Search

For the past 50 years, the federal government has had a metropolitan area program designed to provide a nationally consistent set of standards for collecting, tabulating, and publishing federal statistics for geographic areas in the United States and Puerto Rico. Before each decennial census, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews the standards to ensure their continued usefulness and relevance and, if warranted, revises them. While designed only for statistical purposes, various federal programs use the statistical areas to determine eligibility and to allocate federal funds. OMB advises agencies to carefully review program goals to ensure that appropriate geographic entities are used in making these decisions. GAO was asked to examine the process used for developing the OMB standards issued in 2000 and their effects on certain federal programs. Specifically, GAO agreed to report on (1) the process used to develop the 2000 standards, (2) how the 2000 standards differed from the 1990 standards, (3) how the application of the standards affected the geographic distribution of counties into statistical areas, and (4) the effect of standards on the eligibility and funding allocations for four federal programs. The new standards for federal statistical recognition of metropolitan areas issued by OMB in 2000 differ from the 1990 standards in many ways. One of the most notable differences is the introduction of a new designation for less populated areas--micropolitan statistical areas. These are areas comprised of a central county or counties with at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000 but fewer than 50,000 people, plus adjacent outlying counties if commuting criteria is met. The 2000 standards and the latest population update have resulted in five counties being dropped from metropolitan statistical areas, while another 41counties that had been a part of a metropolitan statistical area have had their statistical status changed and are now components of micropolitan statistical areas. Overall, the 2000 standards have resulted in changes in every state and nationwide statistical coverage has increased. Under the 1990 standards, 847 counties were in metropolitan statistical areas. Now, there are 1090 counties in metropolitan statistical areas and 690 counties in micropolitan statistical areas. Of the four federal programs GAO reviewed to determine the impact of the 2000 standards, eligibility under one has expanded; eligibility under another is expected to expand in January 2005; the agency overseeing another anticipates under its proposal that program payments for fiscal year 2005 will be affected, but with no net increase in funding; and eligibility under another program is unaffected because the geographic boundaries used to determine eligibility are set by statute. For example, the standards have resulted in new eligibility in fiscal year 2004 for 60 cities to receive a total of $36.2 million in Community Development Block Grants, which provide funds to revitalize neighborhood infrastructure. This funding increase required a 1.2 percent funding cut for all other grantees because a cut is required to offset increases due to expanded eligibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, U.S. military and federal civilian employees overseas were included in the numbers used for apportioning Congress. Currently, the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) is assessing the practicality of counting all Americans abroad by holding a test census in France, Kuwait, and Mexico. GAO was asked to (1) assess the soundness of the test design, and (2) examine what past court decisions have held about Americans' rights and obligations abroad. Although the overseas enumeration test was designed to help determine the practicality of counting all Americans abroad, because of various methodological limitations, the test results will only partially answer the Bureau's key questions concerning feasibility, data quality, and cost. For example, one research questions asks, "How good is the quality of the data?" However, the Bureau will only measure item nonresponse, which indicates whether a person completed a particular question. As a measure of quality, it is far from complete. Similarly, although a key research objective was to determine the cost of counting Americans overseas, the Bureau's data will not inform the cost of conducting future tests or an overseas enumeration in 2010. Overall, the Bureau overstated the test's ability to answer its key research objectives. Overseas Americans have various rights and obligations to federal programs and activities. For example, Americans abroad are generally taxed on their worldwide income and can vote in federal elections, but are generally not entitled to Medicare benefits. There is nothing in the Constitution, federal law, or court decisions that would either require the Bureau to count overseas Americans, or not count this population group. As a result, Congress would need to enact legislation if it wanted to require the Bureau to include overseas Americans in the 2010 Census. Counting Americans abroad as part of the census would add new risks to an enterprise that already faces an array of challenges. Therefore, it will be important for Congress to decide whether overseas Americans should be counted as part of the census or counted as part of a separate survey or whether there are so many obstacles to a successful count regardless of the approach that the Bureau should shelve any plans for further research and testing. To the extent a second test is required, the Bureau will need to take steps to develop a more rigorous design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) was enacted to address concerns about federal statutes and rules that require state, local, and tribal governments or the private sector to expend resources to achieve legislative goals. UMRA generates information about the nature and size of potential federal mandates to assist Congress and agency decision makers in their consideration of proposed legislation and rules. However, concerns about actual or perceived federal mandates continue. To provide information and analysis regarding UMRA's implementation, GAO was asked to (1) describe the applicable procedures, definitions, and exclusions under UMRA for identifying federal mandates in statutes and rules, (2) identify statutes and final rules that contained federal mandates under UMRA, and (3) provide examples of statutes and final rules that were not identified as federal mandates, but that affected parties might perceive as "unfunded mandates," and the reasons these statutes and rules were not federal mandates under UMRA. GAO focused on statutes enacted and final rules issued in 2001 and 2002 to address the second and third objectives. UMRA generally requires congressional committees and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to identify and estimate the costs of federal mandates contained in proposed legislation and federal agencies to do so for federal mandates contained in their rules. Identification of mandates is a complex process with multiple definitions, exclusions, and cost thresholds. Also, some legislation and rules may be enacted or issued via procedures that do not trigger UMRA reviews. In 2001 and 2002, 5 of 377 statutes enacted and 9 of 122 major or economically significant final rules issued were identified as containing federal mandates at or above UMRA's thresholds. Of the other federal actions in those 2 years, at least 43 statutes and 65 rules contained new requirements on nonfederal parties that might be perceived as "unfunded mandates." For 24 of those statutes and 26 of those rules, CBO or federal agencies had determined that the estimated direct costs or expenditures would not meet or exceed applicable thresholds. For the remaining examples of statues, most often UMRA did not require a CBO review prior to their enactment. The remaining rules most often did not trigger UMRA because they were issued by independent regulatory agencies. Despite the determinations made under UMRA, some statutes and rules not triggering UMRA's thresholds appeared to have potential financial impacts on affected nonfederal parties similar to those of the actions that were identified as containing mandates at or above the act's thresholds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, the federal government provided $10 billion in temporary fiscal relief payments to states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. commonwealths and territories (herein referred to as states). Generally, use of these funds is unrestricted in nature; the act authorizes funds to be used to "provide essential government services" and to "cover the costs... of complying with any federal intergovernmental mandate." These funds were intended to provide antirecession fiscal stimulus to the national economy and to help close state budget shortfalls due to the recession that began in March 2001. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), in February 36 states reported facing budget shortfalls with a cumulative budget gap of about $25.7 billion. This report responds to the February 13, 2004, request by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget to provide information to help Congress assess the use of the temporary state fiscal relief payments. Specifically, we are reporting (1) what is known about the potential impacts of unrestricted fiscal relief on the fiscal behavior of states, (2) how the temporary fiscal relief payments were distributed among the states relative to their fiscal circumstances, and (3) how state budget officials report these funds were used. The temporary fiscal relief payments reviewed in this report were designed to provide assistance to help state and local governments address cyclical deficits prompted by the recent economic downturn. These payments were not intended to address longer term structural fiscal challenges facing state governments, and accordingly our report does not address these issues. Temporary state fiscal relief funds share common characteristics with similar programs enacted in the 1970s that provided unrestricted funds to state and local governments. Past analyses of these programs can provide insights into the potential impacts unrestricted funds can have on the fiscal behavior of state governments. Past studies have also shown that unrestricted federal funds are fungible and can be substituted for state funds, and the uses of such funds are difficult or impossible to track. One study suggested that states could come to rely on federal aid in order to close budget gaps during economic downturns instead of taking actions, such as setting aside budgetary reserves, to stabilize their own finances. We examined the distribution of fiscal relief funds under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 in terms of its timing relative to national economic trends and its targeting relative to each states' fiscal circumstances. From the perspective of the national economy, the first distribution of fiscal relief funds occurred about 19 months after the end of the recession. However, employment levels continued to decline and this was reflected in continuing fiscal stress facing many states during this period. The funds were not targeted to take into account significant differences among states in the impact of the recession, fiscal capacity, and cost of expenditure responsibilities. Rather, the funds were allocated to the states on a per capita basis, adjusted to provide for minimum payment amounts to smaller states. According to NCSL, in April 2004 states reported facing a cumulative budget gap of $720 million, down from $21.5 billion at the same time the previous year. In all of the states we contacted with the exception of New Mexico, budget officials indicated that they had used their own reserve funds, to varying degrees, to address budget shortfalls. States reported deploying fiscal relief funds in state fiscal year 2003, 2004, or planned to in future years. Many of the 12 states we contacted reported using the funds as general revenue available to support broad state purposes. The one-time federal fiscal relief funds were available to help close budget gaps and reduce the pressure for tax increases or spending cuts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires federal agencies to minimize the paperwork burden they impose on the public. The act also requires agencies to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting covered information. At Congress's request, GAO examined changes during the past fiscal year in federal agencies' paperwork burden estimates and their causes, focusing on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). GAO also examined changes in the number of violations of the PRA. As of September 30, 2003, federal agencies estimated that there was about 8.1 billion "burden hours" of paperwork governmentwide. While it may appear that the paperwork burden decreased by about 116 million burden hours from last year, it is important to note that most of the reduction was achieved through adjustments--actions occurring outside of the agencies' control or as a result of reestimates of current paperwork requirements-- and not through agency-initiated actions. In fact, the total paperwork burden, exclusive of adjustments, actually increased by about 72 million burden hours. IRS alone accounted for about 6.5 billion burden hours (81 percent) of the governmentwide burden-hour estimate as well as for most of the burden-hour reduction attributable to adjustments. OMB and the federal agencies identified 223 violations of the PRA that occurred during fiscal year 2003--a slight reduction in the number of violations that were reported last year, but still progress from fiscal year 1998, when there were over 850 violations. OMB continues to take several actions to address PRA violations since last year's hearing. Still, 223 violations of the law during a single year continue to be troubling and should not be tolerated. OMB and the agencies can do more to ensure that the PRA is not violated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) has been in effect for 10 years. In that context, the subcommittee asked GAO to discuss our recent report, Results- Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results. Our testimony addresses the effectiveness of GPRA in creating a focus on results in the federal government. GPRA's requirements have established a solid foundation of results-oriented performance planning, measurement, and reporting in the federal government. Federal managers surveyed by GAO reported having significantly more of the types of performance measures called for by GPRA. GPRA has also begun to facilitate the linking of resources to results, although much remains to be done in this area to increase the use of performance information to make decisions about resources. In our report, we also found agency strategic and annual performance plans and reports have improved over initial efforts. Although a foundation has been established, numerous significant challenges to GPRA implementation still exist. Inconsistent top leadership commitment to achieving results within agencies and OMB can hinder the development of results-oriented cultures in agencies. Furthermore, in certain areas, federal managers continue to have difficulty setting outcome-oriented goals, collecting useful data on results, and linking institutional, program, unit, and individual performance measurement and reward systems. Finally, there is an inadequate focus on addressing issues that cut across federal agencies. OMB, as the focal point for management in the federal government, is responsible for overall leadership and direction in addressing these challenges. OMB has clearly placed greater emphasis on management issues during the past several years. However, OMB has showed less commitment to GPRA implementation in its guidance to agencies and is not using the governmentwide performance plan requirement of GPRA to develop an integrated approach to crosscutting issues. In our view, governmentwide strategic planning could better facilitate the integration of federal activities to achieve national goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of its work to improve the management and the performance of the federal government, GAO monitors progress and continuing challenges related to the five crosscutting initiatives in the President's Management Agenda (PMA). The President cited GAO's high-risk areas and major management challenges in developing these initiatives. GAO remains committed to working with the Congress and the Administration to help address these complex issues. There has been continuing progress in implementing the five crosscutting PMA initiatives to improve the management and performance of the federal government. However, progress has been uneven, and a continuing focus is needed to improve the management and performance of the federal government and ensure accountability. These five crosscutting PMA initiatives are interrelated and must be addressed in an integrated way. Strategic human capital management: Considerable progress has been made in this area since we designated it as high risk in 2001. Serious human capital shortfalls, however, continue to erode the ability of many agencies, and threaten the ability of others, to economically, efficiently, and effectively perform their missions. Budget and performance integration: The administration has set forth an ambitious agenda for performance budgeting but the federal government has a long way to go before it can meet its goals. More explicitly infusing performance information into resource allocation decisions is critical for further progress in government performance and management. Improved financial performance: This initiative is aimed at ensuring that federal financial systems produce accurate and timely information to support operating, budget, and policy decisions. Although a range of improvements is under way, much work remains to be done across government. Expanded electronic government: E-government offers many opportunities to better serve the public, make government more efficient and effective, and reduce costs. Although substantial progress has been made, the government has not yet fully reached its potential in this area. Competitive sourcing: The administration has committed to using competitions to determine whether public or private sources should provide commercial services. OMB has proposed changes to the procedures for conducting public-private competitions under its Circular A-76. However, some of the proposed changes are not consistent with sourcing principles or recommendations of the Commercial Activities Panel. Congressional support has proven to be critical in sustaining interest in management initiatives over time. A focus on the quality of program performance and effective management is critical today, and now is the time to act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]