first step in moving toward more transparency and accountability for federal funds; however, there is a range of significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed. Consequently, our report contains several recommendations to improve data quality that Office of Management and Budget (OMB) staff generally agreed to implement. We will continue to review the processes that federal agencies and recipients have in place to ensure the future completeness and accuracy of data reported. Finally, our report notes that because the recipient reports cover about one-third of Recovery Act funds, both the data in those reports and other macroeconomic data and methods together can offer a more complete view of the overall employment impact of the Recovery Act. As detailed in our report, our analysis and fieldwork indicate there are significant issues to be addressed in reporting, data quality, and consistent application of OMB guidance in several areas. Many entries merit further attention due to an unexpected or atypical data value or relationship between data. As part of our review, we examined the relationship between recipient reports showing the presence or absence of any full-time equivalent (FTE) counts with the presence or absence of funding amounts shown in either or both data fields for "amount of Recovery Act funds received" and "amount of Recovery Act funds expended." Forty-four percent of the prime recipient reports showed an FTE value. However,we identified 3,978 prime recipient reports where FTEs were reported but no dollar amount was reported in the data fields for amount of Recovery Act funds received and amount of Recovery Act funds expended. These records account for 58,386 of the total 640,329 FTEs reported. While OMB estimates that more than 90 percent of recipients reported, questions remain about the other 10 percent. Less than 1 percent of the records were marked as having undergone review by the prime recipient. The small percentage reviewed by the prime recipients themselves during the OMB review time frame warrants further examination. While it may be the case that the recipients' data quality review efforts prior to initial submission of their reports were seen as not needing further revision during the review timeframe, it may also be indicative of problems with the process of noting and recording when and how the prime recipient reviews occur and the setting of the review flag. In addition, the report record data included a flag as to whether a correction was initiated. Overall, slightly more than a quarter of the reports were marked as having undergone a correction during the period of review. In its guidance to recipients for estimating employment effects, OMB instructed recipients to report solely the direct employment effects as "jobs created or retained" as a single number. Problems with the interpretation of this guidance or the calculation of FTEs were one of the most significant problems we found. Jobs created or retained expressed in FTEs raised questions and concerns for some recipients. One source of inconsistency was variation in the period of performance used to calculate FTEs, which occurred in both the highway and education programs we examined. While there were problems of inconsistent interpretation of the guidance, the reporting process went relatively well for highway projects. DOT had an established procedure for reporting prior to enactment of the Recovery Act. As our report shows, in the cases of Education and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which do not have this prior reporting experience, we found more problems. State and federal officials are examining identified issues and have stated their intention to deal with them. Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0500 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10223.pdf The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) requires recipients of funding from federal agencies to report quarterly on jobs created or retained with Recovery Act funding. The first recipient reports filed in October 2009 cover activity from February through September 30, 2009. GAO is required to comment on the jobs created or retained as reported by recipients. This report addresses (1) the extent to which recipients were able to fulfill their reporting requirements and the processes in place to help ensure data quality and (2) how macroeconomic data and methods, and the recipient reports, can be used to assess the employment effects of the Recovery Act. GAO performed an initial set of basic analyses on the final recipient report data that first became available at www.recovery.gov on October 30, 2009; reviewed documents; interviewed relevant state and federal officials; and conducted fieldwork in selected states, focusing on a sample of highway and education projects. On October 30, www.recovery.gov (the federal Web site on Recovery Act spending) reported that more than 100,000 recipients reported hundreds of thousands of jobs created or retained. Given the national scale of the recipient reporting exercise and the limited time frames in which it was implemented, the ability of the reporting mechanism to handle the volume of data from a wide variety of recipients represents a solid first step in moving toward more transparency and accountability for federal funds. Because this effort will be an ongoing process of cumulative reporting, GAO's first review represents a snapshot in time. While recipients GAO contacted appear to have made good faith efforts to ensure complete and accurate reporting, GAO's fieldwork and initial review and analysis of recipient data from www.recovery.gov, indicate that there are a range of significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed For example, GAO's review of prime recipient reports identified the following: Erroneous or questionable data entries that merit further review: (1) 3,978 reports that showed no dollar amount received or expended but included more than 50,000 jobs created or retained; (2) 9,247 reports that showed no jobs but included expended amounts approaching $1 billion, and (3) Instances of other reporting anomalies such as discrepancies between award amounts and the amounts reported as received which, although relatively small in number, indicate problematic issues in the reporting. Coverage: While OMB estimates that more than 90 percent of recipients reported, questions remain about the other 10 percent. Quality review: While less than 1 percent were marked as having undergone review by the prime recipient, over three quarters of the prime reports were marked as having undergone review by a federal agency. Full-time equivalent (FTE) calculations: Full-time equivalent (FTE) calculations: Under OMB guidance, jobs created or retained were to be expressed as FTEs. GAO found that data were reported inconsistently even though significant guidance and training was provided by OMB and federal agencies. While FTEs should allow for the aggregation of different types of jobs--part time, full time or temporary--differing interpretations of the FTE guidance compromise the ability to aggregate the data. Although there were problems of inconsistent interpretation of the guidance, the reporting process went relatively well for highway projects. Transportation had an established procedure for reporting prior to enactment of the Recovery Act. In the cases of Education and Housing, which do not have this prior reporting experience, GAO found more problems. Some of these have been reported in the press. State and federal officials are examining these problems and have stated their intention to deal with them. Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0500 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1080.pdf Access to broadband service is seen as vital to economic, social, and educational development, yet many areas of the country lack access to, or their residents do not use, broadband. To expand broadband deployment and adoption, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) provided $7.2 billion to the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) for grants or loans to a variety of program applicants. The agencies must award all funds by September 30, 2010. This report addresses the challenges NTIA and RUS face; steps taken to address challenges; and remaining risks in (1) evaluating applications and awarding funds and (2) overseeing funded projects. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed relevant laws and program documents and interviewed agency officials and industry stakeholders. NTIA and RUS face scheduling, staffing, and data challenges in evaluating applications and awarding funds. NTIA, through its new Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, and RUS, through its new Broadband Initiatives Program, must review more applications and award far more funds than the agencies formerly handled through their legacy telecommunications grant or loan programs, including NTIA's largest legacy grant program, Public Safety Interoperable Communications. NTIA and RUS initially proposed distributing these funds in three rounds, but recently adopted two rounds. To meet these challenges, the agencies have established a two-step application evaluation process that uses contractors or unpaid, independent experts for application reviews and plan to publish information on applicants' proposed service areas to help ensure the eligibility of proposed projects. While these steps address some challenges, the upcoming deadline for awarding funds may pose risks to the thoroughness of the application evaluation process. In particular, the agencies may lack time to apply lessons learned from the first funding round and to thoroughly evaluate applications for the remaining rounds. NTIA and RUS will oversee a significant number of projects, including projects with large budgets and diverse purposes and locations. In doing so, the agencies face the challenge of monitoring these projects with far fewer staff per project than were available for their legacy grant and loan programs. To address this challenge, NTIA and RUS have hired contractors to assist with oversight activities and plan to require funding recipients to complete quarterly reports and, in some cases, obtain annual audits. Despite these steps, several risks remain, including a lack of funding for oversight beyond fiscal year 2010 and a lack of updated performance goals to ensure accountability for NTIA and RUS. In addition, NTIA has yet to define annual audit requirements for commercial entities funded under the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0500 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10192t.pdf Access to broadband service is seen as vital to economic, social, and educational development, yet many areas of the country lack access to, or their residents do not use, broadband. To expand broadband deployment and adoption, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Recovery Act) provided $7.2 billion to the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) for grants or loans to a variety of program applicants. The agencies must award all funds by September 30, 2010. This testimony provides preliminary information on the challenges NTIA and RUS face; the steps taken to address challenges; and the remaining risks in (1) evaluating applications and awarding funds and (2) overseeing funded projects. This statement is based on related ongoing work that GAO expects to complete in November. To conduct this work, GAO is reviewing relevant laws and program documents and interviewing agency officials and industry stakeholders. While this testimony does not include recommendations, GAO expects to make recommendations in its November report. Application evaluation and awards. NTIA and RUS face scheduling, staffing, and data challenges in evaluating applications and awarding funds. NTIA, through its new Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, and RUS, through its new Broadband Initiatives Program, must review more applications and award far more funds than the agencies formerly handled through their legacy telecommunications grant or loan programs. NTIA and RUS initially proposed distributing these funds in three rounds. To meet these challenges, the agencies have established a two-step application evaluation process that uses contractors or volunteers for application reviews and plan to publish information on applicants' proposed service areas to help ensure the eligibility of proposed projects. While these steps address some challenges, the upcoming deadline for awarding funds may pose risks to the thoroughness of the application evaluation process. In particular, the agencies may lack time to apply lessons learned from the first funding round and to thoroughly evaluate applications for the remaining rounds. Oversight of funded projects. NTIA and RUS will oversee a significant number of projects, including projects with large budgets and diverse purposes and locations. In doing so, the agencies face the challenge of monitoring these projects with far fewer staff per project than were available for their legacy grant and loan programs. To address this challenge, NTIA and RUS have hired contractors to assist with oversight activities and plan to require funding recipients to complete quarterly reports and, in some cases, obtain annual audits. Despite these steps, several risks remain, including a lack of funding for oversight beyond fiscal year 2010 and a lack of updated performance measures to ensure accountability for NTIA and RUS. In addition, NTIA has yet to define annual audit requirements for commercial entities funded under the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10162t.pdf This testimony discusses funding for high speed and other intercity passenger rail projects under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act). The $8 billion that the Recovery Act provided for these projects has attracted great attention from states and others who look to develop or improve intercity passenger rail service across the country. Proponents see these projects as serving an important transportation role, by moving people quickly and safely, reducing highway and airport congestion, and being environmentally friendly. While we have found that the potential benefits of high speed and intercity passenger rail projects are many, these projects--both here and abroad--are costly, take years to develop and build, and require substantial up-front public investment as well as potentially long-term operating subsidies. This testimony focuses on (1) some principles that could guide the effective use of these Recovery Act funds, (2) some challenges that states face in establishing high speed and other intercity passenger rail service, and (3) the nature of our ongoing work on Recovery Act high speed rail projects. This testimony is based on our recent report and testimony on high speed rail and our ongoing work. As policymakers decide how to allocate current Recovery Act funds and any possible future federal investments in high speed and other intercity passenger rail projects, several principles could guide the effective use of those funds. In our recent report and in 2005, we concluded that there is a need to (1) clearly establish federal objectives and clear roles for all stakeholders (federal, regional, state, and local governments and freight, commuter, and passenger railroads); (2) clearly identify expected outcomes; (3) base decisions on reliable ridership and other forecasts to determine the viability of high speed rail projects; and (4) include high speed rail in a reexamination of other federal surface transportation programs to clarify federal goals and roles, link funding to needs and performance, and reduce modal stovepipes that hinder the financing of transportation improvements with the greatest potential for improving mobility. Once FRA chooses projects for funding, project sponsors face several challenges. These include securing the significant up-front investment for construction costs; sustaining public, political, and financial support; and resolving outstanding liability issues. To further help Congress understand how Recovery Act funds for high speed and intercity passenger rail service can be used effectively, we are addressing the following three questions: (1) How have states that have recently initiated intercity passenger rail service overcome the challenges to establishing service? (2) How can the rail industry accommodate the increased investment in intercity passenger rail? (3) How FRA is positioning itself to implement and oversee current and any future federal investments in intercity passenger rail? The infusion of up to $8 billion in Recovery Act funds is only a first step in developing potentially viable high speed or other intercity passenger rail projects. The principles we have identified can be applied to promote the effective investment of Recovery Act and any future federal funds for these projects. Surmounting these challenges will require federal, state, and other stakeholder leadership to champion, and commitment to carry out, the development of any new or improved intercity passenger rail service. It will also require (1) clear, specific policies and delineations of expected outcomes and (2) objective, realistic analyses of ridership, costs, and other factors to determine the viability of projects and to maximize their transportation impact and other public benefits. Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d091017sp.pdf This supplementary report to GAO-09-1016 provides individual state appendixes for 16 states and the District of Columbia for GAO's work on the third of its bimonthly reviews of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act). GAO's work focused on nine federal programs that are estimated to account for approximately 87 percent of federal Recovery Act outlays in fiscal year 2009 for programs administered by states and localities. Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d091016.pdf This report, the third in response to a mandate under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), addresses the following objectives: (1) selected states' and localities' uses of Recovery Act funds, (2) the approaches taken by the selected states and localities to ensure accountability for Recovery Act funds, and (3) states' plans to evaluate the impact of Recovery Act funds. GAO's work for the report is focused on 16 states and certain localities in those jurisdictions as well as the District of Columbia (District)-- representing about 65 percent of the U.S. population and two-thirds of the intergovernmental federal assistance available. Under the Recovery Act, GAO collected and analyzed documents and interviewed state and local officials. GAO also analyzed federal agency guidance and spoke with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials and with program officials at the federal agencies overseeing Recovery Act programs. Across the United States, as of September 11, 2009, the Department of the Treasury had outlayed about $48 billion of the estimated $49 billion in Recovery Act funds projected for use in states and localities in federal fiscal year 2009, as shown in the figure. More than three quarters of the federal outlays has been provided through the increased Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) and the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) administered by the Department of Education. All 16 states and the District have drawn down increased Medicaid FMAP grant awards of just over $20.3 billion for October 1, 2008, through September 15, 2009, which amounted to over 87 percent of funds available. All states and the District experienced Medicaid enrollment growth. States and the District reported they are planning to use the increased federal funds to cover their increased Medicaid caseload and to maintain current benefits and eligibility levels. Most states also reported that they would use freed-up funds to finance general state budget needs. A substantial portion of the approximately $35 billion the Recovery Act appropriated for highway infrastructure projects and public transit has been obligated nationwide and in the states and the District that are the focus of GAO's review. As of September 1, the Department of Transportation (DOT) had obligated approximately $11 billion for almost 3,800 highway infrastructure and other eligible projects in the 16 states and the District and had reimbursed these 17 jurisdictions about $604 million. As of September 15, 2009, the District and 15 of the 16 states covered by our review had received approval from Education for their initial SFSF funding applications. Pennsylvania had submitted an application to Education, but it had not yet been approved. As of August 28, 2009, Education had made $21 billion in SFSF grants for education available to the 15 states and the District--of which over $7.7 billion had been drawn down. While many program officials, employers, and participants believe the Workforce Investment Act summer youth program activities have been successful, measuring actual outcomes has proven challenging and may reveal little about what the program achieved. States have implemented various internal control programs; however, federal Single Audit guidance and reporting does not fully address Recovery Act risk. The Single Audit reporting deadline is too late to provide audit results in time for the audited entity to take action on deficiencies. Moreover, current guidance does not achieve the level of accountability needed to effectively respond to risks. States and localities as nonfederal recipients of Recovery Act funds are required to report quarterly on a number of measures, including the use of funds and estimates of the number of jobs created and retained. This unprecedented level of detailed information to be reported by a large number of recipients into a new centralized reporting system raises possible risk for the quality and reliability of these data. Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09975.pdf GAO's seventh report on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) focuses on the initial assistance the government provided to American International Group, Inc. (AIG)--an organization with over 200 companies operating in over 130 countries and jurisdictions and $830 billion in assets--in September 2008 and the restructuring of that assistance in November 2008 and March 2009. The unfolding crisis threatened the stability of the U.S. banking system and the solvency of a number of financial institutions, including AIG. In September 2008, downgrades of AIG's credit rating prompted collateral calls by counterparties and raised concerns that a rapid and disorderly failure of AIG would further destabilize the markets. As a result, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY), in consultation with the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), to provide assistance to AIG. This report describes (1) the basis for the federal assistance, (2) the nature and type of assistance and steps intended to protect the government's interest, and (3) selected GAO-developed indicators of the status of federal assistance and AIG's financial condition. To do this, GAO reviewed signed agreements and other relevant documentation from the Federal Reserve, FRBNY, Treasury, and AIG and interviewed their officials, among others. To develop the indicators, GAO reviewed rating agencies' reports, identified critical activities, and discussed them with the above named agencies and AIG. Treasury had no substantive comments on the report. It provided technical comments along with the Federal Reserve, FRBNY, and AIG. The Federal Reserve and Treasury provided assistance to AIG to limit further disruption to financial markets. These agencies determined that market events could have caused AIG to fail, which would have posed systemic risk to the financial system. According to the Federal Reserve, a disorderly failure of AIG would have contributed to higher borrowing costs and additional failures, further destabilizing fragile financial markets. The Federal Reserve and Treasury determined that an AIG default would place considerable pressure on AIG's counterparties and trigger serious disruptions to an already distressed commercial paper market. They concluded that because AIG was a large seller of credit default swaps--protection against losses from defaults--on collateralized debt obligations (CDO), had AIG failed, its counterparties would have been exposed to large losses if the values of the CDOs had continued to decline and AIG defaulted on its contracts. The Federal Reserve intended the initial September 2008 assistance to enable AIG to meet these added obligations with its counterparties and begin the process of selling business lines to raise monies to repay the government and resolve other liabilities. Subsequent assistance in November 2008 and March 2009 was intended to augment these goals, support liquidity needs, and repay FRBNY while mitigating disruptions in the broader financial markets. To address systemic risk that could result if AIG were to fail, the Federal Reserve and Treasury made over $182 billion available to assist AIG between September 2008 and April 2009. As of September 2, 2009, AIG's outstanding balance of assistance was $120.7 billion. Some federal assistance was designated for specific purposes, such as a special purpose vehicle to provide liquidity for purchasing assets such as CDOs. Other assistance, such as that available through the Treasury's Equity Facility, is available to meet the general financial needs of the parent company and its subsidiaries. Repayment of the $120.7 billion outstanding government exposure is expected to come from various sources. As of September 2, 2009, $6.8 billion was paid toward principal on the Maiden Lane facilities created by FRBNY to purchase certain AIG assets and provide AIG with liquidity. In providing the assistance, the Federal Reserve and Treasury have taken several steps intended to protect the government's interest. These include making loans that are secured with collateral, instituting certain controls over management, and obtaining compensation for risks such as charging interest, requiring dividend payments, and obtaining warrants. Moreover, Federal Reserve and Treasury staff routinely monitor AIG's operations and receive reports on AIG's condition and restructuring. While these efforts are being made, the government remains exposed to risks, including credit risk and investment risk, which could result in the Federal Reserve and Treasury not being repaid in full. While federal assistance has helped stabilize AIG's financial condition, GAO-developed indicators suggest that AIG's ability to restructure its business and repay the government is unclear at this time. Indicators of AIG's financial risk suggest that since AIG reported significant losses in late 2008, AIG's operations, with federal assistance, have begun to show signs of stabilizing in mid 2009. Similarly, after a declining trend through 2008 and early 2009, indicators of AIG insurance companies' financial risk suggest improved financial conditions that were largely results of federal assistance. Indicators of AIG's repayment of federal assistance show some progress in AIG's ability to repay the federal assistance; however, improvement in the stability of AIG's business depends on the long-term health of the company, market conditions, and continued government support. Therefore, the ultimate success of AIG's restructuring and repayment efforts remains uncertain. Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09908t.pdf This testimony is based largely on GAO's July 8, 2009 report, in response to a mandate under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). This testimony provides selected updates, including the status of federal Recovery Act outlays. The report addresses: (1) selected states' and localities' uses of Recovery Act funds, (2) the approaches taken by the selected states and localities to ensure accountability for Recovery Act funds, and (3) states' plans to evaluate the impact of Recovery Act funds. GAO's work for the report is focused on 16 states and certain localities in those jurisdictions as well as the District of Columbia--representing about 65 percent of the U.S. population and two-thirds of the intergovernmental federal assistance available. GAO collected documents and interviewed state and local officials. GAO analyzed federal agency guidance and spoke with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials and with program officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and Transportation. Across the United States, as of August 28, 2009, Treasury had outlayed about $45 billion of the estimated $49 billion in Recovery Act funds projected for use in states and localities in fiscal year 2009. More than three quarters of the federal outlays have been provided through the increased Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) and the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) administered by the Department of Education. GAO's work focused on nine federal programs that are estimated to account for approximately 87 percent of federal Recovery Act outlays in fiscal year 2009 for programs administered by states and localities. All 16 states and the District have drawn down increased Medicaid FMAP grant awards of just over $19.6 billion for October 1, 2008, through September 4, 2009, which amounted to almost 84 percent of such funds available to them. All states and the District experienced enrollment growth in this period. Several states noted that the increased FMAP funds were critical in their efforts to maintain coverage at current levels. States and the District reported they are planning to use the increased federal funds to cover their increased Medicaid caseload and to maintain current benefits and eligibility levels. As of September 1, the Department of Transportation (DOT) had obligated approximately $11 billion for almost 3,800 highway infrastructure and other eligible projects in the 16 states and the District and had reimbursed these 17 jurisdictions about $604 million. Across the nation, almost half of the obligations have been for pavement improvement projects because they did not require extensive environmental clearances, were quick to design, obligate and bid on, could employ people quickly, and could be completed within 3 years. Officials from most states considered project readiness, including the 3-year completion requirement, when making project selections and only later identified to what extent these projects fulfilled the economically distressed area requirement. We found substantial variation in how states identified economically distressed areas and how they prioritized project selection for these areas. FHWA issued clarifying guidance to address our recommendation in August 2009. As of September 1, 2009, the District and 15 of the 16 states covered by our review had received approval from Education for their initial SFSF funding applications. Pennsylvania had submitted an application to Education, but it had not yet been approved. As of August 28, 2009, Education has made $21 billion in SFSF grants for Education available to the 15 states and the District--of which over $7.7 billion had been drawn down as of August 28, 2009. School districts said they would use SFSF funds to maintain current levels of education funding, particularly for retaining staff and current education programs. They also told us that SFSF funds would help offset state budget cuts. Overall, states reported using Recovery Act funds to stabilize state budgets and to cope with fiscal stresses. The funds helped them maintain staffing for existing programs and minimize or avoid tax increases as well as reductions in services. States have implemented various internal control programs; however, federal Single Audit guidance and reporting does not fully address Recovery Act risk. The Single Audit reporting deadline is too late to provide audit results in time for the audited entity to take action on deficiencies noted in Recovery Act programs. Moreover, current guidance does not achieve the level of accountability needed to effectively respond to Recovery Act risks. Direct recipients of Recovery Act funds, including states and localities, are expected to report quarterly on a number of measures, including the use of funds and estimates of the number of jobs created and retained. Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09676.pdf Since 1997, periodic GAO surveys indicate that overall, federal managers have more performance information available but have not made any greater use of this information for decision making. Based on GAO's most recent survey in 2007, GAO was asked to (1) identify agencies with relatively low use of performance information and the factors that contribute to this condition; and (2) examine practices in an agency with indications of improvement in use of performance information. GAO analyzed results from its surveys of federal managers across 29 agencies, reviewed key agency documents related to using performance information--such as Performance and Accountability Reports--and interviewed agency and selected subunit managers about their management practices. GAO also compared management practices, at selected agencies with those GAO has identified as promoting the use of performance information for decision making. According to GAO's 2007 survey of federal managers on their use of performance information for decision making, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of the Interior (Interior), ranked 27 and 28 out of 29 agencies. Several factors contributed to this relatively low use. At both FEMA and Interior, the demonstrated commitment of agency leaders to using performance information--a key management practice--was inconsistent. While some FEMA programs and regions encouraged use of performance information to plan for and respond to unpredictable events, others expressed uncertainty as to how they could use performance information in the face of uncontrollable external factors. FEMA managers were also hampered by weak alignment among agency, program, and individual goals, as well as limited analytic capacity to make use of performance information. At Interior and the National Park Service (NPS), managers reported a proliferation of measures, including some that, while meaningful for department-level accountability, were not relevant to their day-to-day management. Managers at NPS and the Bureau of Reclamation also said that poorly integrated performance and management information systemscontributed to an environment where the costs of performance reporting--in terms of time and resources--outweighed what they described as minimal benefits. While both FEMA and Interior have taken some promising steps to make their performance information both useful and used, these initiatives have thus far been limited. The experience of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) highlights the role that strengthened management practices can play. According to GAO's 2000 and 2007 survey results, the percentage of managers at CMS reporting use of performance information for various management decisions increased by nearly 21 percentage points--one of the largest improvements among agencies over that period. CMS officials attributed this change to a combination of key management practices they had employed, including, but not limited to: leadership commitment to using performance information; alignment of strategic and performance goals; improving the usefulness of performance information; and building the analytic capacity to collect and use performance information. Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09926t.pdf The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) included more than $48 billion for the Department of Transportation's (DOT) investment in transportation infrastructure, including highways, rail, and transit. This testimony--based on GAO report GAO-09-829, issued on July 8, 2009 and updated with more recent data, in response to a mandate under the Recovery Act--addresses (1) the uses of Recovery Act transportation funding including the types of projects states have funded, (2) the steps states have taken to meet the act's requirements, and (3) GAO's other work on transportation funding under the Recovery Act. In GAO-09-829, GAO examined the use of Recovery Act funds by 16 states and the District of Columbia (District), representing about 65 percent of the U.S. population and two-thirds of the federal assistance available through the act. GAO also obtained data from DOT on obligations and reimbursements for the Recovery Act's highway infrastructure funds. A substantial portion of Recovery Act highway funds have been obligated, with most funded projects focusing on pavement improvements. In March 2009, $26.7 billion was apportioned to 50 states and the District for highway infrastructure and other eligible projects. As of July 17, 2009, $16.8 billion of the apportioned funds had been obligated for over 5,700 projects nationwide. About half of the funds has been obligated for pavement improvements such as reconstructing or rehabilitating roads; 17 percent has been obligated for pavement-widening projects; and about 12 percent has been obligated for bridge projects. Remaining funds were obligated for the construction of new roads and safety projects, among other things. States have generally complied with the act's three major requirements on the use of transportation funds: (1) Fifty percent of funds must be obligated within 120 days of apportionment. All states have met this requirement. (2) Priority for funding must be given to projects that can be completed within 3 years and are located in economically distressed areas, as defined by the Public Works and Economic Development Act. Officials from almost all of the states included in GAO's review said they considered project readiness, including the 3-year completion requirement, when making project selections. However, due to the need to select projects and obligate funds quickly, many states first selected projects based on other factors and only later identified whether these projects fulfilled the economically distressed area requirement. Additionally, some states identified economically distressed areas using data or criteria not specified in the Public Works or Recovery Act. In each of these cases, states told us that DOT's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved the use of alternative criteria but it is not clear under what authority it did so as FHWA did not consult with or seek the approval of the Department of Commerce. (3) State spending on transportation projects must be maintained at the level the state had planned to spend as of the day the Recovery Act was enacted. With one exception, the states have certified that they will maintain their level of spending. GAO will continue to monitor states' use of Recovery Act funds for transportation programs and their compliance with program rules. In the next report, in September 2009, GAO plans to provide information on the use of Recovery Act funds for transit programs and for highway programs. Previous GAO work on the act has addressed other transportation issues. For instance, GAO's work on discretionary transportation grants found that DOT followed key elements of federal guidance in developing selection criteria for awarding these grants, and GAO's work on intercity rail funding found that although DOT's strategic plan for high-speed rail generally outlines how the act's funds may be invested for high-speed rail development, the plan does not establish clear goals or a clear role for the federal government. Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09836.pdf Reverse mortgages--a type of loan against home equity available to seniors--are growing in popularity. A large majority of reverse mortgages are insured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under its Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) made several modifications to the HECM program, including changes in how origination fees are calculated and an increase in the loan limit. The Act directed GAO to examine (1) how these changes have affected lenders' plans to offer reverse mortgages, (2) how the changes will affect borrowers, and (3) actions HUD has taken to evaluate the financial performance of the HECM program. To address these objectives, GAO surveyed a representative sample of HECM lenders, analyzed loan-level HECM data, and reviewed HUD estimates and analysis of HECM program costs. On the basis of a survey of HECM lenders, GAO estimates thattaken together, HERA's changes to the HECM loan limit and origination fee calculation have had a positive to neutral influence on most lenders' plans to offer HECMs. Other factors, such as economic and secondary market conditions, have had a mixed influence. Although economic conditions have had a positive influence on about half of lenders' plans to offer HECMS, secondary market conditions have negatively influenced about one-third of lenders. GAO also estimates that the HERA changes have had little to no influence on most lenders' plans to offer non-HECM reverse mortgages. HERA's provisions will affect borrowers in varying ways depending on home value and other factors. The changes to HECM origination fees and loan limits are likely to change the up-front costs and the loan funds available for most new borrowers. GAO's analysis of data on HECM borrowers from 2007 shows that if the HERA changes had been in place at the time, most would have paid less or the same amount in up-front costs, and most would have had more or the same amount of loan funds available. For example, about 46 percent of borrowers would have seen a decrease in up-front costs and an increase in available loan funds. However, 17 percent of borrowers would have seen an increase in up-front costs and a decrease in available loan funds. HUD has enhanced its analysis of HECM program costs, but less favorable house price trends and loan limit increases have increased HUD's risk of losses. HUD has updated its cash flow model for the program and plans to conduct annual actuarial reviews. Although the program historically has not required a subsidy, HUD has estimated that HECMs made in 2010 will require a subsidy of $798 million, largely due to more pessimistic assumptions about long-run home prices. In addition, the higher loan limit enacted by HERA may increase the potential for losses. To calculate the amount of funds available to a borrower, lenders start with a limiting factor of either the home value or, if the home value is greater than the HECM loan limit, with the loan limit. For loans that are limited by the home value, the loan amount and the home value are closer together at the point of origination, which makes it more likely that the loan balance could exceed the home value at the end of the loan. In contrast, for loans that are limited by the HECM loan limit, there is initially a greater difference between the home value and the loan amount, making it less likely that the loan balance will exceed the home value at the end of the loan. The increase in the HECM loan limit may increase HUD's risk of losses by reducing the proportion of loans that are limited by the HECM loan limit. Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09573.pdf In 2005-2006, students with disabilities comprised 9 percent of the student population in the United States, and English language learners comprised about 10 percent. Many of these students spend a majority of their time in the general classroom setting in elementary and secondary schools. Most teachers are initially trained through teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher education. GAO was asked to examine (1) the extent to which teacher preparation programs require preparation for general classroom teachers to instruct these student subgroups; (2) the role selected states play in preparing general classroom teachers to instruct these student subgroups; and (3) funding and other assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Education (Education) to help general classroom teachers instruct these student subgroups. To address these issues, GAO conducted a nationally representative survey of teacher preparation programs and interviewed officials from state and local educational agencies in four states and Education. According to GAO's survey results, most traditional teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher education nationwide required at least some training for prospective general classroom teachers on instructing students with disabilities and English language learners. While the majority of programs required at least one course entirely focused on students with disabilities, no more than 20 percent of programs required at least one course entirely focused on English language learners. Additionally, more than half the programs required field experiences with students with disabilities, while less than a third did so for English language learners. Despite recent steps by the majority of programs to better prepare teachers for instructing both of these student subgroups, many programs faced challenges in providing this training. The four states GAO visited--California, Georgia, Nebraska, and Texas--set varying requirements for teacher preparation programs. However, all of the states and school districts visited provided assistance to general classroom teachers to help them instruct these student subgroups. Nevertheless, these states and school districts cited challenges providing this training, such as time constraints and identifying appropriate instructional strategies. Six Education offices provide funding and other assistance that can help general classroom teachers instruct students with disabilities and English language learners, but no departmentwide mechanism exists to coordinate among the offices. Ten grant programs allow grantees to use funds to help general classroom teachers instruct these students; Education offices also support research and technical assistance providers that serve policymakers and educators. However, Education lacks a mechanism to facilitate information sharing among the offices on a regular basis that could assist offices that have less experience with these subgroups to better understand student needs or integrate research findings into ongoing programming. Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09589.pdf In response to the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), among other things, developed Grants.gov as the central grant identification and application portal for federal grant programs. OMB oversees the initiative and named the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) its managing partner. Grants.gov officials have acknowledged noticeably degraded system performance, and grantees have reported difficulties submitting applications that have in some cases led to late or incomplete submissions and lost opportunities for both grantees and populations served. Through analysis of agency documents, a Web-based survey of federal grant-making officials, and interviews with agency officials and grantee associations, this requested report examines (1) the benefits of Grants.gov and applicant experiences with submitting applications, (2) the governance structure of Grants.gov, and (3) the range of agency policies for processing Grants.gov applications. Grants.gov has made it easier for applicants to find grant opportunities and grantors to process applications faster, but applicants continue to describe difficulties registering with and using Grants.gov, which sometimes result in late submissions. Grants.gov customer service staff do not always resolve these issues, especially during off-peak hours and peak submission periods. Clear roles and responsibilities for the Grants.gov oversight entities and coordination among them are critical, yet insufficient, and there are no written policies for how these entities are to work with each other. HHS's Chief Information Officer and the Grants Executive Board (GEB) share responsibility for approving major initiatives and funding for Grants.gov, but there is little evidence that GEB-approved funding for Grants.gov is considered in HHS's review of Grants.gov as an IT investment. This created a disconnect between the services Grants.gov is to provide and the funding needed to purchase them. Untimely payment by the 26 agencies that fund Grants.gov also negatively affects system performance. After informing agencies that it was unable to pay its vendors, the Grants.gov Project Management Office (PMO) developed a system shutdown plan and implemented the first step--it eliminated Web site updates and moved all notices to the Grants.gov blog. Grants.gov also lacks performance measures for important aspects of the system. Finally, grantees lack a structured forum for input on the Grants.gov system and standardized governmentwide grant application policies, limiting grantees' ability to affect a system designed, in part, to streamline the grants application process and ease applicant burden. Disparate agency policies on important aspects of processing applications--such as the criteria for granting appeals for late or incomplete applications and for what constitutes a timely application--burden applicants and sometimes puts applications submitted through Grants.gov at a disadvantage compared to applications submitted through other means, such as other electronic systems or the USPS. Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09832t.pdf In past years, the federal government has annually distributed over $300 billion in federal assistance through grant programs using formulas driven in part by census population data. Of the more than $580 billion in additional federal spending, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will obligate an estimated additional $161 billion to federal grant programs for fiscal year 2009. The U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) puts forth tremendous effort to conduct an accurate count of the nation's population, yet some error in the form of persons missed or counted more than once is inevitable. Because many federal grant programs rely to some degree on population measures, shifts in population, inaccuracies in census counts, and methodological problems with population estimates can all affect the allocation of funds. This testimony discusses (1) how census data are used in the allocation of federal formula grant funds and (2) how the structure of the formulas and other factors can affect those allocations. This is based primarily on GAO's issued work on various formula grant programs and the allocation of federal funds. Federal grants use various sources of population counts in their funding formulas. They include the decennial census, which provides population counts once every10 years, and also serves as the baseline for estimates of the population for the years between censuses--known as postcensal estimates. Other sources of population data include the Bureau's American Community Survey and the Current Population Survey conducted by the Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which provides monthly data. The degree of reliance on population in funding formulas varies. For example, the Social Services Block Grant formula allocates funding based solely on a state's population relative to the total U.S. population. Other programs use population plus one or more variables to determine funding levels. Medicaid, for example, uses population counts and income to determine its federal reimbursement rate. On the basis of simulations GAO conducted of federal grant allocations by selected federal grant programs--for illustrative purposes only--we found that changes in population counts can affect, albeit modestly, the allocations of federal funds across the states. For example, in 2006 we found that compared to the $159.7 billion total federal Medicaid funding in 2004, 22 states would have shared an additional $208.5 million in Medicaid funding, 17 states would have lost a total of $368 million, and 11 states and the District of Columbia would have had their funding unchanged. In total 0.2 percent of Medicaid funds would have shifted as a result of the simulation. In addition to population data, various other factors related to the design of federal grant programs may mitigate the effect that population changes can have on the distribution of federal funds. For example, in order to prevent funding losses from a formula change, several programs include hold-harmless provisions guaranteeing that each recipient entity will receive a specified proportion of the prior year's amount or share regardless of population changes. Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09831t.pdf This testimony is based on a GAO report being released today--the second in response to a mandate under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The report addresses: (1) selected states' and localities' uses of Recovery Act funds, (2) the approaches taken by the selected states and localities to ensure accountability for Recovery Act funds, and (3) states' plans to evaluate the impact of Recovery Act funds. GAO's work for the report is focused on 16 states and certain localities in those jurisdictions as well as the District of Columbia--representing about 65 percent of the U.S. population and two-thirds of the intergovernmental federal assistance available. GAO collected documents and interviewed state and local officials. GAO analyzed federal agency guidance and spoke with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials and with program officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and Transportation. Across the United States, as of June 19, 2009, Treasury had outlayed about $29 billion of the estimated $49 billion in Recovery Act funds projected for use in states and localities in fiscal year 2009. More than 90 percent of the $29 billion in federal outlays has been provided through the increased Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) and the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) administered by the Department of Education. GAO's work focused on nine federal programs that are estimated to account for approximately 87 percent of federal Recovery Act outlays in fiscal year 2009 for programs administered by states and localities. Increased Medicaid FMAP Funding All 16 states and the District have drawn down increased Medicaid FMAP grant awards of just over $15 billion for October 1, 2008, through June 29, 2009, which amounted to almost 86 percent of funds available. Medicaid enrollment increased for most of the selected states and the District, and several states noted that the increased FMAP funds were critical in their efforts to maintain coverage at current levels. States and the District reported they are planning to use the increased federal funds to cover their increased Medicaid caseload and to maintain current benefits and eligibility levels. Due to the increased federal share of Medicaid funding, most state officials also said they would use freed-up state funds to help cope with fiscal stresses. Highway Infrastructure Investment As of June 25, DOT had obligated about $9.2 billion for almost 2,600 highway infrastructure and other eligible projects in the 16 states and the District and had reimbursed about $96.4 million. Across the nation, almost half of the obligations have been for pavement improvement projects because they did not require extensive environmental clearances, were quick to design, obligate and bid on, could employ people quickly, and could be completed within 3 years. State Fiscal Stabilization Fund As of June 30, 2009, of the 16 states and the District, only Texas had not submitted an SFSF application. Pennsylvania recently submitted an application but had not yet received funding. The remaining 14 states and the District had been awarded a total of about $17 billion in initial funding from Education--of which about $4.3 billion has been drawn down. School districts said that they would use SFSF funds to maintain current levels of education funding, particularly for retaining staff and current education programs. They also said that SFSF funds would help offset state budget cuts. Accountability States have implemented various internal control programs; however, federal Single Audit guidance and reporting does not fully address Recovery Act risk. The Single Audit reporting deadline is too late to provide audit results in time for the audited entity to take action on deficiencies noted in Recovery Act programs. Moreover, current guidance does not achieve the level of accountability needed to effectively respond to Recovery Act risks. Finally, state auditors need additional flexibility and funding to undertake the added Single Audit responsibilities under the Recovery Act. Impact Direct recipients of Recovery Act funds, including states and localities, are expected to report quarterly on a number of measures, including the use of funds and estimates of the number of jobs created and the number of jobs retained. The first of these reports is due in October 2009. OMB--in consultation with a broad range of stakeholders--issued additional implementing guidance for recipient reporting on June 22, 2009, that clarifies some requirements and establishes a central reporting framework. Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09830sp.pdf This supplementary report to GAO-09-829 provides individual state appendixes for16 states and the District of Columbia for GAO's work on the second of its bimonthly reviews of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act). GAO's work focused on nine federal programs that are estimated to account for approximately 87 percent of federal Recovery Act outlays in fiscal year 2009 for programs administered by states and localities. Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09829.pdf This report, the second in response to a mandate under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), addresses the following objectives: (1) selected states' and localities' uses of Recovery Act funds, (2) the approaches taken by the selected states and localities to ensure accountability for Recovery Act funds, and (3) states' plans to evaluate the impact of the Recovery Act funds they received. GAO's work for this report is focused on 16 states and certain localities in those jurisdictions as well as the District of Columbia--representing about 65 percent of the U.S. population and two-thirds of the intergovernmental federal assistance available. GAO collected documents and interviewed state and local officials. GAO analyzed federal agency guidance and spoke with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials and with relevant program officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the U.S. Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Justice, Labor, and Transportation (DOT). Across the United States, as of June 19, 2009, Treasury had outlayed about $29 billion of the estimated $49 billion in Recovery Act funds projected for use in states and localities in fiscal year 2009. More than 90 percent of the $29 billion in federal outlays has been provided through the increased Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) and the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) administered by the Department of Education. GAO's work focused on nine federal programs that are estimated to account for approximately 87 percent of federal Recovery Act outlays in fiscal year 2009 for programs administered by states and localities. Increased Medicaid FMAP Funding All 16 states and the District have drawn down increased Medicaid FMAP grant awards of just over $15 billion for October 1, 2008, through June 29, 2009, which amounted to almost 86 percent of funds available. Medicaid enrollment increased for most of the selected states and the District, and several states noted that the increased FMAP funds were critical in their efforts to maintain coverage at current levels. States and the District reported they are planning to use the increased federal funds to cover their increased Medicaid caseload and to maintain current benefits and eligibility levels. Due to the increased federal share of Medicaid funding, most state officials also said they would use freed-up state funds to help cope with fiscal stresses. Highway Infrastructure Investment As of June 25, DOT had obligated about $9.2 billion for almost 2,600 highway infrastructure and other eligible projects in the 16 states and the District and had reimbursed about $96.4 million. Across the nation, almost half of the obligations have been for pavement improvement projects because they did not require extensive environmental clearances, were quick to design, obligate and bid on, could employ people quickly, and could be completed within 3 years. State Fiscal Stabilization Fund As of June 30, 2009, of the 16 states and the District, only Texas had not submitted an SFSF application. Pennsylvania recently submitted an application but had not yet received funding. The remaining 14 states and the District had been awarded a total of about $17 billion in initial funding from Education--of which about $4.3 billion has been drawn down. School districts said that they would use SFSF funds to maintain current levels of education funding, particularly for retaining staff and current education programs. They also said that SFSF funds would help offset state budget cuts. Accountability States have implemented various internal control programs; however, federal Single Audit guidance and reporting does not fully address Recovery Act risk. The Single Audit reporting deadline is too late to provide audit results in time for the audited entity to take action on deficiencies noted in Recovery Act programs. Moreover, current guidance does not achieve the level of accountability needed to effectively respond to Recovery Act risks. Finally, state auditors need additional flexibility and funding to undertake the added Single Audit responsibilities under the Recovery Act. Impact Direct recipients of Recovery Act funds, including states and localities, are expected to report quarterly on a number of measures, including the use of funds and estimates of the number of jobs created and the number of jobs retained. The first of these reports is due in October 2009. OMB--in consultation with a broad range of stakeholders--issued additional implementing guidance for recipient reporting on June 22, 2009, that clarifies some requirements and establishes a central reporting framework. Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09810t.pdf The U.S. Coast Guard, a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), conducts 11 statutory missions that range from marine safety to defense readiness. To enhance mission performance, the Coast Guard is implementing a modernization program to update its command structure, support systems, and business practices, while continuing the Deepwater program--the acquisition program to replace or upgrade its fleet of vessels and aircraft. This testimony discusses the Coast Guard's (1) fiscal year 2010 budget, (2) mission performance in fiscal year 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available; and (3) challenges in managing its modernization and acquisition programs and workforce planning. This testimony is based on GAO products issued in 2009 (including GAO-09-530R and GAO-09-620T) and other GAO products issued over the past 11 years--with selected updates in June 2009--and ongoing GAO work regarding the Coast Guard's newest vessel, the National Security Cutter. Also, GAO analyzed budget and mission-performance documents and interviewed Coast Guard officials. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2010 budget request totals $9.7 billion, an increase of 4.2 percent over its fiscal year 2009 enacted budget. Of the total requested, about $6.6 billion (or 67 percent) is for operating expenses--the primary appropriation account that finances Coast Guard activities, including operating and maintaining multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units. This account, in comparing the 2010 budget request to the 2009 enacted budget, reflects an increase of $361 million (about 6 percent). The next two largest accounts in the 2010 budget request, at about $1.4 billion each, are (1) acquisition, construction, and improvements and (2) retired pay--with each representing about 14 percent of the Coast Guard's total request. The retired pay account--with an increase of about $125 million in the 2010 budget request compared to the 2009 enacted budget--is second only to the operating expenses account in reference to absolute amount increases, but retired pay reflects the highest percentage increase (about 10 percent) of all accounts. Regarding performance of its 11 statutory missions in fiscal year 2008, the Coast Guard reported that it fully met goals for 5 missions, partially met goals for 3 missions, and did not meet goals for 3 missions. One of the fully met goals involved drug interdiction. Specifically, for cocaine being shipped to the United States via non-commercial means, the Coast Guard reported achieving a removal rate of about 34 percent compared to the goal of at least 28 percent. Search and rescue was a mission with partially met goals. The Coast Guard reported that it met one goal (saving at least 76 percent of people from imminent danger in the maritime environment) but narrowly missed a related goal (saving at least 87 percent of mariners in imminent danger) by achieving a success rate of about 84 percent. For missions with unmet goals, the Coast Guard reported falling substantially short of performance targets for only one mission--defense readiness. The Coast Guard reported meeting designated combat readiness levels 56 percent of the time compared to the goal of 100 percent. The Coast Guard continues to face several management challenges. For example, GAO reported in June 2009 that although the Coast Guard has taken steps to monitor the progress of the modernization program, development of performance measures remains in the early stages with no time frame specified for completion. Also, as GAO reported in April 2009, although the Coast Guard has assumed the lead role for managing the Deepwater acquisition program, it has not always adhered to procurement processes, and its budget submissions to Congress do not include detailed cost estimates. GAO also reported that the Coast Guard faces challenges in workforce planning, including difficulties in hiring and retaining qualified acquisition personnel. Further, GAO's ongoing work has noted that delays associated with the Coast Guard's newest vessel, the National Security Cutter, are projected to result in the loss of thousands of cutter operational days for conducting missions through 2017. The Coast Guard is working to manage this operational challenge using various mitigation strategies. Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09785r.pdf The Recovery Act established relatively few requirements for the design of the TIGER grant program. In addition to the requirements outlined in the opening paragraph of this report, the act requires that the department (1) award grants of no less than $20 million and no more than $300 million with no more than $300 million awarded for projects in any one state; (2) give priority to projects that are expected to be completed by February 17, 2012; (3) give priority to projects that require a contribution of federal funds in order to complete an overall financing package, although the federal share of the costs for which expenditure is made may be 100 percent; and (4) ensure a balance in addressing the needs of rural and urban communities and an equitable geographic distribution of funds. In its May 18 interim notice, the department created two tiers of selection criteria--primary and secondary. The primary selection criteria are (1) long-term outcomes (state of good repair, economic competitiveness, livability, sustainability, and safety) and (2) jobs creation and economic stimulus. The secondary criteria are innovation and partnership. Within each criterion, the department has created several factors to be considered, such as how an investment is expected to provide long-term outcomes by improving the asset's condition (state of good repair) and contribute to community livability. In our opinion, the information in the department's interim notice generally adheres to the requirements in three key pieces of federal guidance for communicating important elements associated with funding opportunities and awarding grants that support economic recovery and transportation infrastructure, as well as complying with Recovery Act requirements. We found that the department's interim notice follows OMB's guidance because it provides a description of the primary selection criteria, secondary selection criteria, and program-specific selection criteria. The primary selection criteria are applied to assess a project's impact on desirable long-term outcomes for the nation, a metropolitan area, or a region, as well as its ability to quickly create and preserve jobs and stimulate rapid increases in economic activity. The secondary selection criteria are applied to assess the extent to which a project uses innovative technology and receives financial commitment from or otherwise involves state and local governments, and other public, private, or non-profit entities. The interim notice also states that the department will use program-specific criteria to assign priority among similar projects within a mode, such as similar bridge replacement projects. Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d09847cg.pdf This is an Acting Comptroller General presentation given to the Association of Government Accountants' Professional Development Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana on June 23, 2009. Major topics of this presentation include: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, financial institutions and markets, modernizing the U.S. financial regulatory system, outdated regulatory system, and global financial crisis task force. Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09786t.pdf This testimony discusses the implementation of high speed intercity passenger rail projects in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act). The $8 billion provided by the Recovery Act for high speed and other intercity passenger rail projects has focused more attention on and generated a great deal of anticipation about the possibility of developing high speed rail systems in the United States. These projects are seen by some as serving an important transportation role, by moving people quickly and safely, reducing highway and airport congestion, and being environmentally friendly. This testimony focuses on (1) the factors identified that affect the economic viability of high speed rail projects and (2) how the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) recent strategic plan incorporates those factors. While the potential benefits of high speed rail projects are many, these projects--both here and abroad--are costly, take years to develop and build, and require substantial up-front public investment, as well as potentially long-term operating subsidies. Determining which, if any, high speed rail projects may eventually be economically viable will rest on factors such as ridership potential, costs, and public benefits. FRA largely agrees with our March report. FRA's strategic plan for high speed rail outlines, in very general terms, how the federal government may invest the $8 billion in Recovery Act funds for high speed rail development. However, this plan does not establish clear goals for the federal government in high speed rail--other than establishing a "longer term goal of developing a national high speed intercity passenger rail network of corridors"--and does not define a clear federal role for involvement in high speed rail projects other than providing Recovery Act funds. As such, in our view, it is more a vision than a strategic plan. As part of a discussion to prepare for this hearing, FRA told us that it sees its strategic plan as a first step and that it intends to seek structured input from stakeholders and the public to help develop strategies to implement its vision. Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d09846cg.pdf This is an Acting Comptroller General Presentation delivered to NSACT'S NSAA Annual Conference in Savannah, Georgia on June 17, 2009. Major topics include: the purpose of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act), composition of state and local Recovery Act funding, challenges for federal, state, and local officials, and financial institutions and markets. Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09548.pdf The Department of Energy (DOE) spends billions of dollars each year at its national laboratories on advanced science, energy, and other research. To maximize the public's investment and to foster economic growth, federal laws and policies have encouraged the transfer of federally developed technologies to private firms, universities, and others to use or commercialize. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 further emphasized the role of such technologies for addressing the nation's energy, economic, and other challenges. Congress requested GAO to examine (1) the nature and extent of technology transfer at DOE's laboratories; (2) the extent to which DOE can measure the effectiveness of its technology transfer efforts; and (3) factors affecting, and approaches for improving, DOE's efforts. GAO analyzed documents and data and spoke with officials at DOE headquarters and all 17 DOE national laboratories. Although DOE's laboratories routinely share their technologies, capabilities, and knowledge with outside entities, it is difficult to assess the full extent of technology transfer efforts because policies defining technology transfer are unclear and headquarters and laboratory officials do not always agree on which activities should be included. Certain activities performed for or with private companies, universities, and state or local governments are widely regarded as technology transfer, including (1) performing research on behalf of or in collaboration with these entities; (2) licensing the laboratories' existing technologies for such entities to use or commercialize; and (3) allowing these entities access to the laboratories' unique facilities and equipment for their own research. Successful technology transfer efforts have focused on a variety of areas ranging from cancer treatment to biofuels. DOE and laboratory officials do not agree, however, on whether research sponsored by other federal agencies should be considered technology transfer, and DOE's policies are unclear on this. Although work for other federal agencies--worth about $1.8 billion in 2008--may result in technologies that are eventually transferred to the marketplace, in the short run, the work entails sharing federal research and technologies with other federal agencies for noncommercial aims. DOE cannot determine its laboratories' effectiveness in transferring technologies outside DOE because it has not yet established departmentwide goals for technology transfer and lacks reliable performance data. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required DOE to establish goals for technology transfer and provide Congress its implementation plan no later than February 2006; DOE has not yet done so. While some DOE laboratories and program offices have begun articulating their own technology transfer goals, these vary widely. In addition, DOE performance data on technology transfer activities are problematic because data accuracy and completeness are questionable. A number of factors can constrain the extent to which DOE laboratories transfer their technologies, although some are using approaches to help increase the likelihood that promising technologies will be commercialized. Officials at the 17 laboratories identified three primary challenges: (1) competing staff priorities or gaps in expertise needed to consistently identify promising technologies or potential markets; (2) lack of funding to sufficiently develop or test some promising technologies to attract potential partners; and (3) lack of flexibility to negotiate certain terms of technology transfer agreements. Some laboratories have used innovative approaches, such as inviting entrepreneurs to evaluate their research and commercialize a technology or tapping into outside funding for the additional development needed to attract commercial interest. Approaches used by other federal laboratories may offer additional ways for DOE to improve its technology transfer. These efforts are especially important given the goals of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the additional funding provided to DOE to meet those goals. Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09493.pdf The U.S. transportation sector relies almost exclusively on oil; as a result, it causes about a third of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Advanced technology vehicles powered by alternative fuels, such as electricity and ethanol, are one way to reduce oil consumption. The federal government set a goal for federal agencies to use plug-in hybrid electric vehicles--vehicles that run on both gasoline and batteries charged by connecting a plug into an electric power source--as they become available at a reasonable cost. This goal is on top of other requirements agencies must meet for conserving energy. In response to a request, GAO examined the (1) potential benefits of plug-ins, (2) factors affecting the availability of plug-ins, and (3) challenges to incorporating plug-ins into the federal fleet. GAO reviewed literature on plug-ins, federal legislation, and agency policies and interviewed federal officials, experts, and industry stakeholders, including auto and battery manufacturers. Increasing the use of plug-ins could result in environmental and other benefits, but realizing these benefits depends on several factors. Because plug-ins are powered at least in part by electricity, they could significantly reduce oil consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions. For plug-ins to realize their full potential, electricity would need to be generated from lower-emission fuels such as nuclear and renewable energy rather than the fossil fuels--coal and natural gas--used most often to generate electricity today. However, new nuclear plants and renewable energy sources can be controversial and expensive. In addition, research suggests that for plug-ins to be cost-effective relative to gasoline vehicles the price of batteries must come down significantly and gasoline prices must be high relative to electricity. Auto manufacturers plan to introduce a range of plug-in models over the next 6 years, but several factors could delay widespread availability and affect the extent to which consumers are willing to purchase plug-ins. For example, limited battery manufacturing, relatively low gasoline prices, and declining vehicle sales could delay availability and discourage consumers. Other factors may emerge over the longer term if the use of plug-ins increases, including managing the impact on the electrical grid (the network linking the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity) and increasing consumer access to public charging infrastructure needed to charge the vehicles. The federal government has supported plug-in-related research and initiated new programs to encourage manufacturing. Experts also identified options for providing additional federal support. To incorporate plug-ins into the federal fleet, agencies will face challenges related to cost, availability, planning, and federal requirements. Plug-ins are expected to have high upfront costs when they are first introduced. However, they could become comparable to gasoline vehicles over the life of ownership if certain factors change, such as a decrease in the cost of batteries and an increase in gasoline prices. Agencies vary in the extent to which they use life-cycle costing when evaluating which vehicle to purchase. Agencies also may find that plug-ins are not available to them, especially when the vehicles are initially introduced because the number available to the government may be limited. In addition, agencies have not made plans to incorporate plug-ins due to uncertainties about vehicle cost, performance, and infrastructure needs. Finally, agencies must meet a number of requirements covering energy use and vehicle acquisition--such as acquiring alternative fuel vehicles and reducing facility energy and petroleum consumption--but these sometimes conflict with one another. For example, plugging vehicles into federal facilities could reduce petroleum consumption but increase facility energy use. The federal government has not yet provided information to agencies on how to set priorities for these requirements or leverage different types of vehicles to do so. Without such information, agencies face challenges in making decisions about acquiring plug-ins that will meet the requirements, as well as maximize plug-ins' potential benefits and minimize costs. Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09494.pdf The United States ranks 15th among the 30 democratic nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on one measure of broadband (i.e., high-speed Internet) subscribership. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has regulatory authority over broadband, and several federal programs fund broadband deployment. This congressionally requested report discusses (1) the federal broadband deployment policy, principal federal programs, and stakeholders' views of those programs; (2) how the policies of OECD nations with higher subscribership rates compare with U.S. policy; and (3) actions the states have taken to encourage broadband deployment. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed the broadband policies of the United States and other OECD nations, reviewed federal program documentation and budgetary information, and interviewed federal and state officials and industry stakeholders. According to federal officials, the federal approach to broadband deployment is focused on advancing universal access. Federal officials said that historically the role of the government in carrying out a market-driven policy has been to create market incentives and remove barriers to competition, and the role of the private sector has been to fund broadband deployment. Under this policy, broadband infrastructure has been deployed extensively in the United States. However, gaps remain, primarily in rural areas, because of limited profit potential. Eleven federal programs help fund telecommunications infrastructure deployment, particularly in rural areas, and two of these programs, administered by the Department of Agriculture's Rural Development Utilities Program (RDUP), focus specifically on broadband infrastructure deployment. Industry stakeholders credit federal programs with helping to increase broadband deployment, particularly in rural areas, but told GAO that because of the high cost and low profit potential of providing broadband services in rural areas, the federal government will likely need to provide additional funding to achieve universal access. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides more than $7 billion to the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), FCC, and RDUP, to map broadband infrastructure in the United States, develop a plan for broadband deployment, and issue loans and grants to fund broadband access and availability in rural areas. This funding will greatly increase the potential for achieving universal access, but overlap in responsibilities for these new broadband initiatives makes coordination among the agencies important to avoid fragmentation and duplication. Current administration officials said they are still formulating their telecommunication agenda. In comparison to the policies of several other OECD countries with higher broadband subscribership rates per 100 inhabitants, the U.S. policy lacks elements identified by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 as essential to achieving effective and efficient policy outcomes. Specifically, according to officials of these countries' governments, several of the OECD nations with higher rankings have written broadband policies, action plans, goals, and performance measures. A number of these other countries also have provided financial support, created financial incentives, or taken other steps to promote broadband. In interviews with state officials, GAO learned that states vary in their actions to encourage deployment. Officials in more than half the states cited gaps in broadband deployment and said their states were considering or had taken actions to address these gaps. Officials in 12 states said they had mapped their states and 13 more said they had plans to map; officials in 12 states said they have broadband deployment plans; and officials in 14 states said they have provided some type of financial support for broadband deployment. Tue, 12 May 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09672t.pdf This testimony discusses GAO's efforts to coordinate with the accountability community--the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (the Board), the Inspectors General (IGs), and state and local government auditors--to help ensure effective and efficient oversight of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) funds. The Recovery Act assigns GAO a range of responsibilities including bimonthly reviews of the use of funds by selected states and localities. Because funding streams will flow from federal agencies to the states and localities, it is important for us to coordinate with the accountability community. Also, on March 19, 2009, GAO testified before this Subcommittee about the more than $21 billion in Recovery Act funds estimated to be spent for research and development (R&D) activities at four federal agencies. This statement discusses (1) GAO's efforts to fulfill its responsibilities under the Recovery Act; (2) GAO's coordination with others in the accountability community; (3) GAO's authorities to assist whistleblowers and elicit public concerns; and (4) updated information on the status of Recovery Act funds for R&D. It is based in part on GAO's first bimonthly Recovery Act report, Recovery Act: As Initial Implementation Unfolds in States and Localities, Continued Attention to Accountability Issues Is Essential (GAO-09-580), and GAO's March 5, 2009 testimony, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: GAO's Role in Helping to Ensure Accountability and Transparency (GAO-09-453T). GAO is carrying out its responsibilities to review the uses of Recovery Act funds and will also target certain areas for additional review using a risk-based approach. GAO's first bimonthly report examined the steps 16 states, the District of Columbia, and selected localities are taking to use and oversee Recovery Act funds. These states contain about 65 percent of the U.S. population and are estimated to receive about two-thirds of the intergovernmental grant funds available through the Recovery Act. GAO's report made several recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) toward improving accountability and transparency requirements; clarifying the Recovery Act funds that can be used to support state efforts to ensure accountability and oversight; and improving communications with Recovery Act funds recipients. Soon after the Recovery Act passed, GAO began to coordinate with the accountability community. By the end of February 2009, GAO conducted initial outreach to IGs, the Board, OMB, and state and local auditors. Now, GAO participates in regular coordination conference calls with representatives of these constituencies to discuss Recovery Act efforts and regularly coordinates with individual IGs. GAO also participates in discussions with state and local organizations to further foster coordination. The work of GAO's 16 state and District of Columbia teams that resulted in the first bimonthly report on the actions of selected states and localities under the Recovery Act also exemplifies the level of coordination we are undertaking with the accountability community. For example, teams working in the states collected documents from and interviewed State Auditors, Controllers, and Treasurers; state IGs; and other key audit community stakeholders to determine how they planned to conduct oversight of Recovery Act funds. Provisions in statute as well as a fraud reporting hotline facilitate GAO's ability to evaluate allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government. Under GAO's authorizing statute, subject to certain limited exceptions, all agencies must provide the Comptroller General with access to information about the duties, powers, activities, organization and financial transactions of that agency, including for the purpose of evaluating whistleblower complaints. The Whistleblower Protection Act and the Recovery Act provide additional authority for GAO to assist whistleblowers. GAO also maintains a fraud reporting service, which has recently generated more than 25 allegations of misuse of Recovery and other federal funds. These allegations are currently under review by our forensic audit team. Since GAO first provided this Subcommittee with an estimate of the Recovery Act R&D funds to be spent, agencies have submitted program plans to OMB that include, among other things, programs' objectives, schedules, and the types of financial awards to be used. OMB expects to approve these plans by May 15, 2009. As of April 28, 2009, only the Department of Energy's Office of Science had obligated Recovery Act R&D funds for project expenditures. Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09597t.pdf The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided $48.1 billion in additional spending at the Department of Transportation (DOT) for investments in transportation infrastructure, including highways, passenger rail, and transit. This statement provides a general overview of (1) selected states' use of Recovery Act funds for highway programs, (2) the approaches taken by these states to ensure accountability for these funds, and (3) the selected states' plans to evaluate the impact of the Recovery Act funds that they receive for highway programs. This statement is based on work in which GAO examined the use of Recovery Act funds by a core group of 16 states and the District of Columbia, representing about 65 percent of the U.S. population and two-thirds of the intergovernmental federal assistance available through the Act. GAO issued its first bimonthly report on April 23, 2009. According to DOT, as of mid-April, the 17 locations that GAO reviewed had obligated $3.3 billion of the over $15 billion (21 percent) in highway investment funds that DOT had apportioned to them. These funds will be used in about 900 projects. States are using existing statewide plans to quickly identify and obligate funding for Recovery Act transportation projects. Several states have generally focused on rehabilitation and repair projects, because these projects require lessenvironmental review or design work. For example, the New Jersey Department of Transportation selected 40 projects and concentrated mainly on projects that require little environmental clearance or extensive design work, such as highway and bridge painting and deck replacement. Some states also reported targeting funds toward projects with an emphasis on job creation and consideration of economically distressed areas. For example, Colorado Department of Transportation officials are emphasizing construction projects, such as highway bridge replacements, rather than projects in planning or design phases, in order to maximize job creation. The Illinois Department of Transportation reported that it is planning to spend a large share of its estimated $655 million in Recovery Act funds for highway and bridge projects in economically distressed areas. States are modifying systems to track Recovery Act funds but are concerned about tracking funds distributed directly to nonstate entities. Officials from all 16 of the states which GAO is reviewing and the District of Columbia stated that they have established or are establishing ways to identify, monitor, track, and report on the use of the Recovery Act funds. However, officials from many of these states and the District of Columbia have concerns about the ability of subrecipients, localities, and other non-state entities to separately monitor, track, and report on the Recovery Act funds these nonstate entities receive. Officials in several states also expressed concern about being held accountable for funds flowing directly to localities or other recipients and indicated that either their states would not be tracking Recovery Act funds going to the local levels or that they were unsure how much data would be available on the use of these funds. Our April 23rd report recommended that the OMB evaluate current reporting requirements before adding further data collection requirements. States vary in their responses to determining how to assess the impact of Recovery Act funds. For programs such as the Federal-aid Highway Surface Transportation Program, some states will use existing federal program guidance or performance measures to evaluate impact. However, a number of states have expressed concerns about definitions of "jobs retained" and "jobs created" under the act, as well as methodologies that can be used for the estimation of each. Given these concerns, GAO recommended in its first bimonthly report that the OMB continue to identify methodologies that can be used to determine jobs retained and created from projects funded by the Recovery Act. Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09590r.pdf Grants.gov is the central grant identification and application portal for the more than 1,000 federal grants programs offered by 26 federal grant-making agencies and organizations. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) created Grants.gov, to streamline administrative grant application requirements and reduce the burden on applicants, among other things. On March 6, 2009, Grants.gov began posting specific grant opportunities provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). As a result, submissions have escalated to an unprecedented level. During the first week in April, Grants.gov processed almost 11,500 applications, or about three times the weekly average number of submissions in fiscal year 2008. One day that week Grants.gov accepted 3,555 applications--the largest 1-day total to date. On March 9, 2009, OMB notified federal agencies that over the past several months Grants.gov had experienced increased activity beyond what was originally anticipated by the system, which had at times resulted in noticeably degraded performance. OMB further noted that given the expected increase in application volume because of the Recovery Act, the system was at significant risk of failure, thus potentially hampering Recovery Act implementation. To reduce demand on the Grants.gov system and to assist applicants in the short term, OMB instructed federal grant-making agencies to identify alternate methods for accepting grant applications during the peak period of the Recovery Act, with a focus on minimizing any disruption to the grants application processes. OMB and agencies estimate that this peak period will last from April through about August 2009. Alternate methods for applying include agency-specific electronic systems (i.e., non-Grants.gov electronic systems run by a grantor agency), e-mail, fax, and mail. On April 8, 2009, OMB issued another memorandum stating that the existing Grants.gov infrastructure will not be able to handle the influx of applications expected as key Recovery Act deadlines approach. OMB said that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal agency that operates and maintains Grants.gov, and the General Services Administration (GSA), which serves as the facilitator of governmentwide solutions, are working together to initiate urgent improvements to the system, and that each grant-making agency is being asked to cover a proportionate share of these improvements. Based on our ongoing work on Grants.gov, Congress asked us to issue two reports: one immediately on our initial observations on improving grant submission policies that could help minimize disruptions to the grants application process during the Recovery Act's peak filing period, and the second in June 2009 addressing in more detail systemic issues with Grants.gov and implications of varying agency policies for processing application submissions. OMB created Grants.gov (initially known as e-Grants) in response to the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999, commonly referred to by the grants community and OMB as Public Law 106-107. Public Law 106-107 sought to improve coordination among federal grantor agencies and their nonfederal partners. It required federal grant-making agencies to streamline and simplify the application, administrative, and reporting procedures for their programs. The act also required OMB to direct, coordinate, and assist agencies in developing and implementing a common application and reporting system that included electronic processes with which a nonfederal entity can apply for multiple grant programs that serve similar purposes but are administered by different federal agencies. OMB has acknowledged the importance of Grants.gov in successfully implementing the Recovery Act. By working with agencies to initiate immediate improvements to Grants.gov and requiring agencies to identify alternate methods for accepting grant applications, OMB has played a critical role in minimizing disruptions to the grants application process. OMB and the Grants.gov staff have worked quickly to mitigate an impending system failure and protect the flow of Recovery Act grant funds to struggling communities around the country. However, applicants lack a centralized source of information on how and when to use these alternatives, rendering them less effective than they otherwise might be in reducing the strain on a system already suffering from seriously degraded performance. Moreover, inconsistent agency policies for grant closing times, what constitutes a timely application, when and whether applicants are notified of the status of their applications, and the basis on which applicants can appeal a late application create confusion and uncertainty for applicants and could result in an application being treated differently depending on how it is submitted--results that are contrary to OMB's stated purposes for recent efforts to improve Grants.gov and to the streamlining goals of Public Law 106-107 in general. Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09662t.pdf The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provides resources to the Social Security Administration (SSA) to help replace its National Computer Center. This data center, which is 30 years old, houses the backbone of the agency's automated operations, which are critical to providing benefits to nearly 55 million people, issuing Social Security cards, and maintaining earnings records. The act makes $500 million available to SSA for the replacement of its National Computer Center and associated information technology (IT) costs. In this testimony, GAO was asked to comment on key IT management capabilities that will be important to the success of SSA's data center initiative. To do so, GAO relied on previously published products, including frameworks that it has developed for analyzing IT management areas. GAO has not performed a detailed examination of SSA's plans for this initiative, so it is not commenting on the agency's progress or making recommendations. For an effort as central to SSA's mission as its planned new data center, effective practices in key IT management areas are essential. For example: (1) Effective strategic planning helps an agency set priorities and decide how best to coordinate activities to achieve its goals. For example, a strategic plan identifying interdependencies among modernization project activities helps ensure that these are understood and managed, so that projects--and thus system solutions--are effectively integrated. Given that the new data center is to form the backbone of SSA's automated operations, it is important that the agency identify goals, resources, and dependencies in the context of its strategic vision. (2) An agency's enterprise architecture describes both its operations and the technology used to carry them out. A blueprint for organizational change, an architecture is defined in models that describe (in business and technology terms) an entity's current operation and planned future operation, as well as a plan for transitioning from one to the other. An enterprise architecture can help optimize SSA's data center initiative by ensuring that its planning and implementation take full account of the business and technology environment. (3) For IT investment management, an agency should follow a portfoliobased approach in which investments are selected, controlled, and monitored from an agencywide perspective. By helping to allocate resources effectively, robust investment management processes can help SSA meet the accountability requirements and align with the goals of the Recovery Act. For example, projects funded under the act are to avoid unnecessary delays and cost overruns and are to achieve specific program outcomes. Investment management is aimed at precisely such goals: for example, accurate cost estimating (an important aspect of investment management) provides a sound basis for establishing a baseline to formulate budgets and measure program performance. Further, the act emphasizes energy efficiency--also a major concern for data centers, which have high power and cooling requirements. Investment management tools are important for evaluating the most cost-effective approaches to energy efficiency. (4) Finally, information security should be considered throughout the planning, development, and implementation of the data center. Security is vital for any organization that depends on information systems and networks to carry out its mission--especially for government agencies like SSA, where maintaining the public's trust is essential. One part of information security management is contingency and continuity of operations planning--vital for a data center that is to be the backbone of SSA's operations and service delivery. Data centers are vulnerable to a variety of service disruptions, including accidental file deletions, network failures, systems malfunctions, and disasters. Accordingly, it is necessary to define plans governing how information will be processed, retrieved, and protected in the event of minor interruptions or a full-blown disaster. These capabilities will be important in helping to ensure that SSA's data center effort is successful and effectively uses Recovery Act funds. Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09631t.pdf This testimony discusses GAO's work examining the uses and planning by selected states and localities for funds made available by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The Recovery Act is estimated to cost about $787 billion over the next several years, of which about $280 billion will be administered through states and localities. Funds made available under the Recovery Act are being distributed to states, localities, and other entities and individuals through a combination of grants and direct assistance. As Congress may know, the stated purposes of the Recovery Act are to: (1) preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery; (2) assist those most impacted by the recession; (3) provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health; (4) invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits; and (5) stabilize state and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases. As described in GAO's March testimony, the Recovery Act specifies several roles for GAO including conducting bimonthly reviews of selected states' and localities' use of funds made available under the act. This statement today is based on our report being released today, Recovery Act: As Initial Implementation Unfolds in States and Localities, Continued Attention to Accountability Issues Is Essential, which is the first in a series of bimonthly reviews we will do on states' and localities' uses of Recovery Act funding and covers the actions taken under the Act through April 20, 2009. Our report and our other work related to the Recovery Act can be found on our new website called Following the Money: GAO's Oversight of the Recovery Act, which is accessible through GAO's home page at www.gao.gov. Like the report, this statement discusses (1) selected states' and localities' uses of and planning for Recovery Act funds, (2) the approaches taken by the selected states and localities to ensure accountability for Recovery Act funds, and (3) states' plans to evaluate the impact of the Recovery Act funds they received. About 90 percent of the estimated $49 billion in Recovery Act funding to be provided to states and localities in FY2009 will be through health, transportation and education programs. Within these categories, the three largest programs are increased Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) grant awards, funds for highway infrastructure investment, and the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF). The funding notifications for Recovery Act funds for the 16 selected states and the District of Columbia (the District) have been approximately $24.2 billion for Medicaid FMAP on April 3, $26.7 billion for highways on March 2, and $32.6 billion for SFSF on April 2. Fifteen of the 16 states and the District have drawn down approximately $7.96 billion in increased FMAP grant awards for the period October 1, 2008 through April 1, 2009. The increased FMAP is for state expenditures for Medicaid services. The receipt of this increased FMAP may reduce the state share for their Medicaid programs. States have reported using funds made available as a result of the increased FMAP for a variety of purposes. For example, states and the District reported using these funds to maintain their current level of Medicaid eligibility and benefits, cover their increased Medicaid caseloads-which are primarily populations that are sensitive to economic downturns, including children and families, and to offset their state general fund deficits thereby avoiding layoffs and other measures detrimental to economic recovery. States are undertaking planning activities to identify projects, obtain approval at the state and federal level and move them to contracting and implementation. For the most part, states were focusing on construction and maintenance projects, such as road and bridge repairs. Before they can expend Recovery Act funds, states must reach agreement with the Department of Transportation on the specific projects; as of April 16, two of the 16 states had agreements covering more than 50 percent of their states' apportioned funds, and three states did not have agreement on any projects. While a few, including Mississippi and Iowa had already executed contracts, most of the 16 states were planning to solicit bids in April or May. Thus, states generally had not yet expended significant amounts of Recovery Act funds. The states and D.C. must apply to the Department of Education for SFSF funds. Education will award funds once it determines that an application contains key assurances and information on how the state will use the funds. As of April 20, applications from three states had met that determination- South Dakota, and two of GAO's sample states, California and Illinois. The applications from other states are being developed and submitted and have not yet been awarded. The states and the District report that SFSF funds will be used to hire and retain teachers, reduce the potential for layoffs, cover budget shortfalls, and restore funding cuts to programs. Planning continues for the use of Recovery Act funds. State activities indlude appointing Recovery Czars; establishing task forces and other entities, and developing public websites to solicit input and publicize selected projects. GAO found that the selected states and the District are taking various approaches to ensuring that internal controls manage risk up-front; they are assessing known risks and developing plans to address those risks. State auditors are also planning their work including conducting required single audits and testing compliance with federal requirements. Nearly half of the estimated spending programs in the Recovery Act will be administered by non-federal entities. State officials suggested opportunities to improve communication in several areas. Officials in nine of the 16 states and the District expressed concern about determining the jobs created and retained under the Recovery Act, as well as methodologies that can be used for estimation of each. Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09580.pdf The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) is estimated to cost about $787 billion over the next several years, of which about $280 billion will be administered through states and localities. The Recovery Act requires GAO to do bimonthly reviews of the use of funds by selected states and localities. In this first report, GAO describes selected states' and localities' (1) uses of and planning of Recovery Act funds, (2) accountability approaches, and (3) plans to evaluate the impact of funds received. GAO's work is focused on 16 states and the District of Columbia--representing about 65 percent of the U.S. population and two-thirds of the intergovernmental federal assistance available through the Recovery Act. GAO collected documents from and interviewed state and local officials, including Governors, "Recovery Czars," State Auditors, Controllers, and Treasurers. GAO also reviewed guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other federal agencies. About 90 percent of the estimated $49 billion in Recovery Act funding to be provided to states and localities in FY2009 will be through health, transportation and education programs. Within these categories, the three largest programs are increased Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) grant awards, funds for highway infrastructure investment, and the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF). The funding notifications for Recovery Act funds for the 16 selected states and the District of Columbia (the District) have been approximately $24.2 billion for Medicaid FMAP on April 3, $26.7 billion for highways on March 2, and $32.6 billion for SFSF on April 2. Fifteen of the 16 states and the District have drawn down approximately $7.96 billion in increased FMAP grant awards for the period October 1, 2008 through April 1, 2009. The increased FMAP is for state expenditures for Medicaid services. The receipt of this increased FMAP may reduce the state share for their Medicaid programs. States have reported using funds made available as a result of the increased FMAP for a variety of purposes. For example, states and the District reported using these funds to maintain their current level of Medicaid eligibility and benefits, cover their increased Medicaid caseloads-which are primarily populations that are sensitive to economic downturns, including children and families, and to offset their state general fund deficits thereby avoiding layoffs and other measures detrimental to economic recovery. States are undertaking planning activities to identify projects, obtain approval at the state and federal level and move them to contracting and implementation. For the most part, states were focusing on construction and maintenance projects, such as road and bridge repairs. Before they can expend Recovery Act funds, states must reach agreement with the Department of Transportation on the specific projects; as of April 16, two of the 16 states had agreements covering more than 50 percent of their states' apportioned funds, and three states did not have agreement on any projects. While a few, including Mississippi and Iowa had already executed contracts, most of the 16 states were planning to solicit bids in April or May. Thus, states generally had not yet expended significant amounts of Recovery Act funds. The states and D.C. must apply to the Department of Education for SFSF funds. Education will award funds once it determines that an application contains key assurances and information on how the state will use the funds. As of April 20, applications from three states had met that determination- South Dakota, and two of GAO's sample states, California and Illinois. The applications from other states are being developed and submitted and have not yet been awarded. The states and the District report that SFSF funds will be used to hire and retain teachers, reduce the potential for layoffs, cover budget shortfalls, and restore funding cuts to programs. Planning continues for the use of Recovery Act funds. State activities indlude appointing Recovery Czars; establishing task forces and other entities, and developing public websites to solicit input and publicize selected projects. GAO found that the selected states and the District are taking various approaches to ensuring that internal controls manage risk up-front; they are assessing known risks and developing plans to address those risks. State auditors are also planning their work including conducting required single audits and testing compliance with federal requirements. Nearly half of the estimated spending programs in the Recovery Act will be administered by non-federal entities. State officials suggested opportunities to improve communication in several areas. Officials in nine of the 16 states and the District expressed concern about determining the jobs created and retained under the Recovery Act, as well as methodologies that can be used for estimation of each. Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09632t.pdf In 2001, GAO identified human capital management as a governmentwide high-risk area because federal agencies lacked a strategic approach to human capital management that integrated human capital efforts with their missions and program goals. Progress has been made. However, the area remains high-risk because of a continuing need for a governmentwide framework to advance human capital reform. The importance of a top-notch federal workforce cannot be overstated. The federal government is facing new and growing challenges coupled with a retirement wave and the loss of leadership and institutional knowledge at all levels. The issues facing agencies are complex and require a broad range of technical skills that are also highly sought after by the private sector. This testimony, based on a large body of completed work issued from January 2001 through March 2009, focuses on executive branch agencies' and the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) progress in addressing strategic human capital management challenges in four key areas: (1) leadership; (2) strategic human capital planning; (3) acquiring, developing, and retaining talent; and (4) results-oriented organizational culture. In prior reports, GAO has made a range of recommendations to OPM and agencies in the four areas. GAO is reporting on progress in addressing these recommendations and is making no new recommendations. Congress, executive branch agencies, and OPM have taken action to reform federal human capital management, but federal agencies are facing new challenges. The recent need to quickly hire staff to carry out and oversee the Troubled Asset Relief Program and expanded agency responsibilities under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 point to the need for sustained attention to help ensure that agencies have the right people with the right skills to meet new challenges. Top leadership in agencies across the federal government must provide committed and inspired attention needed to address human capital and related organizational transformation issues. OPM has made strides in transforming itself as a strategic partner to help lead human capital reform efforts. For example, at the agency level, OPM works with the Chief Human Capital Officers council to develop and disseminate human capital guidance and relies upon the council members to communicate OPM policy and other human capital information throughout their agencies. Integrating succession planning and management efforts that focus on strengthening both current and future organizational capacity to obtain or develop the knowledge, skills, and abilities agencies need to meet their missions continues to be important. For example, GAO has reported on a challenge in the acquisition workforce where the workload and complexity of responsibilities have been increasing without adequate attention to the workforce's size, skills and knowledge, and succession planning. Faced with a workforce that is becoming more retirement eligible and the need for a different mix of knowledge, skills, and competencies, it is important that agencies strengthen their efforts and use available flexibilities. Agencies have developed strategies to recruit needed talent, including turning to older experienced workers to fill knowledge and skills gaps. For example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has used a combination of techniques to recruit workers with critical skills, including targeted recruitment activities, educational outreach programs, improved compensation and benefits packages, and streamlined hiring authorities. In addition to promoting high performance and accountability to foster results-oriented cultures, it is important for agencies to develop and maintain inclusive and diverse workforces that reflect all segments of society. Agencies can benefit from strategies that offer a diverse pool of talent for selecting the agencies' future leaders and recruiting new employees so that agencies can get a wider variety of perspectives and approaches. Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09560t.pdf This testimony discusses the potential viability of high speed rail in the United States. Federal and other decision makers have had a renewed interest in how high speed rail might fit into the national transportation system and address increasing mobility constraints on highways and at airports due to congestion. This testimony is based on our report issued March 19, 2009, entitled High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role. In preparing the report, we reviewed federal legislation; interviewed federal, state, local, and private sector officials, as well as U.S. project sponsors; and reviewed high speed rail development in France, Japan, and Spain. More detailed information on our scope and methodology appears in the March 19, 2009, report. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. This statement focuses on (1) the factors affecting the economic viability of high speed rail projects, including difficulties in determining the economic viability of proposed projects; (2) the challenges in developing and financing high speed rail systems; and (3) the federal role in the potential development of U.S. high speed rail systems. In summary, high speed rail does not offer a quick or simple solution to relieving congestion on our nation's highways and airways. High speed rail projects are costly, risky, take years to develop and build, and require substantial up-front public investment as well as potentially long-term operating subsidies. Yet the potential benefits of high speed rail--both to riders and nonriders--are many. Whether any of the nearly 50 current domestic high speed rail proposals (or any future domestic high speed rail proposal), may eventually be built will hinge on addressing the funding, public support, and other challenges facing these projects. Determining which, if any, proposed high speed rail projects should be built will require decision makers to be better able to determine a project's economic viability--meaning whether total social benefits offset or justify total social costs. Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09525t.pdf A complete and accurate census is becoming an increasingly daunting task, in part because the nation's population is growing larger, more diverse, and more reluctant to participate, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau). When the census misses a person who should have been included, it results in an undercount, and the differential impact on various subpopulations, such as minorities, is particularly problematic. This testimony provides an update on the Bureau's readiness to implement its Integrated Communications Campaign, one of several efforts aimed at reducing the undercount. GAO focused on the campaign's key components: partnerships with local and national organizations, paid advertising and public relations, and Census in Schools (designed to reach parents and guardians through their school-age children). GAO also discusses the extent to which the rollout of the campaign is consistent with factors important for greater accountability and successful results. This testimony is based on previously issued work, ongoing reviews of relevant documents, and interviews with key Bureau officials. The Bureau has made notable progress in rolling out key components of its communications campaign; if implemented as planned, the campaign will help position the Bureau to address the undercount. For example, to help promote the census and convince individuals--especially hard-to-count groups--to respond, the Bureau plans to partner with state, local, and tribal governments; religious, community, and social service organizations; and private businesses to secure a more complete count. According to the Bureau, it has thus far secured partnership agreements with more than 10,000 organizations for 2010. The Bureau intends to focus its efforts on hard-to-count communities using data from the 2000 Census, and additional funding made available from the recently enacted economic recovery legislation will enable the Bureau to greatly expand staffing for the partnership program. Future success will depend in part on how well the Bureau communicates with partners and incorporates other best practices from 2000, as well as on how well it monitors the progress of the partnership efforts and whether it uses results-oriented measures so as to deploy resources as needed. The Bureau updated its paid media and public relations strategy from 2000 to meet a changing media environment and plans to focus its efforts on hard-to-count populations. In addition to traditional outlets such as television and radio, the Bureau also intends to employ on line media, such as podcasts and blogs. Currently, the Bureau plans to devote 55 percent of its advertising resources to national media, which provides the broadest reach, and 45 percent to local media, which better targets specific hard-to-count communities. The Bureau has also completed research on factors affecting census participation, which could help the Bureau address the long-standing issue of converting awareness of the census into actual participation. The Census in Schools program is also moving forward. Like the other components of the communications campaign, the Bureau plans to target its efforts to those schools where data from the 2000 Census suggest that the program will have the most impact: school districts in hard-to-count communities and kindergarten through 8th grade. In general, the design of the Bureau's communications campaign appears to be comprehensive, integrated, shaped by the Bureau's experience in the 2000 Census, and targeted to hard-to-count populations. The programs GAO reviewed are in the planning or early implementation phases, and future success will depend on how well the Bureau moves from the design to operational phases. Further, while the extra money the Bureau received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will help augment its outreach efforts, it does not necessarily follow that additional activity will yield higher response rates. Therefore, consistent with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act the Bureau will need to identify, among other things, (1) cost estimates of the activities being funded, (2) the objectives and outcome-related goals of the planned spending, and (3) how the spending will help achieve those goals. Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09515t.pdf This testimony discusses GAO's role to help ensure accountability and transparency for science funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The purposes of the Recovery Act funds include preserving and creating jobs and promoting economic recovery; assisting those most impacted by the recession; investing in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure to provide long-term economic benefits; and stabilizing state and local government budgets. The Recovery Act, estimated to cost $787 billion, includes more than $21 billion in spending at the Departments of Energy and Commerce, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for research and development (R&D) related activities that support fundamental research, demonstrate and deploy advanced energy technologies, purchase scientific instrumentation and equipment, and construct or modernize research facilities. This statement discusses (1) GAO's responsibilities under the Recovery Act related to science funding; (2) particular R&D funding areas that deserve special attention to ensure that funds are best used; and (3) GAO's plans for carrying out its responsibilities under the act. The Recovery Act directs GAO to provide bimonthly reviews and reporting on selected states' and localities' use of funds. GAO has initiated this work and will examine 16 states and the District of Columbia that contain about 65 percent of the U.S. population and are estimated to receive about two-thirds of the intergovernmental grants funds available through the Recovery Act. Because of the scope of this work, GAO has reached out to the broader accountability community to coordinate our respective roles, planned approaches, and timelines. On February 25, 2009, GAO hosted an initial coordination meeting with the Inspectors General (IG) or their representatives from 17 agencies. In carrying out its oversight roles related to science funding, GAO plans to work together with the IGs as they seek to ensure that Energy, Commerce, NSF, and NASA spend the Recovery Act's R&D-related monies promptly, effectively, and in compliance with applicable laws. GAO's prior work has identified several Energy, Commerce, NSF, and NASA programs that deserve special attention from management and the IG's office to ensure that funds are put to best use. For example, the Recovery Act made $6 billion available to Energy to support $60 billion in new loan guarantees under its innovative technology loan guarantee program. However, in July 2008, GAO reported that DOE was not well positioned to manage the loan guarantee program effectively and maintain accountability because it had not completed a number of key management and internal control activities. GAO recommended, among other things, that DOE complete detailed internal loan selection policies and procedures that lay out roles and responsibilities and criteria and requirements for conducting and documenting analyses and decision making. The act also made $3.5 billion available to Energy to fund R&D on renewable energy and fossil energy. In December 2008, GAO reported that DOE does not formally assess whether industry would undertake oil and gas R&D without federal funding, raising questions about the appropriate use of federal funds, and recommended that DOE assess the likelihood that the R&D would not occur without federal funding. The Recovery Act provided a total of $1 billion to NASA, including $400 million for exploration. In March 2009, GAO reported that 10 of 13 NASA projects with life-cycle costs exceeding $250 million had experienced significant cost and/or schedule growth--on average, development costs had increased by 13 percent and launch had been delayed by 11 months. To make the most effective and efficient use of resources, GAO plans to fulfill its Recovery Act responsibilities by working together with the IGs to leverage strengths and avoid duplication of effort wherever possible. In consultation with Congress as part of its general responsibilities, GAO also will target at- risk programs for review and expand its work on base programs to examine any related stimulus funding. Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09317.pdf Federal and other decision makers have had a renewed interest in how high speed rail might fit into the national transportation system and address increasing mobility constraints on highways and at airports due to congestion. GAO was asked to review (1) the factors affecting the economic viability--meaning whether total social benefits offset or justify total social costs--of high speed rail projects, including difficulties in determining the economic viability of proposed projects; (2) the challenges in developing and financing high speed rail systems; and (3) the federal role in the potential development of U.S. high speed rail systems. GAO reviewed federal legislation; interviewed federal, state, local, and private sector officials, as well as U.S. project sponsors; and reviewed high speed rail development in France, Japan, and Spain. Factors affecting the economic viability of high speed rail lines include the level of expected riders, costs, and public benefits (i.e., benefits to non-riders and the nation as a whole from such things as reduced congestion), which are influenced by a line's corridor and service characteristics. High speed rail tends to attract riders in dense, highly populated corridors, especially where there is congestion on existing transportation modes. Costs largely hinge on the availability of rail right-of-way and on a corridor's terrain. To stay within financial or other constraints, project sponsors typically make trade-offs between cost and service characteristics. While some U.S. corridors have characteristics that suggest economic viability, uncertainty associated with rider and cost estimates and the valuation of public benefits makes it difficult to make such determinations on individual proposals. Research on rider and cost forecasts has shown they are often optimistic, and the extent that U.S. sponsors quantify and value public benefits varies. Once projects are deemed economically viable, project sponsors face the challenging tasks of securing the up-front investment for construction costs and sustaining public and political support and stakeholder consensus. In the three countries GAO visited, the central government generally funded the majority of the up-front costs of high speed rail lines. By contrast, federal funding for high speed rail has been derived from general revenues, not from trust funds or other dedicated funding sources. Consequently, high speed rail projects must compete with other nontransportation demands on federal funds (e.g., national defense or health care) as opposed to being compared with other alternative transportation investments in a corridor. Available federal loan programs can support only a fraction of potential high speed rail project costs. Without substantial public sector commitment, private sector participation is difficult to secure. The challenge of sustaining public support and stakeholder consensus is compounded by long project lead times, by numerous stakeholders, and by the absence of an established institutional framework. The recently enacted Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 will likely increase the federal role in the development of high speed rail, as will the newly enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In the United States, federal involvement with high speed rail to date has been limited. The national rail plan required by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 is an opportunity to identify the vision and goals for U.S. high speed rail and how it fits into the national transportation system, an exercise that has largely remained incomplete. Accountability can be enhanced by tying the specific, measurable goals required by the act to performance and accountability measures. In developing analytical tools to apply to the act's project selection criteria, it will be important to address optimistic rider and cost forecasts and varied public benefits analyses. Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09465t.pdf This testimony discusses our recent report on the Department of Energy's (DOE) decision to restructure the FutureGen program. The original FutureGen plant was to capture and store underground about 90 percent of its CO2 emissions. DOE's cost share was to be 74 percent, and industry partners agreed to fund the rest. Concerned about escalating costs, DOE announced in January 2008 that it had decided to restructure FutureGen. In October 2008, DOE received a small number of applications for the restructured FutureGen; however, some of these applications were for proposals outside the restructured FutureGen's scope. As we reported, DOE is currently assessing proposals received and stated it expected to announce a selection of projects by December 2008; however, as of the beginning of March 2009, it had made no decision. DOE requested supplemental information from restructured FutureGen applicants, which will be reviewed before any selection decision. As Congress may know, the recently enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, known as the stimulus law, provides DOE an additional $3.4 billion for "Fossil Energy Research and Development." Such a substantial amount of funding could significantly impact DOE's decisions about how to move forward with programs such as FutureGen. The overall goals of the original and restructured FutureGen programs are largely similar in that both programs seek to produce electricity from coal with near-zero emissions by using CCS, and to make that process economically viable for the electric power industry. However, the programs have different approaches for achieving their goals, which could have different impacts on the commercial advancement of CCS and, therefore, result in two largely distinct programs. First, the original program focused on researching and developing the integration of IGCC and CCS at a new, commercial-scale, coal-fired power plant, while the restructured FutureGen aims at demonstrating the use of CCS technology at one or more new or existing commercial coal-fired power plants. As a result, the restructured program could provide opportunities to learn about CCS at different plants, including those that use IGCC and conventional ones that use pulverized coal generating technology. However, under the restructured program, learning about the integration of IGCC and CCS would be possible only if DOE received applications proposing IGCC and selected one for funding. Second, it is unclear which of the two programs would advance the broader roll out of CCS across industry more quickly. The original FutureGen would have served as an operating laboratory host facility for (1) emerging technologies aimed at the goal of near-zero emissions (such as hydrogen fuel cells and advanced gasification) and (2) gaining broad industry acceptance for these technologies. In contrast, the restructured FutureGen would not include a facility for testing these technologies, and its ability to advance them would, therefore, be limited. DOE manages a portfolio of clean coal programs that research and develop CCS technology or demonstrate its application. The restructured FutureGen differs in important ways from most of DOE's other CCS programs, with the exception of one program--Round III of the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI). Both the restructured FutureGen and CCPI (1) fund the commercial demonstration of CCS at new or existing coal-fired power plants and (2) require industry participants to bear at least 50 percent of costs. We reported that the restructured FutureGen targets a higher amount of CO2 to be captured and stored (at least 1 million metric tons stored annually, per plant) than CCPI does (300,000 metric tons of CO2 stored or put to use annually, such as to enhance oil recovery, per plant). However, CCPI's goals may be more achievable for industry partners than those of the restructured FutureGen and, therefore, lead to more industry participation. Contrary to best practices, DOE did not base its decision to restructure FutureGen on a comprehensive analysis of factors such as the associated costs, benefits, and risks. DOE based its decision largely on its conclusion that costs for the original FutureGen had doubled and would escalate substantially. However, this conclusion was problematic because it was derived from a comparison of two cost estimates for the original FutureGen that were not comparable; DOE's $950 million estimate was in constant 2004 dollars, while the $1.8 billion estimate of DOE's industry partners was inflated through 2017. As a result, DOE has no assurance that the restructured FutureGen is the best option to advance CCS. In contrast, DOE's Office of Fossil Energy had identified and analyzed 13 other options for incremental, cost-saving changes to the original program, such as reducing the CO2 capture requirement. Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09435t.pdf A safe, efficient, and convenient transportation system is integral to the health of our economy and quality of life. Our nation's vast transportation system of airways, railways, roads, transit systems, and waterways has served this need, yet is under considerable pressure due to increasing congestion and costs to maintain and improve the system. Calls for increased investment come at a time when traditional funding for transportation projects is increasingly strained. The authorizing legislation supporting transportation programs will soon expire. The Department of Transportation (DOT) implements national transportation policy and administers most federal transportation programs. DOT received funds for transportation infrastructure projects through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to aid in economic recovery. DOT also requested $72.5 billion to carry out its activities for fiscal year 2010. This statement presents GAO's views on major challenges facing DOT and Congress as they work to administer recovery funds and reauthorize surface transportation and aviation programs. It is based on work GAO has completed over the last several years. GAO has made recommendations to DOT to improve transportation programs; the agency has generally agreed with these recommendations. To supplement this existing work, GAO obtained information on the recovery funds provided to DOT. The Department of Transportation received about $48 billion of recovery funds for investments in transportation infrastructure from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. As with other executive agencies, DOT is faced with the challenges of using these funds in ways that will aid economic recovery, making wise funding choices while spending the money quickly, and ensuring accountability for results. GAO will report to Congress bimonthly on how states and localities use the recovery funds received from DOT. DOT and Congress will also be faced with numerous challenges as they work to reauthorize surface transportation and aviation programs. Funding the nation's transportation system. Revenues to support the Highway Trust Fund are not keeping pace with spending levels and the Highway Account was nearly depleted last summer. In addition, the excise taxes that fund Airport and Airway Trust Fund revenues have been lower than previously forecasted, and forecasts of future revenues have declined. Declining revenues in both trust funds may adversely affect DOT's ability to continue to fund surface transportation and aviation programs at levels previously assumed. Improving transportation safety. Although the number of traffic crashes and the associated fatality rate has decreased over the last 10 years, the number of fatalities has remained at about 42,000 annually. The continued high level of fatalities and difficulties experienced by states in implementing grant programs raise issues for Congress to consider in restructuring these programs during reauthorization. While the U.S. commercial aviation industry is among the safest in the world, accidents can have catastrophic consequences. The lack of performance measures and complete data limit DOT's ability to improve safety and manage safety risks. Improving transportation mobility. Despite large increases in transportation spending, congestion on our nation's highways has increased over the last 10 years and increased demand will further strain the system. Flight delays and cancellations at congested airports continue to plague the U.S. aviation system. For example, almost one in four flights either arrived late or was canceled in 2008, and the average flight delay increased despite a 6 percent annual decline in the total number of operations through December 2008. Congestion poses serious economic as well as environmental and health concerns for the nation. Transforming the nation's air traffic control system. The air traffic control modernization program is technically complex and costly. The Federal Aviation Administration will need to accelerate the implementation of new and existing technologies, consider incentives for aircraft operators to acquire those technologies, and sustain the current system while transitioning to the new one, among other things. Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0400 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09453t.pdf This testimony discusses GAO's plans to carry out its oversight role related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The Recovery Act funds are provided for purposes including: preserving and creating jobs and promoting economic recovery; assisting those most impacted by the recession; investing in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure to provide long-term economic benefits; and stabilizing state and local government budgets. The Recovery Act assigns GAO a range of responsibilities to help promote accountability and transparency. Some are recurring requirements such as providing bimonthly reviews of the use of funds by selected states and localities. Others include targeted studies in several areas such as small business lending, education, and trade adjustment assistance. This statement discusses (1) GAO's plans to carry out its responsibilities under the Recovery Act, (2) how GAO's responsibilities relate to other oversight authorities, such as the Inspectors General (IG) and the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (Board), and (3) the challenges posed in ensuring accountability over the use of funds and associated lessons learned and best practices that can be helpful in addressing those challenges. The Recovery Act delineates an important set of responsibilities for GAO and others in the accountability community. GAO's bimonthly reviews of selected states' and localities' uses of the Recovery Act funds will examine how funds are being used and achieving the stated purposes of the Recovery Act. GAO has selected a core group of 16 states to follow over the next few years to provide an ongoing longitudinal analysis of the use of funds under the Recovery Act. These states contain about 65 percent of the U.S. population and are estimated to receive about two-thirds of the intergovernmental grants funds available through the Recovery Act. In addition, GAO will sample localities within these states to provide a perspective on the use of funds at the local level. In addition to reporting on the core group of 16 states, GAO will be reviewing the recipient reports from all 50 states as part of its responsibilities to review these filings. Depending on those assessments and other risk-based analyses, GAO's reviews may include additional states, localities, or other recipients as implementation proceeds. GAO is charged with reviewing the use of funds by selected states and localities. IGs across government are expected to audit the efforts of federal agencies' operations and programs related to the Recovery Act, both individually within their particular entities and collectively, as many of them are members of the Board. Because funding streams for the Recovery Act will flow to states and localities from different federal agencies, it is important for GAO to coordinate with the IGs and the Board, which is charged with coordinating and conducting oversight of Recovery Act funds in order to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Among other things, the Board is to review contracts and grants to ensure they meet applicable standards. It is also important for GAO to coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget, especially with regard to reporting requirements and other guidance to fund recipients and on what information should be collected in order to adequately evaluate how well the Recovery Act achieves its objectives. There are many implementation challenges to ensuring adequate accountability and efficient and effective implementation of the Recovery Act. Experience tells us that the risk for fraud and abuse grows when billions of dollars are going out quickly, eligibility requirements are being established or changed, and new programs are being created. This suggests the need for a risk-based approach for targeting attention on specific programs and funding structures early on based on known strengths, vulnerabilities, and weaknesses such as a track record of improper payments or contracting problems. In that regard, the accountability community has, in recent years, produced a wide variety of best practices and related guides, which are available to agencies to assist them in ensuring they have the needed internal controls in place from the outset. These best practices and related guides cover such areas as fraud prevention, contract management, and grants accountability. Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0500 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09371r.pdf Congress asked GAO to estimate the state allocations that would likely occur if an across-the-board percentage point increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) replaced Section 5001 of the proposed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, while maintaining the same funding level that the Congressional Budget Office estimated for this section. This correspondence responds to your request for state-by-state, quarter-by-quarter estimates of the Medicaid funding states would receive with such an across-the-board increase. Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0500 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09364r.pdf Congress asked us to estimate the state allocations that would likely occur in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for the Medicaid funding included in Section 5001 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which is currently being debated by the Senate. This correspondence responds to your request for state-by-state, quarter-by-quarter estimates of the Medicaid funding states would receive under the section of the proposed legislation that temporarily increases the FMAP. The legislation currently being considered in the Senate would provide (1) an increase in each state's FMAP of 7.6 percentage points for the Recession Adjustment Period identified in the legislation (the period from the first quarter of fiscal year 2009 through the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2011), and (2) additional FMAP assistance based on increased unemployment as defined by the qualifying criteria outlined in the legislation if the state's unemployment rate increases at least 1.5 percentage points, but less than 2.5 percentage points (tier 1), at least 2.5 percentage points, but less than 3.5 percentage points (tier 2), or at least 3.5 percentage points (tier 3). Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0500