Financial Management: Federal Financial Management Improvement Act
Results for Fiscal Year 1998 (Letter Report, 10/01/1999, GAO/AIMD-00-3).

The historic inability of many federal agencies to accurately record and
report financial management data on both a year-end and an ongoing basis
for decision-making and oversight purposes continues to be a serious
problem. To improve the accountability and credibility of the federal
government and to restore public confidence, Congress passed the Federal
Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996, which requires auditors
for each of the 24 major federal agencies named in the Chief Financial
Officers Act (CFO) to indicate in their annual financial statements
whether the agencies' financial management systems comply substantially
with the following three requirements: federal financial management
systems requirements, applicable federal accounting standards, and the
U.S. Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. GAO is
required to report annually on the act's implementation. This report
discusses (1) the compliance of CFO agencies' financial systems with the
act's requirements, (2) whether CFO agencies' financial statements have
been prepared in accordance with applicable accounting standards, and
(3) the agencies' plans to ensure that their systems comply with the
act's requirements.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  AIMD-00-3
     TITLE:  Financial Management: Federal Financial Management
	     Improvement Act Results for Fiscal Year 1998
      DATE:  10/01/1999
   SUBJECT:  Federal agency accounting systems
	     Accounting standards
	     Accounting procedures
	     Noncompliance
	     Financial statements
	     Reporting requirements
	     Internal controls
	     Financial statement audits
	     Financial management systems
	     Chief financial officers
IDENTIFIER:  Joint Financial Management Improvement Program
	     JFMIP
	     U.S. Government Standard General Ledger

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
** preserved.                                                   **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

A
Report to Congressional Committees
October 1999 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act Results for Fiscal Year 1998

GAO/AIMD-00-3

Lett er
B- 283317 October 1, 1999 The Honorable Fred Thompson Chairman The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman Ranking Minority Member Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate
The Honorable Dan Burton Chairman The Honorable Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member Committee on Government Reform House of Representatives
The historic inability of many federal agencies to accurately record and report financial management data on both a year- end and an ongoing basis for decision- making and oversight purposes continues to be a serious weakness. To improve the accountability and credibility of the federal government and restore public confidence, as part of a series of management reform legislation, 1 the Congress passed the Federal Financial
Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) of 1996, Public Law 104- 208. FFMIA requires auditors for each of the 24 major departments and agencies named in the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act 2 (referred to as CFO agencies) to report, as part of their audit report on the agencies' annual financial statements, whether the agencies' financial management systems comply substantially with three requirements( 1) federal financial management systems requirements, (2) applicable federal accounting
standards, and (3) the U. S. Government Standard General Ledger (SGL) 3 at the transaction level. These requirements are critical for ensuring that 1 Other management reform legislation includes the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Government Management Reform Act of 1994, the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, and the Clinger- Cohen Act of 1996. 2 FFMIA also applies to agency components required to be audited under 31 U. S. C. 3521( e).
3 The SGL provides a standard chart of accounts and standardized transactions that agencies are to use in all their financial systems.
agency financial management activities are consistently and accurately recorded, and timely and uniformly reported throughout the federal government. Departments and agencies must comply with these requirements in order to maximize their performance and ensure their accountability. To aid congressional oversight and keep the Congress advised of the status of federal financial management, that legislation also requires that we report annually on FFMIA implementation by October 1 of each year. Our report addresses information concerning (1) compliance of CFO agencies' financial systems with FFMIA's requirements, (2) whether CFO agencies' financial statements have been prepared in accordance with applicable accounting standards, and (3) agencies' plans to ensure that their systems comply with FFMIA requirements. Last year we issued the second of our annual reports under FFMIA; it covered fiscal year 1997. 4
Results in Brief As a result of the audits of CFO agencies' financial statements and FFMIA's requirements, agencies are more aware of their financial management weaknesses and have started addressing them. However, in terms of agency auditors' assessments of compliance with FFMIA, there has been little discernible progress since last year. For the agencies whose fiscal year 1998 audit reports had been issued as of September 14, 1999, those
whose financial management systems were not in compliance with FFMIA in fiscal year 1997 were still not in compliance in fiscal year 1998. Issues we identified in our report last year under FFMIA, such as efforts to implement new accounting standards, 5 the age and condition of many agencies' critical financial systems, and competing demands associated with Year 2000
4 Financial Management: Federal Financial Management Improvement Act Results for Fiscal Year 1997 (GAO/ AIMD- 98- 268, September 30, 1998). 5 Some of the new requirements, which were issued in 1995 and 1996 and became effective in fiscal year 1998, include the application of managerial cost accounting concepts and preparation of the new Statements of Financing and Budgetary Resources.
computer conversion issues 6 proved to be continuing significant challenges to agencies.
For fiscal year 1998, auditors for 17 of 20 7 CFO agencies reported that the agencies' financial systems did not comply substantially with FFMIA's requirements. Although the statutory reporting deadline is March 1, the
remaining four CFO agencies, as of September 14, 1999, had not yet issued their audited financial statements for fiscal year 1998. All four of the agencies were found by their auditors to be noncompliant with FFMIA for fiscal year 1997. Auditors reported that the financial systems of 11 of these 17 agencies found to be noncompliant in fiscal year 1998 were noncompliant with all three FFMIA requirements federal financial management systems requirements, applicable federal accounting standards, and the SGL. Auditors for 16 of the 17 agencies had reported for fiscal year 1997 that the agencies likewise did not comply with FFMIA. The seventeenth agency was reported as complying with the requirements of FFMIA in fiscal year 1997
but was found to be noncompliant with systems requirements in fiscal year 1998 due to auditors' interpretations of what constitutes substantial compliance. Further, in some agencies, factors that contributed to systems being found noncompliant increased, in part because agencies had
problems implementing new accounting standards that became effective in fiscal year 1998.
Our audit of the financial statements for the U. S. government for fiscal year 1998 8 also showed that many agencies did not meet applicable accounting standards. As was the case for fiscal year 1997, the inability of agencies to
6 For the past several decades, information systems have typically used two digits to represent the year, such as 99 for 1999, to conserve electronic data storage and reduce operating costs. In this format, however, 2000 is indistinguishable from 1900 because both are represented as 00. As a result, computer systems or applications that use dates or perform date- or time- sensitive calculations may, if not modified, generate incorrect results beyond 1999. 7 The statutory reporting deadline for audit reports discussing the results of the fiscal year 1998 financial statement audits for the CFO agencies was March 1, 1999. As of
September 14, 1999, the Departments of Education and State, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Small Business Administration had not yet issued their fiscal year 1998 audited financial statements. 8 Financial Audit: 1998 Financial Report of the United States Government (GAO/ AIMD- 99130, March 31, 1999).
prepare financial statements in accordance with accounting standards prevented us from being able to express an opinion on the government's consolidated financial statements. Although nine agencies whose audit reports had been issued received unqualified opinions on their fiscal year 1998 financial statements, obtaining unqualified or clean audit opinions, while an important objective, is not an end in and of itself. The key is to take steps to continually improve internal controls and underlying financial and management information systems so that these systems will generate reliable, useful, and timely information on an ongoing basis, not just as of the end of the fiscal year.
We issued a special series of reports this year that discusses major management challenges and program risks that must be addressed to improve the performance, management, and accountability of federal agencies. 9 In this series, we identified the ability to establish financial management capabilities that effectively support decision- making and
accountability as one of the major challenges facing most federal agencies. Agencies generally recognize the extent and severity of their financial management deficiencies, and 18 of the 20 agencies, for which FFMIA
noncompliance was reported for fiscal year 1997, have prepared remediation plans to address these problems. FFMIA requires that the agency head, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), prepare such a plan. OMB's consultative role is important for ensuring that agencies prepare effective remediation plans that adequately
address their serious financial management weaknesses. However, based on our reviews and reports issued by agency Offices of Inspector General (OIG), we found that some agencies did not submit their plans on time and most of the remediation plans that were submitted did not address financial management issues comprehensively; thus, it is questionable that
the plans form an adequate basis for correcting reported issues of noncompliance. For example, one agency's plan discussed corrective actions for core financial management systems without addressing weaknesses reported in feeder systems that produce the underlying data. Therefore, we believe OMB should, as part of its consultative role, work with the agencies to ensure that their remediation plans are submitted and
comply with the requirements outlined in the act. 9 Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A Governmentwide Perspective (GAO/ OCG- 99- 1, January 1999).
Significant time and investment are needed for agencies to address and correct long- standing financial management systems problems. Resolving reported financial management weaknesses has been delayed by competing demands associated with Year 2000 computer conversion issues. Further, GAO reviews show that numerous federal agencies have historically struggled with the development and implementation of large information technology efforts which compound the resolution of these
problems. It will take time, concerted effort, and additional investment to raise government financial management systems to the level of quality and reliability envisioned by FFMIA.
OMB generally agreed that our report fairly presented the status of the federal government's implementation of FFMIA and concurred with our recommendations. The Department of Treasury's Financial Management Service (FMS) also concurred with the report's contents. Background The primary purpose of FFMIA is to ensure that agency financial management systems routinely provide reliable, useful, and timely financial information. With such information, government leaders will be better positioned to invest scarce resources, reduce costs, oversee programs, and hold agency managers accountable for the way they run government programs. Compliance with federal financial management systems
requirements, applicable accounting standards, and the SGL are the building blocks to help achieve these goals. Financial Management
The financial management systems policies and standards prescribed for System Requirements
executive agencies to follow in developing, operating, evaluating, and reporting on financial management systems are defined in OMB Circular A- 127, Financial Management Systems, which was last revised in June 1999. Circular A- 127 references the series of publications, entitled
Federal Financial Management Systems Requirements, issued by the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program (JFMIP), 10 as the primary source of governmentwide requirements for financial management systems.
10 JFMIP is a cooperative undertaking of OMB, the Department of Treasury, the Office of Personnel Management, and GAO working with operating agencies to improve financial management practices throughout the government.
Since we reported last year, JFMIP has revised four of these publications Core Financial System Requirements (originally issued in September 1995), Human Resources & Payroll Systems Requirements (originally issued in May 1990), Direct Loan System Requirements (originally issued in December 1993), and Travel System Requirements (originally issued in January 1991). Also, JFMIP issued an exposure draft for a revised version of Seized Property and Forfeited Assets Systems Requirements (June 1999)
and is planning to issue exposure drafts for Grant Financial System Requirements and a revised version of Guaranteed Loan System Requirements by the end of September 1999. Table 1 lists the publications
in the Federal Financial Management System Requirements Series and their issue dates.
Table 1: Publications in the Federal Financial Management System Requirements Series Federal Financial Management System Requirements (FFMSR)
Document Issue date
FFMSR- 0 Framework for Federal Financial January 1995 Management Systems JFMIP- SR- 99- 4 Core Financial System Requirements February 1999
JFMIP- SR- 99- 5 Human Resources & Payroll Systems April 1999 Requirements JFMIP- SR- 99- 9 Travel System Requirements July 1999
FFMSR- 4 Seized/ Forfeited Asset System March 1993 Requirements JFMIP- SR- 99- 8 Direct Loan System Requirements June 1999
FFMSR- 6 Guaranteed Loan System Requirements December 1993 FFMSR- 7 Inventory System Requirements June 1995 FFMSR- 8 Managerial Cost Accounting System February 1998
Requirements To assist agencies and vendors in developing and implementing software that complies with current financial management system requirements, JFMIP has implemented a new testing process. JFMIP has established the Program Management Office (PMO) which will be directly involved in the new process. The PMO (1) establishes the systems testing requirements, which significantly expands on the testing previously performed, (2) administers the qualification tests to certify that vendor products meet current JFMIP systems requirements, and (3) publishes the results and
maintains a database of information for agencies and vendors about financial systems requirements, business practices, and features of certified vendor products. The database, which will be available on JFMIP's web site, will also provide access to qualification test results. Vendors have submitted nine software packages to be qualified during the initial round of testing. According to a JFMIP official, these test results will be made public on October 1, 1999. Thereafter, the testing will be conducted upon request, and qualified packages will be announced upon successful passage of the
test. Effective in fiscal year 2000, OMB policy requires federal agencies that acquire new core financial systems to use JFMIP qualified software. According to JFMIP, the new process will provide tools and information to help agencies make effective choices. Agencies must evaluate software options for compatibility in their operational environment and for agency specific requirements. As a result, we have issued several checklists 11 to help agencies implement and monitor their financial management systems and to help management and auditors review the systems to determine if they substantially comply with FFMIA.
Federal Accounting Federal accounting standards, which agency CFOs use in preparing
Standards financial statements and in developing financial management systems, are
recommended by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB). 12 FASAB recommends accounting standards after considering the financial and budgetary information needs of the Congress, executive agencies, other users of federal financial information, and comments from
the public. The three principals the Comptroller General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of OMB then decide whether to adopt the recommended standards. If they do, the standards are published by GAO and OMB and become effective on the stated date.
11 Framework for Federal Financial Management System Checklist (GAO/ AIMD- 98- 21. 2. 1, May 1998), Core Financial System Requirements Checklist (GAO/ AIMD- 99- 21.2. 2, August 1999, exposure draft), Inventory System Checklist (GAO/ AIMD- 98- 21.2.4, May 1998), and
System Requirements for Managerial Cost Accounting Checklist (GAO/ AIMD- 99- 21.2.9, January 1999).
12 In October 1990, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of OMB, and the Comptroller General established FASAB to recommend a set of generally accepted accounting standards for the federal government.
FASAB has recommended and the three principals have approved 3 statements of accounting concepts and 14 statements of federal financial accounting standards with various effective dates ranging from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2001. The concepts and standards, as recommended by FASAB and approved by its principals, are the basis for OMB's guidance to agencies on the form and content of their financial statements and the government's consolidated financial statements. Table 2 includes a list of concepts, standards, and interpretations 13 along with their respective effective dates.
Table 2: Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts (SFFAC), Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS), and Interpretations Concepts
SFFAC No. 1 Objectives of Federal Financial Reporting SFFAC No. 2 Entity and Display SFFAC No. 3 Management's Discussion and Analysis
Standards Effective for fiscal year a
SFFAS No. 1 Accounting for Selected Assets and Liabilities 1994 SFFAS No. 2 Accounting for Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees 1994 SFFAS No. 3 Accounting for Inventory and Related Property 1994 SFFAS No. 4 Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and
1998 Standards SFFAS No. 5 Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government 1997
SFFAS No. 6 Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment 1998 SFFAS No. 7 Accounting for Revenue and Other Financing
1998 Sources SFFAS No. 8 Supplementary Stewardship Reporting 1998
SFFAS No. 9 Deferral of Required Implementation Date for 1998 SFFAS No. 4 SFFAS No. 10 Accounting for Internal Use Software 2001
(Continued )
13 Occasionally, FASAB clarifies existing federal accounting standards by providing interpretations. An interpretation is a document of narrow scope that provides clarifications of original meaning, additional definitions, or other guidance pertaining to an existing federal accounting standard.
Standards Effective for fiscal year a
SFFAS No. 11 Amendments to Accounting for Property, Plant and 1999 Equipment, Definitional Changes SFFAS No. 12 Recognition of Contingent Liabilities Arising from 1998
Litigation: An Amendment of SFFAS 5, Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government SFFAS No. 13 Deferral of Paragraph 65- 2 Material RevenueRelated 1999
Transactions Disclosures: Amending SFFAS No. 7, Accounting for Revenue and Other Financing Sources SFFAS No. 15 Management's Discussion and Analysis 2000
Interpretations
No. 1 Reporting on Indian Trust Funds No. 2 Accounting for Treasury Judgment Fund Transactions
No. 3 Measurement Date for Pension and Retirement Health Care Liabilities No. 4 Accounting for Pension Payments In Excess of Pension Expense No. 5 Recognition by Recipient Entities of Receivable Nonexchange Revenue
(Continued from Previous Page) a Effective dates do not apply to Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts and
Interpretations.
SFFAC No. 3 on management's discussion and analysis and SFFAS Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 on internal use software, amendments to existing standards, and management's discussion and analysis were issued since we reported last year. Also, FASAB has recommended three new Statements of Recommended Accounting Standards (SRAS) SRAS No. 14, Amendments
to Deferred Maintenance Reporting (April 1999), SRAS No. 16, Amendments to Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment; Measurement and Reporting for Multi- Use Heritage Assets (July 1999), and
SRAS No. 17, Accounting for Social Insurance (August 1999). In addition, FASAB is drafting recommended standards for supplementary stewardship reporting for national defense property, plant, and equipment.
The Accounting and Auditing Policy Committee (AAPC) 14 assists in resolving issues related to the implementation of accounting standards. AAPC's efforts result in authoritative guidance for preparers and auditors of federal financial statements in connection with implementation of accounting standards and the reporting and auditing requirements contained in OMB's Form and Content Bulletin and Audit Bulletin. To date, AAPC has recommended and OMB has issued four technical releases (TR), which are listed in table 3 along with their release dates.
Table 3: AAPC Technical Releases Technical Release Release date
TR- 1 Audit Legal Letter Guidance March 1, 1998 TR- 2 Environmental Liabilities Guidance March 15, 1998 TR- 3 Preparing and Auditing Direct Loan and Loan
July 31, 1999 Guarantee Subsidies under the Federal Credit Reform Act
TR- 4 Reporting on Non- Valued Seized and Forfeited July 31, 1999 Property Standard General Ledger The SGL provides a uniform chart of accounts and pro forma transactions used to standardize federal agencies' financial information accumulation
and processing, enhance financial control, and support budget and external reporting, including financial statement preparation. The SGL is intended to improve data stewardship throughout the government, enabling consistent reporting at all levels within the agencies and providing comparable data and financial analysis at the government level. 15 In our report on our audit of the financial statements for the U. S. government for fiscal year 1998, we reported that the government's inability to properly and consistently compile information in the financial statements was compounded by limitations in the federal government's general ledger 14 In 1997, FASAB in conjunction with OMB, Treasury, GAO, the CFO Council, and the
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, established AAPC to assist the federal government in improving financial reporting. 15 SGL guidance is published in the Treasury Financial Manual. Treasury's Financial Management Service is responsible for maintaining the SGL and answering agency inquiries.
account structure. We are working with OMB and Treasury to expand and enhance the SGL structure.
Remediation Plans FFMIA requires an agency head to determine, based on a review of the auditor's report on the agency's financial statements and any other relevant information, whether the agency's financial management systems
substantially comply with the act. The agency head is required to make this determination no later than 120 days after (1) the receipt of the auditor's report or (2) the last day of the fiscal year following the year covered by the audit, whichever comes first. The auditor's and the agency head's determinations of compliance may differ. If the agency head determines that the systems do not substantially comply, FFMIA requires that the
agency head, in consultation with the Director of OMB, establish a remediation plan to bring the systems into substantial compliance with FFMIA's requirements. According to OMB guidance, remediation plans are to include corrective actions, intermediate target dates, and resources necessary to achieve substantial compliance with FFMIA's requirements within 3 years of the date the noncompliance determination is made. If, with the concurrence of the Director of OMB, the agency head determines that substantial
compliance cannot be reached within 3 years, the remediation plan must specify the most feasible date by which the agency will achieve compliance and designate an official responsible for effecting the necessary corrective actions. Per OMB guidance, agencies are to include remediation plans in their annual agency financial management status report and 5- year plans which are to be submitted to OMB in September of each year.
Scope and In performing our work, we reviewed fiscal year 1998 audit results for the Methodology
20 CFO agencies that had issued audited financial statements as of September 14, 1999. We also reviewed (1) agency remediation plans, (2) OIG reports on agency remediation plans, (3) OMB's implementation guidance for FFMIA, and (4) OMB's 1999 Federal Financial Management Status Report and Five- Year Plan. We did not independently verify or test the reliability of the data in OMB's report. In addition, we reviewed
applicable federal accounting standards and JFMIP publications. We also interviewed agency managers and auditors at the 24 CFO agencies to obtain their views on FFMIA implementation.
We conducted our work from March through mid- September 1999 at the 24 CFO agencies and OMB in Washington, D. C., in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested
comments on a draft of this report from the Director of OMB and the Commissioner of Treasury's FMS or their designees. We received oral comments from OMB's Office of Federal Financial Management and the Director, Program Integrity Division, FMS. These comments are discussed
in the Agency Comments section of this report. Fiscal Year 1998
Although agencies are more aware of their financial management Results
weaknesses and have started addressing them, auditors' assessments of agencies' compliance with FFMIA's requirements do not indicate substantial progress since we reported last year. In their fiscal year 1998 audit reports, auditors for 17 of 20 CFO agencies that issued audit reports reported that the agencies' financial systems did not substantially comply with FFMIA. In comparing the fiscal year 1998 results to the fiscal year 1997 results, we found that every agency (for which fiscal year 1998 results were available) whose systems did not substantially comply with FFMIA in
fiscal year 1997 still did not comply for fiscal year 1998. Of the 17 agencies, auditors reported that for fiscal year 1998, 11 were noncompliant with all three FFMIA requirements; 17 were reported noncompliant with systems requirements; 13 were reported noncompliant
with accounting standards; and 11 agencies were reported noncompliant with the SGL. Auditors for three agencies the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation reported that their agencies' financial systems complied substantially with FFMIA's three requirements. 16 The financial systems of the four agencies the Departments of Education and State, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Small Business Administration that had not yet issued audited financial statements by September 14, 1999, were reported to be noncompliant with FFMIA's requirements in fiscal year 1997. Table 4 summarizes the auditors' and
agencies' determinations of substantial compliance with the requirements of FFMIA for fiscal year 1998. 16 According to guidance in OMB Bulletin 98- 08, receipt of a qualified audit opinion with material weaknesses is an indication of noncompliance with FFMIA. The Department of Energy received a qualified opinion that described a material weakness.
Table 4: Summary of Auditors' FFMIA Determinations and Agencies' Responses Auditor's determination of substantial
Agency's response to auditor's compliance a Areas of reported substantial noncompliance determination b Systems
Accounting Agency Yes No requirements standards SGL Agree Disagree
Department of Agriculture X X X X X Department of Commerce X X X X X Department of Defense X X X X X Department of Education c Department of Energy X X
Department of Health and X X X X Human Services Department of Housing and
X X X X X Urban Development Department of the Interior X X X
Department of Justice X X X X X Department of Labor X X X X X Department of State c Department of Transportation X X X X Department of the Treasury X X X X X Department of Veterans Affairs X X X X X Agency for International X X X X X Development Environmental Protection
Agency c Federal Emergency X X X d Management Agency General Services X X X
Administration National Aeronautics and X X Space Administration National Science Foundation X X
Nuclear Regulatory X X X X X Commission Office of Personnel X X X X X
Management (Continued )
Auditor's determination of substantial
Agency's response to auditor's compliance a Areas of reported substantial noncompliance determination b Systems
Accounting Agency Yes No requirements standards SGL Agree Disagree
Small Business Administration c Social Security Administration X X X e
Total 3 17 17 13 11 18 2
(Continued from Previous Page) a OMB guidance states that lack of substantial compliance in any one of the three requirements results
in lack of substantial compliance with FFMIA. b Agreement or disagreement is based on agency comments included in the auditors' reports or
interviews with agency management. c Audit report had not been issued as of September 14, 1999. Auditor reported systems were not in
compliance with FFMIA in fiscal year 1997. d Federal Emergency Management Agency officials agreed that deficiencies exist and are preparing a
remediation plan. However, the officials disagreed with the auditor as to whether the deficiencies are significant enough to warrant lack of substantial compliance. e Social Security Administration officials acknowledged that weaknesses in their systems exist, as
reported by the auditors; however, the officials did not agree that these weaknesses caused a lack of substantial compliance with FFMIA.
Based on our comparison of audit results for fiscal years 1997 and 1998, 4 of the 17 agencies increased the number of reported areas of noncompliance with FFMIA requirements systems requirements, accounting standards, and the SGL. One of the four the General Services Administration whose systems were reported to be in compliance in fiscal year 1997, was found to be noncompliant in fiscal year 1998 due to auditors' interpretations of what constitutes substantial compliance with FFMIA's systems requirements. The primary factor contributing to the
additional areas of noncompliance for the other three agencies was difficulty implementing the new accounting standards. Table 5 compares the fiscal years 1997 and 1998 audit results for the four agencies whose
areas of reported noncompliance increased.
Table 5: Comparison of Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998 Audit Results for Selected Agencies Auditor's determination of substantial compliance Areas of reported substantial noncompliance
Systems Accounting Agency Fiscal year Yes No requirements standards SGL
Department of Health and Human Services 1997 X X 1998 X X X Department of Veterans Affairs 1997 X X
1998 X X X X General Services Administration 1997 X
1998 X X Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1997 X X
1998 X X X X
Reasons for Auditors' For fiscal year 1998, the primary reasons for agencies' financial systems
Determination of lack of substantial compliance with the three requirements of FFMIA Substantial Noncompliance remain the same as in fiscal year 1997. Discussed in detail in the respective
audit reports on the agency financial statements, reasons for lack of substantial compliance with the three requirements of FFMIA include the following:
For federal financial management systems requirements:  Systems were not integrated.  Systems data were not updated or reconciled in a timely manner.  There were ineffective controls over automated information systems.
To prepare financial statements, agencies that do not have a single, integrated financial system rely on ad hoc programming and analysis of data that are not reconciled and often require significant adjustments. The summarization of this accounting data into financial statement formats is a time- consuming, manual process. As a result, the risk of material misstatements increases, and reliable data cannot be produced in a timely and efficient manner for day- to- day decision- making. Also, when systems
lack appropriate controls, sensitive financial data can be exposed to inappropriate disclosure, destruction, modification, and fraud. We
designated information systems security weaknesses as a governmentwide high- risk area in both 1997, 17 and again in 1999, 18 and reported that various financial transactions are examples of federal operations that are at high risk of unauthorized access and disclosure.
For federal accounting standards, agencies were unable to  properly account for and report (1) billions of dollars of property, equipment, materials, and supplies and (2) certain stewardship assets relating to national defense,
 properly estimate the cost of most major federal credit programs and the related loans receivable and loan guarantee liabilities,  determine the proper amount of various liabilities, including,
environmental and disposal liabilities and related costs, postretirement health benefits for members of the military, accounts payable, and other liabilities,  properly account for basic transactions, especially those between
government agencies and other entities,  accurately report major portions of the net cost of government operations,
 determine the full extent of improper payments that occur in major programs and that are estimated to involve billions of dollars annually, and
 ensure that all disbursements are properly recorded. These problems significantly affect the determination of the full cost of the government's current operations, the value of assets, and the extent of its liabilities. Also, agencies' inability to properly account for various assets makes agencies unable to provide assurance that assets are safeguarded against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition and that transactions are executed in accordance with law. For the SGL:
 Core system data could not be reconciled to feeder system data.  Transaction detail supporting account information was nonexistent or
not readily available. 17 High- Risk Series: An Overview (GAO/ HR- 97- 1, February 1997). 18 High- Risk Series: An Update (GAO/ HR- 99- 1, January 1999).
 System financial data were not consistent with the SGL and its posting requirements.
SGL deficiencies contribute to the government's inability to (1) properly balance the government's financial statements and account for billions of dollars of transactions between governmental entities, (2) properly and consistently compile the information in the financial statements, and (3) effectively reconcile the results of operations with budget results. In addition, the lack of SGL implementation could limit agencies' ability to
compare and contrast program performance. As we previously reported, a significant challenge for agencies in overcoming these problems is addressing the age and poor condition of many of their critical financial systems. We testified on March 31, 1999, 19 about the serious financial management improvement challenges facing the federal government. The central challenge to producing reliable, useful,
and timely data throughout the year and at year- end is overhauling financial and related management information systems. Agencies must also address problems with fundamental recordkeeping, incomplete documentation, and weak internal controls before their systems can produce reliable, useful and timely information on an ongoing basis, not just at the end of the fiscal year.
Agencies reported that they were unable to address the poor condition of their current financial management systems because resources were devoted to addressing Year 2000 computer conversion issues. In May 1999,
OMB issued a memorandum stating that agencies should follow a policy that allows system changes only when absolutely necessary and asked agencies to establish a process to ensure that the effect on Year 2000
readiness be considered prior to establishing new requirements or changes to information technology systems. 20 In June 1999, we testified 21 that at least six agencies had established, or planned to establish, moratoriums or
restrictions on system changes during parts of 1999 and early 2000. 19 Auditing the Nation's Finances: Fiscal Year 1998 Results Highlight Major Issues Needing Resolution (GAO/ T- AIMD- 99- 131, March 31, 1999). 20 Minimizing Regulatory and Information Technology Requirements That Could Affect Progress Fixing the Year 2000 Problem (OMB, M- 99- 17, May 14, 1999). 21 Year 2000 Computing Challenge: Estimated Costs, Planned Uses of Emergency Funding, and Future Implications (GAO/ T- AIMD- 99- 214, June 22, 1999).
Moreover, we also found that because of the Year 2000 problem, agencies or the Congress had delayed implementation of regulatory requirements and planned information technology initiatives. While Year 2000 preparation has resulted in delaying financial system changes in some agencies, over the long term there should be residual benefits from Year 2000 preparation. As a result of Year 2000 efforts, agencies have been provided an additional incentive to control their information technology environment, and in many instances, agencies have been forced to inventory their information systems, link those systems to agency core business processes, and discard systems of marginal value. By doing this, agencies will be in a better position to improve their financial systems next year.
Agencies Have As discussed earlier, factors contributing to agencies' lack of substantial Difficulty Providing
compliance with FFMIA include problems implementing accounting standards. Auditors for 13 agencies reported that the agencies had Information in
problems implementing one or more of the new accounting standards that Accordance With became effective in fiscal year 1998. These standards relate to managerial Accounting Standards cost accounting; property, plant, and equipment; accounting for revenue and other financing sources; and stewardship reporting for government investments that benefit the nation, such as national parks and monuments.
Table 6 lists the agencies and standards for which auditors reported problems.
Table 6: Agencies' Whose Auditors Reported Problems Implementing New Accounting Standards in Fiscal Year 1998 SFFAS No. 4, SFFAS No. 7, Managerial Accounting for Cost SFFAS No. 6, Revenue and SFFAS No. 8, Accounting Accounting for Other Supplementary Concepts and Property, Plant Financing Stewardship Agency
Standards and Equipment
Sources Reporting
Department of X X X X Agriculture Department of
X X X Commerce Department of X X X X Defense (Continued )
SFFAS No. 4, SFFAS No. 7, Managerial Accounting for Cost SFFAS No. 6, Revenue and SFFAS No. 8, Accounting Accounting for Other Supplementary Concepts and Property, Plant Financing Stewardship Agency Standards
and Equipment Sources
Reporting
Department of X X
Health and Human Services
Department of X X
Housing and Urban Development Department of
X the Interior Department of
X X X Justice Department of
X X X Transportation Department of
X X the Treasury Department of
X Veterans Affairs
Agency for X X International Development
Nuclear X X
Regulatory Commission Office of
X Personnel Management a
Total (13) 10 8 10 2
(Continued from Previous Page) a The Office of Personnel Management issued five separate audit opinions for each major component. The auditors for three components the Retirement, Health Benefits, and Life Insurance Programs
reported no problems with the new standards.
Agencies face significant challenges implementing these new standards. For example, complying with the cost accounting standard was a key challenge. The standard requires agencies to develop measures of the full costs of carrying out a mission, producing products, or delivering services to promote comparison of the costs of various programs and results. Developing the necessary information, which is needed as well to support
Results Act 22 implementation, will be a substantial undertaking; and while there is a broad recognition of the importance of doing so, for the most part, agencies have just begun this effort.
Our audit of the financial statements for the U. S. government also showed that many agencies have difficulty providing information in accordance with applicable federal accounting standards. We were not able to express an opinion on the U. S. government's fiscal year 1998 financial statements because serious deficiencies prevented us and the government from having
assurance that it had properly reported large portions of its assets, liabilities, and costs. These deficiencies affect the reliability of the financial statements and much of the underlying information. They also affect the government's ability to accurately measure the full cost of programs, and effectively and efficiently manage its operations.
Appendix I summarizes the fiscal year 1998 audit opinions for the 20 CFO agencies that had issued audited financial statements as of September 14, 1999. As shown in appendix I, nine agencies received an unqualified opinion. Nine other agencies received either qualified opinions or disclaimers of opinion. One agency, which received more than one audit opinion, received unqualified opinions on financial statements covering a portion of its operations and disclaimers of opinion on statements for the remaining segments of its operations. One agency received an unqualified opinion on its balance sheet and disclaimers of opinion on its other
statements. Although some agencies have obtained, and others are striving to obtain, an unqualified ( clean) audit opinion on their financial statements, such an opinion is not an end in and of itself. Without fundamental improvements in internal controls and underlying financial and management information
systems, agency efforts to obtain reliable data needed for day- to- day management and year- end reporting will meet with limited success. As a result of poor internal controls and systems, several agencies were unable to prepare financial statements and have them audited by the March 1 statutory deadline. Ten agencies did not issue their fiscal year 1998 audited financial statements by March 1, 1999, and some agencies that did meet the deadline were able to do so only after significantly adjusting account balances. These adjustments were needed because financial statement
22 The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 is commonly known as the Results Act.
preparation requires considerable reliance on ad hoc programming and analysis of data produced by inadequate systems that are not integrated or reconciled. Appendix I shows the dates when agencies issued their fiscal year 1998 audited financial statements.
The quality of financial management in the federal government has suffered for decades and has not kept up with private sector and state and local government finance organizations. To help promote improved federal financial management and bring it up to par with the private and public sectors, we recently issued an exposure draft of an executive guide 23 to
help federal agencies in achieving the objectives of the CFO Act, FFMIA, and other related legislation. The guide provides case study examples of 11 fundamental practices of leading private and public sector finance organizations, including developing systems that support the partnership between finance and operations, and translating financial data into meaningful information. These and other practices implemented by the
organizations are critical for establishing and maintaining sound financial operations that, not only will achieve the goal of an unqualified audit opinion, but, more importantly, focus on supporting the agency's overall performance and ensure that decisionmakers have reliable, useful, and timely information. Agencies recognize the extent and severity of their financial management deficiencies, and the President has designated financial management reform as a top management priority. In May 1998, the President required heads of agencies with financial management deficiencies that resulted in qualified opinions or disclaimers of opinion to submit corrective action plans to OMB. These corrective action plans are separate from the remediation plans required by FFMIA. Although the corrective actions may resolve financial statement reporting deficiencies and result in unqualified opinions, they may not necessarily resolve identified instances of noncompliance with FFMIA's requirements.
We are continuing to work with OMB, the Treasury, and other federal agencies to recommend the actions necessary to achieve the goal of having reliable, useful, and timely financial management information on an ongoing basis consistent with federal accounting standards. With
concerted effort, the federal government can make progress toward 23 Executive Guide: Creating Value Through World- Class Financial Management (GAO/ AIMD- 99- 45, August 1999, exposure draft).
achieving accountability and regularly generating reliable financial and management information.
Whether Remediation If an agency head determines that the agency's systems are not in Plans Will Adequately
substantial compliance, FFMIA requires that the agency head, in consultation with the Director of OMB, establish a remediation plan to Address bring the systems into substantial compliance with FFMIA's requirements. Noncompliance Issues
According to OMB guidance, agencies are to prepare remediation plans Is Questionable
that specify corrective actions and intermediate target dates and resources necessary to implement those actions, and include their remediation plans in their annual agency financial management status report and 5- year plan submitted to OMB in September. Remediation plans addressing issues identified in fiscal year 1997 audit reports were due in September 1998. Remediation plans addressing issues identified in fiscal year 1998 audit
reports were due to OMB by September 14, 1999. Based on our review of remediation plans for fiscal year 1997, it is questionable, for at least 12 plans, whether the corrective actions, if successfully implemented, would bring the agencies' systems into
compliance with FFMIA. Of the 20 agencies whose systems were reported to be noncompliant with FFMIA in fiscal year 1997, 18 prepared remediation plans to address FFMIA noncompliance issues identified in fiscal year 1997 audit reports. Of the 18 agencies, the Department of Education did not originally prepare a remediation plan in accordance with
OMB guidance. Based on our inquiry, OMB requested the Department of Education to prepare and submit a remediation plan. In response, the Department of Education prepared a remediation plan and submitted it to OMB on July 15, 1999.
Of the 20 agencies whose systems were reported to be noncompliant with FFMIA in fiscal year 1997, two agencies the Department of State and the Social Security Administration (SSA) did not submit remediation plans to OMB. The Department of State has since contracted for the preparation of
a remediation plan to address problems with its financial management systems identified in fiscal year 1997. SSA did not submit a remediation plan to OMB because management determined that its systems were in substantial compliance with FFMIA. However, SSA provided comments,
including corrective actions, in response to the auditor's recommendations. Based on our review of the 18 available remediation plans for fiscal year 1997, it is uncertain whether some of the corrective actions in at least five
of the plans will resolve the problems that caused the agencies' systems to lack substantial compliance with FFMIA. Seven plans did not contain key information to adequately assess the plans. Specifically, three plans did not include information on the resources needed to implement the corrective actions, and the other four plans did not contain corrective actions for all instances of noncompliance, nor did they contain sufficient information on resources or target dates. Without this key information, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the corrective actions are realistic and if the target dates are reasonable. For example, in January 1999, we
reported 24 that the Department of Defense's (DOD) biennial plan 25 did not include actions to adequately ensure the integrity of the key data in the agency's feeder systems, which provide about 80 percent of the information needed for financial reporting. 26 These systems are also critical operational systems. For the six remaining plans, we determined that, if successfully implemented, the corrective actions may resolve the agencies' problems. However, it is too early to tell if these agencies will be successful in implementing these plans. Table 7 lists, by remediation plan assessment, the 18 agencies.
Table 7: Assessment of Agencies' Remediation Plans Remediation plan did not contain sufficient key Remediation plan, if
Uncertain whether information on corrective implemented, may
remediation plan will actions, resources and/ or resolve problems
resolve problems target dates
Department of Agriculture Department of Health and Department of Commerce Human Services Department of Education Department of the Interior Department of Defense
Department of Department of the Treasury Department of Housing and Transportation Urban Development
(Continued )
24 Financial Management: Analysis of DOD's First Biennial Financial Management Improvement Plan (GAO/ AIMD- 99- 44, January 29, 1999). 25 DOD's Biennial Plan includes its remediation plan as well as information to satisfy other regulatory reporting requirements under the CFO Act and the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982.
26 In April 1999, DOD's OIG also issued a report describing weaknesses in the Biennial Plan.
Remediation plan did not contain sufficient key Remediation plan, if
Uncertain whether information on corrective implemented, may
remediation plan will actions, resources and/ or resolve problems
resolve problems target dates
Environmental Protection Department of Veterans Department of Justice Agency Affairs Nuclear Regulatory Agency for International Department of Labor
Commission Development Small Business Office of Personnel Administration Management
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Total 6 5 7
(Continued from Previous Page)
Based on our review of agency audit reports and remediation plans, we found that seven agencies' corrective actions included developing new core financial management systems to replace noncompliant systems. The
federal government is increasingly dependent on information technology to improve its performance and meet mission goals, and as a result, spends billions of dollars each year on information technology. All too often, information technology projects have resulted in huge cost overruns and limited improvement in performance. To ensure that information technology dollars are directed toward prudent investments designed to achieve cost savings, increase productivity, and improve the timeliness and
quality of service delivery, agencies need to successfully incorporate modern information technology practices and meet the OMB and ClingerCohen Act requirements for new system developments. 27
Recent GAO and other reviews show that numerous agencies continue to experience weaknesses with information technology investment selection and control processes. For example, a corrective action cited by the Agency for International Development (AID) is to implement a new core financial management system. On March 1, 1999, AID's OIG reported that the agency is at risk of repeating past mistakes that led to the deployment
of a system in 1996 that did not operate effectively. Some of these past mistakes included (1) lack of an agencywide blueprint before beginning 27 The Clinger- Cohen Act of 1996 builds on the best practices of leading public and private organizations by requiring agencies to better link information technology planning and investment decisions to program missions and goals.
development, (2) a preliminary systems architecture that only covered the core financial system and did not address other financial management systems, and (3) lack of an integrated strategy supported by an investment analysis and detailed plans. Agency remediation plans are a crucial tool for agency managers. Details in the plans could help agencies focus on specific problems and the actions and resources needed to correct those problems. We testified on June 18,
1998, 28 that congressional committees, as part of annual appropriation or oversight hearings, could use the agencies' remediation plans, along with financial statement audits and reports on compliance with FFMIA, to measure the progress agencies are making toward improving financial management. We also discussed the need for the remediation plans to be sufficiently detailed to provide a road map for agency management and staff to resolve financial management problems. The severity of problems facing agencies as they attempt to implement current and future accounting standards, resolve serious information security weaknesses,
and replace or overhaul old and outdated financial systems highlights the need for detailed remediation plans.
As part of our effort to help improve financial management throughout the government, we will review remediation plans due to OMB in September 1999 on issues identified in fiscal year 1998 audits. We will determine if the
plans have improved over the ones we reviewed for this report and make any needed recommendations.
Conclusion Long- standing problems with agencies' financial management systems decrease the government's ability to produce reliable, useful, and timely financial information. This information is important for formulating
budgets, managing government programs, and making difficult policy choices. In addition, complying with FFMIA is essential for departments and agencies to maximize their performance and ensure their accountability. The federal government's size and complexity and the discipline needed to overhaul or replace its financial management systems present a significant challenge. Also, agencies will continually face
challenges in implementing new accounting standards as FASAB continues 28 Financial Management: Fostering the Effective Implementation of Legislative Goals (GAO/ T- AIMD- 98- 215, June 1998).
to deliberate on new and emerging accounting issues that will result in the issuance of additional standards. We recognize that it will take time, investment, and sustained emphasis on correcting deficiencies to improve federal financial management systems to the level required by FFMIA and necessary to effectively manage
government funds. The significance of issues facing agencies, now and in the future, emphasizes the need for detailed remediation plans that clearly describe the corrective actions necessary to resolve problems, as well as information about the resources and time frames required to successfully implement the corrective actions. As envisioned by the act, these
remediation plans would help agencies establish seamless systems and processes to routinely generate reliable, useful, and timely information which would improve agencies' accountability and help them to meet the statutory deadline for issuing audited financial statements. However, based on our review, some remediation plans were submitted late, were not completed, or did not always contain sufficient information about agencies' plans to address their problems. The consultative role the act established
for the Director of OMB, with respect to the agency remediation plans, is important to addressing the types of problems we noted in the current remediation plans and to improve the development of future plans.
Recommendations We recommend that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget require the Deputy Director for Management, as part of the consultative process for future remediation plans, to work with the agencies to ensure that all remediation plans are prepared and submitted timely and to review the plans for (1) detailed corrective actions that fully address reported problems, (2) inclusion of resource requirements, and (3) specific time frames needed to implement and resolve problems. We also recommend that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget require the Deputy Director for Management to work with the agencies to ensure that the agencies' financial statements are audited and issued by the March 1
statutory deadline. Agency Comments In comments on a draft of this report, OMB generally agreed that our report fairly presented the status of the federal government's implementation of FFMIA and concurred with our recommendations. FMS also concurred
with the report's contents.
We are sending copies of this report to Senator George V. Voinovich, Chairman, and Senator Richard J. Durbin, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; Representative Stephen Horn, Chairman, and Representative Jim Turner, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, House Committee on Government Reform.
We are also sending copies to the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the Honorable Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary of the Treasury; the heads of the 24 CFO agencies; and agency CFOs and Inspectors General. Copies will also be made available to others upon request.
This report was prepared under the direction of Gloria L. Jarmon, Director, Health and Human Services Accounting and Financial Management, who may be reached at (202) 512- 4476 or by e- mail at jarmong. aimd@ gao. gov if you have any questions. Key contributors to this assignment were Deborah
A. Taylor, Diane N. Morris, and Sandra S. Silzer. David M. Walker Comptroller General of the United States
Appendi xes CFO Agencies' Fiscal Year 1998 Audit
Appendi x I
Opinions and Target Dates The 1990 CFO Act was the cornerstone of the legislative foundation for the federal government to provide taxpayers, the nation's leaders, and agency program managers with reliable financial information through audited financial statements. Under the CFO Act, as expanded by the Government Management Reform Act of 1994, the 24 major agencies are required to annually prepare organizationwide financial statements, beginning with
those for fiscal year 1996, and have them audited. Table 8 lists the 24 CFO agencies, the audit opinion received for fiscal year 1998, the date the fiscal year 1998 audit report was issued, and when the agency expects to receive an unqualified opinion on its financial statements, as reported in OMB's
Federal Financial Management Status Report & Five- Year Plan issued in 1999.
Table 8: Opinions for the 24 CFO Agencies' Fiscal Year 1998 Financial Statements, Date Audit Report Issued, and When Unqualified Opinions Are Expected Expected date for obtaining an unqualified Date fiscal year 1998 audit
opinion (fiscal Agency Fiscal year 1998 audit opinion report issued
year)
Department of Agriculture Disclaimer February 22, 1999 2000 Department of Commerce Unqualified on balance sheet only;
May 4, 1999 1999 disclaimer on statements of net cost and changes in net position and combined statement of budgetary resources and financing
Department of Defense Disclaimer March 1, 1999 After 2000 Department of Education a Unqualified in fiscal year 1997 N/ A N/ A Department of Energy Qualified February 25, 1999 1999 Department of Health and Human Services Qualified February 26, 1999 1999 Department of Housing and Urban
Unqualified March 29, 1999 N/ A Development Department of the Interior Unqualified April 19, 1999 N/ A
Department of Justice Disclaimer February 15, 1999 1999 Department of Labor Unqualified February 26, 1999 N/ A Department of State a Unqualified in fiscal year 1997 N/ A N/ A Department of Transportation Disclaimer March 30, 1999 1999 Department of the Treasury Qualified March 25, 1999 1999 Department of Veterans Affairs Qualified March 10, 1999 1999 Agency for International Development Disclaimer March 1, 1999 2000
(Continued )
Expected date for obtaining an unqualified Date fiscal year 1998 audit
opinion (fiscal Agency Fiscal year 1998 audit opinion report issued
year)
Environmental Protection Agency a Unqualified in fiscal year 1997 N/ A N/ A Federal Emergency Management Agency Unqualified March 1, 1999 N/ A General Services Administration Unqualified February 25, 1999 N/ A National Aeronautics and Space
Unqualified February 18, 1999 N/ A Administration National Science Foundation Unqualified February 26, 1999 N/ A
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Unqualified March 1, 1999 N/ A Office of Personnel Management
1999 Retirement Program
Unqualified February 23, 1999
Health Benefits Insurance Program Unqualified
February 23, 1999 Life Insurance Program
Unqualified February 23, 1999
Revolving Fund Disclaimer
March 1, 1999 Salaries and Expenses
Disclaimer March 1, 1999
Small Business Administration a Unqualified in fiscal year 1997 N/ A N/ A Social Security Administration Unqualified November 20, 1998 N/ A
(Continued from Previous Page) a Audit report not available as of September 14, 1999.
(916272) Lett er
GAO United States General Accounting Office
Page 1 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 United States General Accounting Office
Washington, D. C. 20548 Comptroller General
of the United States
B- 283317 Page 2 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 3 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 4 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 5 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 6 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 7 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 8 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 9 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 10 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 11 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 12 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 13 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 14 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 15 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 16 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 17 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 18 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 19 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 20 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 21 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 22 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 23 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 24 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 25 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 26 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
B- 283317 Page 27 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
Page 28 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
Appendix I
Appendix I CFO Agencies' Fiscal Year 1998 Audit Opinions and Target Dates
Page 29 GAO/ AIMD- 00- 3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary, VISA and
MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013
or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512- 6000 or by using fax number (202) 512- 6061, or TDD (202) 512- 2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.
For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send an e- mail message with info in the body to: info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at: http:// www. gao. gov
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate
Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
AI00003 A Report to Congressional Committees October 1999
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Federal Financial Management Improvement Act
Results for Fiscal Year 1998   GAO/AIMD-00-3  Lett er B-283317
October 1, 1999 The Honorable Fred Thompson Chairman The Honorable
Joseph I. Lieberman Ranking Minority Member Committee on
Governmental Affairs United States Senate The Honorable Dan Burton
Chairman The Honorable Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Government Reform House of Representatives The
historic inability of many federal agencies to accurately record
and report financial management data on both a year- end and an
ongoing basis for decision- making and oversight purposes
continues to be a serious weakness. To improve the accountability
and credibility of the federal government and restore public
confidence, as part of a series of management reform legislation,
1 the Congress passed the Federal Financial Management Improvement
Act (FFMIA) of 1996, Public Law 104- 208. FFMIA requires auditors
for each of the 24 major departments and agencies named in the
Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act 2 (referred to as CFO agencies)
to report, as part of their audit report on the agencies' annual
financial statements, whether the agencies' financial management
systems comply substantially with three requirements( 1) federal
financial management systems requirements, (2) applicable federal
accounting standards, and (3) the U. S. Government Standard
General Ledger (SGL) 3 at the transaction level. These
requirements are critical for ensuring that 1 Other management
reform legislation includes the Chief Financial Officers Act of
1990, the Government Management Reform Act of 1994, the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993, and the Clinger- Cohen Act of
1996. 2 FFMIA also applies to agency components required to be
audited under 31 U. S. C. 3521( e). 3 The SGL provides a standard
chart of accounts and standardized transactions that agencies are
to use in all their financial systems. agency financial management
activities are consistently and accurately recorded, and timely
and uniformly reported throughout the federal government.
Departments and agencies must comply with these requirements in
order to maximize their performance and ensure their
accountability. To aid congressional oversight and keep the
Congress advised of the status of federal financial management,
that legislation also requires that we report annually on FFMIA
implementation by October 1 of each year. Our report addresses
information concerning (1) compliance of CFO agencies' financial
systems with FFMIA's requirements, (2) whether CFO agencies'
financial statements have been prepared in accordance with
applicable accounting standards, and (3) agencies' plans to ensure
that their systems comply with FFMIA requirements. Last year we
issued the second of our annual reports under FFMIA; it covered
fiscal year 1997. 4 Results in Brief As a result of the audits of
CFO agencies' financial statements and FFMIA's requirements,
agencies are more aware of their financial management weaknesses
and have started addressing them. However, in terms of agency
auditors' assessments of compliance with FFMIA, there has been
little discernible progress since last year. For the agencies
whose fiscal year 1998 audit reports had been issued as of
September 14, 1999, those whose financial management systems were
not in compliance with FFMIA in fiscal year 1997 were still not in
compliance in fiscal year 1998. Issues we identified in our report
last year under FFMIA, such as efforts to implement new accounting
standards, 5 the age and condition of many agencies' critical
financial systems, and competing demands associated with Year 2000
4 Financial Management: Federal Financial Management Improvement
Act Results for Fiscal Year 1997 (GAO/AIMD-98-268, September 30,
1998). 5 Some of the new requirements, which were issued in 1995
and 1996 and became effective in fiscal year 1998, include the
application of managerial cost accounting concepts and preparation
of the new Statements of Financing and Budgetary Resources.
computer conversion issues 6 proved to be continuing significant
challenges to agencies. For fiscal year 1998, auditors for 17 of
20 7 CFO agencies reported that the agencies' financial systems
did not comply substantially with FFMIA's requirements. Although
the statutory reporting deadline is March 1, the remaining four
CFO agencies, as of September 14, 1999, had not yet issued their
audited financial statements for fiscal year 1998. All four of the
agencies were found by their auditors to be noncompliant with
FFMIA for fiscal year 1997. Auditors reported that the financial
systems of 11 of these 17 agencies found to be noncompliant in
fiscal year 1998 were noncompliant with all three FFMIA
requirements federal financial management systems requirements,
applicable federal accounting standards, and the SGL. Auditors for
16 of the 17 agencies had reported for fiscal year 1997 that the
agencies likewise did not comply with FFMIA. The seventeenth
agency was reported as complying with the requirements of FFMIA in
fiscal year 1997 but was found to be noncompliant with systems
requirements in fiscal year 1998 due to auditors' interpretations
of what constitutes substantial compliance. Further, in some
agencies, factors that contributed to systems being found
noncompliant increased, in part because agencies had problems
implementing new accounting standards that became effective in
fiscal year 1998. Our audit of the financial statements for the U.
S. government for fiscal year 1998 8 also showed that many
agencies did not meet applicable accounting standards. As was the
case for fiscal year 1997, the inability of agencies to 6 For the
past several decades, information systems have typically used two
digits to represent the year, such as 99 for 1999, to conserve
electronic data storage and reduce operating costs. In this
format, however, 2000 is indistinguishable from 1900 because both
are represented as 00. As a result, computer systems or
applications that use dates or perform date- or time- sensitive
calculations may, if not modified, generate incorrect results
beyond 1999. 7 The statutory reporting deadline for audit reports
discussing the results of the fiscal year 1998 financial statement
audits for the CFO agencies was March 1, 1999. As of September 14,
1999, the Departments of Education and State, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Small Business Administration had not
yet issued their fiscal year 1998 audited financial statements. 8
Financial Audit: 1998 Financial Report of the United States
Government (GAO/ AIMD- 99130, March 31, 1999). prepare financial
statements in accordance with accounting standards prevented us
from being able to express an opinion on the government's
consolidated financial statements. Although nine agencies whose
audit reports had been issued received unqualified opinions on
their fiscal year 1998 financial statements, obtaining unqualified
or clean audit opinions, while an important objective, is not an
end in and of itself. The key is to take steps to continually
improve internal controls and underlying financial and management
information systems so that these systems will generate reliable,
useful, and timely information on an ongoing basis, not just as of
the end of the fiscal year. We issued a special series of reports
this year that discusses major management challenges and program
risks that must be addressed to improve the performance,
management, and accountability of federal agencies. 9 In this
series, we identified the ability to establish financial
management capabilities that effectively support decision- making
and accountability as one of the major challenges facing most
federal agencies. Agencies generally recognize the extent and
severity of their financial management deficiencies, and 18 of the
20 agencies, for which FFMIA noncompliance was reported for fiscal
year 1997, have prepared remediation plans to address these
problems. FFMIA requires that the agency head, in consultation
with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), prepare such a
plan. OMB's consultative role is important for ensuring that
agencies prepare effective remediation plans that adequately
address their serious financial management weaknesses. However,
based on our reviews and reports issued by agency Offices of
Inspector General (OIG), we found that some agencies did not
submit their plans on time and most of the remediation plans that
were submitted did not address financial management issues
comprehensively; thus, it is questionable that the plans form an
adequate basis for correcting reported issues of noncompliance.
For example, one agency's plan discussed corrective actions for
core financial management systems without addressing weaknesses
reported in feeder systems that produce the underlying data.
Therefore, we believe OMB should, as part of its consultative
role, work with the agencies to ensure that their remediation
plans are submitted and comply with the requirements outlined in
the act. 9 Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A
Governmentwide Perspective (GAO/OCG-99-1, January 1999).
Significant time and investment are needed for agencies to address
and correct long- standing financial management systems problems.
Resolving reported financial management weaknesses has been
delayed by competing demands associated with Year 2000 computer
conversion issues. Further, GAO reviews show that numerous federal
agencies have historically struggled with the development and
implementation of large information technology efforts which
compound the resolution of these problems. It will take time,
concerted effort, and additional investment to raise government
financial management systems to the level of quality and
reliability envisioned by FFMIA. OMB generally agreed that our
report fairly presented the status of the federal government's
implementation of FFMIA and concurred with our recommendations.
The Department of Treasury's Financial Management Service (FMS)
also concurred with the report's contents. Background The primary
purpose of FFMIA is to ensure that agency financial management
systems routinely provide reliable, useful, and timely financial
information. With such information, government leaders will be
better positioned to invest scarce resources, reduce costs,
oversee programs, and hold agency managers accountable for the way
they run government programs. Compliance with federal financial
management systems requirements, applicable accounting standards,
and the SGL are the building blocks to help achieve these goals.
Financial Management The financial management systems policies and
standards prescribed for System Requirements executive agencies to
follow in developing, operating, evaluating, and reporting on
financial management systems are defined in OMB Circular A- 127,
Financial Management Systems, which was last revised in June 1999.
Circular A- 127 references the series of publications, entitled
Federal Financial Management Systems Requirements, issued by the
Joint Financial Management Improvement Program (JFMIP), 10 as the
primary source of governmentwide requirements for financial
management systems. 10 JFMIP is a cooperative undertaking of OMB,
the Department of Treasury, the Office of Personnel Management,
and GAO working with operating agencies to improve financial
management practices throughout the government. Since we reported
last year, JFMIP has revised four of these publications Core
Financial System Requirements (originally issued in September
1995), Human Resources & Payroll Systems Requirements (originally
issued in May 1990), Direct Loan System Requirements (originally
issued in December 1993), and Travel System Requirements
(originally issued in January 1991). Also, JFMIP issued an
exposure draft for a revised version of Seized Property and
Forfeited Assets Systems Requirements (June 1999) and is planning
to issue exposure drafts for Grant Financial System Requirements
and a revised version of Guaranteed Loan System Requirements by
the end of September 1999. Table 1 lists the publications in the
Federal Financial Management System Requirements Series and their
issue dates. Table 1: Publications in the Federal Financial
Management System Requirements Series Federal Financial Management
System Requirements (FFMSR) Document Issue date FFMSR- 0 Framework
for Federal Financial January 1995 Management Systems JFMIP- SR-
99- 4 Core Financial System Requirements February 1999 JFMIP- SR-
99- 5 Human Resources & Payroll Systems April 1999 Requirements
JFMIP- SR- 99- 9 Travel System Requirements July 1999 FFMSR- 4
Seized/ Forfeited Asset System March 1993 Requirements JFMIP- SR-
99- 8 Direct Loan System Requirements June 1999 FFMSR- 6
Guaranteed Loan System Requirements December 1993 FFMSR- 7
Inventory System Requirements June 1995 FFMSR- 8 Managerial Cost
Accounting System February 1998 Requirements To assist agencies
and vendors in developing and implementing software that complies
with current financial management system requirements, JFMIP has
implemented a new testing process. JFMIP has established the
Program Management Office (PMO) which will be directly involved in
the new process. The PMO (1) establishes the systems testing
requirements, which significantly expands on the testing
previously performed, (2) administers the qualification tests to
certify that vendor products meet current JFMIP systems
requirements, and (3) publishes the results and maintains a
database of information for agencies and vendors about financial
systems requirements, business practices, and features of
certified vendor products. The database, which will be available
on JFMIP's web site, will also provide access to qualification
test results. Vendors have submitted nine software packages to be
qualified during the initial round of testing. According to a
JFMIP official, these test results will be made public on October
1, 1999. Thereafter, the testing will be conducted upon request,
and qualified packages will be announced upon successful passage
of the test. Effective in fiscal year 2000, OMB policy requires
federal agencies that acquire new core financial systems to use
JFMIP qualified software. According to JFMIP, the new process will
provide tools and information to help agencies make effective
choices. Agencies must evaluate software options for compatibility
in their operational environment and for agency specific
requirements. As a result, we have issued several checklists 11 to
help agencies implement and monitor their financial management
systems and to help management and auditors review the systems to
determine if they substantially comply with FFMIA. Federal
Accounting Federal accounting standards, which agency CFOs use in
preparing Standards financial statements and in developing
financial management systems, are recommended by the Federal
Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB). 12 FASAB recommends
accounting standards after considering the financial and budgetary
information needs of the Congress, executive agencies, other users
of federal financial information, and comments from the public.
The three principals the Comptroller General, the Secretary of the
Treasury, and the Director of OMB then decide whether to adopt the
recommended standards. If they do, the standards are published by
GAO and OMB and become effective on the stated date. 11 Framework
for Federal Financial Management System Checklist (GAO/AIMD-98-21.
2. 1, May 1998), Core Financial System Requirements Checklist
(GAO/AIMD-99-21.2. 2, August 1999, exposure draft), Inventory
System Checklist (GAO/AIMD-98-21.2.4, May 1998), and System
Requirements for Managerial Cost Accounting Checklist (GAO/AIMD-
99-21.2.9, January 1999). 12 In October 1990, the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Director of OMB, and the Comptroller General
established FASAB to recommend a set of generally accepted
accounting standards for the federal government. FASAB has
recommended and the three principals have approved 3 statements of
accounting concepts and 14 statements of federal financial
accounting standards with various effective dates ranging from
fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2001. The concepts and
standards, as recommended by FASAB and approved by its principals,
are the basis for OMB's guidance to agencies on the form and
content of their financial statements and the government's
consolidated financial statements. Table 2 includes a list of
concepts, standards, and interpretations 13 along with their
respective effective dates. Table 2: Statements of Federal
Financial Accounting Concepts (SFFAC), Statements of Federal
Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS), and Interpretations
Concepts SFFAC No. 1 Objectives of Federal Financial Reporting
SFFAC No. 2 Entity and Display SFFAC No. 3 Management's Discussion
and Analysis Standards Effective for fiscal year a SFFAS No. 1
Accounting for Selected Assets and Liabilities 1994 SFFAS No. 2
Accounting for Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees 1994 SFFAS No. 3
Accounting for Inventory and Related Property 1994 SFFAS No. 4
Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and 1998 Standards SFFAS No. 5
Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government 1997 SFFAS
No. 6 Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment 1998 SFFAS No.
7 Accounting for Revenue and Other Financing 1998 Sources SFFAS
No. 8 Supplementary Stewardship Reporting 1998 SFFAS No. 9
Deferral of Required Implementation Date for 1998 SFFAS No. 4
SFFAS No. 10 Accounting for Internal Use Software 2001 (Continued
) 13 Occasionally, FASAB clarifies existing federal accounting
standards by providing interpretations. An interpretation is a
document of narrow scope that provides clarifications of original
meaning, additional definitions, or other guidance pertaining to
an existing federal accounting standard. Standards Effective for
fiscal year a SFFAS No. 11 Amendments to Accounting for Property,
Plant and 1999 Equipment, Definitional Changes SFFAS No. 12
Recognition of Contingent Liabilities Arising from 1998
Litigation: An Amendment of SFFAS 5, Accounting for Liabilities of
the Federal Government SFFAS No. 13 Deferral of Paragraph 65- 2
Material RevenueRelated 1999 Transactions Disclosures: Amending
SFFAS No. 7, Accounting for Revenue and Other Financing Sources
SFFAS No. 15 Management's Discussion and Analysis 2000
Interpretations No. 1 Reporting on Indian Trust Funds No. 2
Accounting for Treasury Judgment Fund Transactions No. 3
Measurement Date for Pension and Retirement Health Care
Liabilities No. 4 Accounting for Pension Payments In Excess of
Pension Expense No. 5 Recognition by Recipient Entities of
Receivable Nonexchange Revenue (Continued from Previous Page) a
Effective dates do not apply to Statements of Federal Financial
Accounting Concepts and Interpretations. SFFAC No. 3 on
management's discussion and analysis and SFFAS Nos. 10, 11, 12,
13, and 15 on internal use software, amendments to existing
standards, and management's discussion and analysis were issued
since we reported last year. Also, FASAB has recommended three new
Statements of Recommended Accounting Standards (SRAS) SRAS No. 14,
Amendments to Deferred Maintenance Reporting (April 1999), SRAS
No. 16, Amendments to Accounting for Property, Plant, and
Equipment; Measurement and Reporting for Multi- Use Heritage
Assets (July 1999), and SRAS No. 17, Accounting for Social
Insurance (August 1999). In addition, FASAB is drafting
recommended standards for supplementary stewardship reporting for
national defense property, plant, and equipment. The Accounting
and Auditing Policy Committee (AAPC) 14 assists in resolving
issues related to the implementation of accounting standards.
AAPC's efforts result in authoritative guidance for preparers and
auditors of federal financial statements in connection with
implementation of accounting standards and the reporting and
auditing requirements contained in OMB's Form and Content Bulletin
and Audit Bulletin. To date, AAPC has recommended and OMB has
issued four technical releases (TR), which are listed in table 3
along with their release dates. Table 3: AAPC Technical Releases
Technical Release Release date TR- 1 Audit Legal Letter Guidance
March 1, 1998 TR- 2 Environmental Liabilities Guidance March 15,
1998 TR- 3 Preparing and Auditing Direct Loan and Loan July 31,
1999 Guarantee Subsidies under the Federal Credit Reform Act TR- 4
Reporting on Non- Valued Seized and Forfeited July 31, 1999
Property Standard General Ledger The SGL provides a uniform chart
of accounts and pro forma transactions used to standardize federal
agencies' financial information accumulation and processing,
enhance financial control, and support budget and external
reporting, including financial statement preparation. The SGL is
intended to improve data stewardship throughout the government,
enabling consistent reporting at all levels within the agencies
and providing comparable data and financial analysis at the
government level. 15 In our report on our audit of the financial
statements for the U. S. government for fiscal year 1998, we
reported that the government's inability to properly and
consistently compile information in the financial statements was
compounded by limitations in the federal government's general
ledger 14 In 1997, FASAB in conjunction with OMB, Treasury, GAO,
the CFO Council, and the President's Council on Integrity and
Efficiency, established AAPC to assist the federal government in
improving financial reporting. 15 SGL guidance is published in the
Treasury Financial Manual. Treasury's Financial Management Service
is responsible for maintaining the SGL and answering agency
inquiries. account structure. We are working with OMB and Treasury
to expand and enhance the SGL structure. Remediation Plans FFMIA
requires an agency head to determine, based on a review of the
auditor's report on the agency's financial statements and any
other relevant information, whether the agency's financial
management systems substantially comply with the act. The agency
head is required to make this determination no later than 120 days
after (1) the receipt of the auditor's report or (2) the last day
of the fiscal year following the year covered by the audit,
whichever comes first. The auditor's and the agency head's
determinations of compliance may differ. If the agency head
determines that the systems do not substantially comply, FFMIA
requires that the agency head, in consultation with the Director
of OMB, establish a remediation plan to bring the systems into
substantial compliance with FFMIA's requirements. According to OMB
guidance, remediation plans are to include corrective actions,
intermediate target dates, and resources necessary to achieve
substantial compliance with FFMIA's requirements within 3 years of
the date the noncompliance determination is made. If, with the
concurrence of the Director of OMB, the agency head determines
that substantial compliance cannot be reached within 3 years, the
remediation plan must specify the most feasible date by which the
agency will achieve compliance and designate an official
responsible for effecting the necessary corrective actions. Per
OMB guidance, agencies are to include remediation plans in their
annual agency financial management status report and 5- year plans
which are to be submitted to OMB in September of each year. Scope
and In performing our work, we reviewed fiscal year 1998 audit
results for the Methodology 20 CFO agencies that had issued
audited financial statements as of September 14, 1999. We also
reviewed (1) agency remediation plans, (2) OIG reports on agency
remediation plans, (3) OMB's implementation guidance for FFMIA,
and (4) OMB's 1999 Federal Financial Management Status Report and
Five- Year Plan. We did not independently verify or test the
reliability of the data in OMB's report. In addition, we reviewed
applicable federal accounting standards and JFMIP publications. We
also interviewed agency managers and auditors at the 24 CFO
agencies to obtain their views on FFMIA implementation. We
conducted our work from March through mid- September 1999 at the
24 CFO agencies and OMB in Washington, D. C., in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested
comments on a draft of this report from the Director of OMB and
the Commissioner of Treasury's FMS or their designees. We received
oral comments from OMB's Office of Federal Financial Management
and the Director, Program Integrity Division, FMS. These comments
are discussed in the Agency Comments section of this report.
Fiscal Year 1998 Although agencies are more aware of their
financial management Results weaknesses and have started
addressing them, auditors' assessments of agencies' compliance
with FFMIA's requirements do not indicate substantial progress
since we reported last year. In their fiscal year 1998 audit
reports, auditors for 17 of 20 CFO agencies that issued audit
reports reported that the agencies' financial systems did not
substantially comply with FFMIA. In comparing the fiscal year 1998
results to the fiscal year 1997 results, we found that every
agency (for which fiscal year 1998 results were available) whose
systems did not substantially comply with FFMIA in fiscal year
1997 still did not comply for fiscal year 1998. Of the 17
agencies, auditors reported that for fiscal year 1998, 11 were
noncompliant with all three FFMIA requirements; 17 were reported
noncompliant with systems requirements; 13 were reported
noncompliant with accounting standards; and 11 agencies were
reported noncompliant with the SGL. Auditors for three agencies
the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and the National Science Foundation reported that
their agencies' financial systems complied substantially with
FFMIA's three requirements. 16 The financial systems of the four
agencies the Departments of Education and State, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Small Business Administration that had
not yet issued audited financial statements by September 14, 1999,
were reported to be noncompliant with FFMIA's requirements in
fiscal year 1997. Table 4 summarizes the auditors' and agencies'
determinations of substantial compliance with the requirements of
FFMIA for fiscal year 1998. 16 According to guidance in OMB
Bulletin 98- 08, receipt of a qualified audit opinion with
material weaknesses is an indication of noncompliance with FFMIA.
The Department of Energy received a qualified opinion that
described a material weakness. Table 4: Summary of Auditors' FFMIA
Determinations and Agencies' Responses Auditor's determination of
substantial Agency's response to auditor's compliance a Areas of
reported substantial noncompliance determination b Systems
Accounting Agency Yes No requirements standards SGL Agree Disagree
Department of Agriculture X X X X X Department of Commerce X X X X
X Department of Defense X X X X X Department of Education c
Department of Energy X X Department of Health and X X X X Human
Services Department of Housing and X X X X X Urban Development
Department of the Interior X X X Department of Justice X X X X X
Department of Labor X X X X X Department of State c Department of
Transportation X X X X Department of the Treasury X X X X X
Department of Veterans Affairs X X X X X Agency for International
X X X X X Development Environmental Protection Agency c Federal
Emergency X X X d Management Agency General Services X X X
Administration National Aeronautics and X X Space Administration
National Science Foundation X X Nuclear Regulatory X X X X X
Commission Office of Personnel X X X X X Management (Continued )
Auditor's determination of substantial Agency's response to
auditor's compliance a Areas of reported substantial noncompliance
determination b Systems Accounting Agency Yes No requirements
standards SGL Agree Disagree Small Business Administration c
Social Security Administration X X X e Total 3 17 17 13 11 18 2
(Continued from Previous Page) a OMB guidance states that lack of
substantial compliance in any one of the three requirements
results in lack of substantial compliance with FFMIA. b Agreement
or disagreement is based on agency comments included in the
auditors' reports or interviews with agency management. c Audit
report had not been issued as of September 14, 1999. Auditor
reported systems were not in compliance with FFMIA in fiscal year
1997. d Federal Emergency Management Agency officials agreed that
deficiencies exist and are preparing a remediation plan. However,
the officials disagreed with the auditor as to whether the
deficiencies are significant enough to warrant lack of substantial
compliance. e Social Security Administration officials
acknowledged that weaknesses in their systems exist, as reported
by the auditors; however, the officials did not agree that these
weaknesses caused a lack of substantial compliance with FFMIA.
Based on our comparison of audit results for fiscal years 1997 and
1998, 4 of the 17 agencies increased the number of reported areas
of noncompliance with FFMIA requirements systems requirements,
accounting standards, and the SGL. One of the four the General
Services Administration whose systems were reported to be in
compliance in fiscal year 1997, was found to be noncompliant in
fiscal year 1998 due to auditors' interpretations of what
constitutes substantial compliance with FFMIA's systems
requirements. The primary factor contributing to the additional
areas of noncompliance for the other three agencies was difficulty
implementing the new accounting standards. Table 5 compares the
fiscal years 1997 and 1998 audit results for the four agencies
whose areas of reported noncompliance increased. Table 5:
Comparison of Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998 Audit Results for
Selected Agencies Auditor's determination of substantial
compliance Areas of reported substantial noncompliance Systems
Accounting Agency Fiscal year Yes No requirements standards SGL
Department of Health and Human Services 1997 X X 1998 X X X
Department of Veterans Affairs 1997 X X 1998 X X X X General
Services Administration 1997 X 1998 X X Nuclear Regulatory
Commission 1997 X X 1998 X X X X Reasons for Auditors' For fiscal
year 1998, the primary reasons for agencies' financial systems
Determination of lack of substantial compliance with the three
requirements of FFMIA Substantial Noncompliance remain the same as
in fiscal year 1997. Discussed in detail in the respective audit
reports on the agency financial statements, reasons for lack of
substantial compliance with the three requirements of FFMIA
include the following: For federal financial management systems
requirements:  Systems were not integrated.  Systems data were not
updated or reconciled in a timely manner.  There were ineffective
controls over automated information systems. To prepare financial
statements, agencies that do not have a single, integrated
financial system rely on ad hoc programming and analysis of data
that are not reconciled and often require significant adjustments.
The summarization of this accounting data into financial statement
formats is a time- consuming, manual process. As a result, the
risk of material misstatements increases, and reliable data cannot
be produced in a timely and efficient manner for day- to- day
decision- making. Also, when systems lack appropriate controls,
sensitive financial data can be exposed to inappropriate
disclosure, destruction, modification, and fraud. We designated
information systems security weaknesses as a governmentwide high-
risk area in both 1997, 17 and again in 1999, 18 and reported that
various financial transactions are examples of federal operations
that are at high risk of unauthorized access and disclosure. For
federal accounting standards, agencies were unable to  properly
account for and report (1) billions of dollars of property,
equipment, materials, and supplies and (2) certain stewardship
assets relating to national defense,  properly estimate the cost
of most major federal credit programs and the related loans
receivable and loan guarantee liabilities,  determine the proper
amount of various liabilities, including, environmental and
disposal liabilities and related costs, postretirement health
benefits for members of the military, accounts payable, and other
liabilities,  properly account for basic transactions, especially
those between government agencies and other entities,  accurately
report major portions of the net cost of government operations,
determine the full extent of improper payments that occur in major
programs and that are estimated to involve billions of dollars
annually, and  ensure that all disbursements are properly
recorded. These problems significantly affect the determination of
the full cost of the government's current operations, the value of
assets, and the extent of its liabilities. Also, agencies'
inability to properly account for various assets makes agencies
unable to provide assurance that assets are safeguarded against
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition and that
transactions are executed in accordance with law. For the SGL:
Core system data could not be reconciled to feeder system data.
Transaction detail supporting account information was nonexistent
or not readily available. 17 High- Risk Series: An Overview
(GAO/HR-97-1, February 1997). 18 High- Risk Series: An Update
(GAO/HR-99-1, January 1999).  System financial data were not
consistent with the SGL and its posting requirements. SGL
deficiencies contribute to the government's inability to (1)
properly balance the government's financial statements and account
for billions of dollars of transactions between governmental
entities, (2) properly and consistently compile the information in
the financial statements, and (3) effectively reconcile the
results of operations with budget results. In addition, the lack
of SGL implementation could limit agencies' ability to compare and
contrast program performance. As we previously reported, a
significant challenge for agencies in overcoming these problems is
addressing the age and poor condition of many of their critical
financial systems. We testified on March 31, 1999, 19 about the
serious financial management improvement challenges facing the
federal government. The central challenge to producing reliable,
useful, and timely data throughout the year and at year- end is
overhauling financial and related management information systems.
Agencies must also address problems with fundamental
recordkeeping, incomplete documentation, and weak internal
controls before their systems can produce reliable, useful and
timely information on an ongoing basis, not just at the end of the
fiscal year. Agencies reported that they were unable to address
the poor condition of their current financial management systems
because resources were devoted to addressing Year 2000 computer
conversion issues. In May 1999, OMB issued a memorandum stating
that agencies should follow a policy that allows system changes
only when absolutely necessary and asked agencies to establish a
process to ensure that the effect on Year 2000 readiness be
considered prior to establishing new requirements or changes to
information technology systems. 20 In June 1999, we testified 21
that at least six agencies had established, or planned to
establish, moratoriums or restrictions on system changes during
parts of 1999 and early 2000. 19 Auditing the Nation's Finances:
Fiscal Year 1998 Results Highlight Major Issues Needing Resolution
(GAO/T-AIMD-99-131, March 31, 1999). 20 Minimizing Regulatory and
Information Technology Requirements That Could Affect Progress
Fixing the Year 2000 Problem (OMB, M- 99- 17, May 14, 1999). 21
Year 2000 Computing Challenge: Estimated Costs, Planned Uses of
Emergency Funding, and Future Implications (GAO/T-AIMD-99-214,
June 22, 1999). Moreover, we also found that because of the Year
2000 problem, agencies or the Congress had delayed implementation
of regulatory requirements and planned information technology
initiatives. While Year 2000 preparation has resulted in delaying
financial system changes in some agencies, over the long term
there should be residual benefits from Year 2000 preparation. As a
result of Year 2000 efforts, agencies have been provided an
additional incentive to control their information technology
environment, and in many instances, agencies have been forced to
inventory their information systems, link those systems to agency
core business processes, and discard systems of marginal value. By
doing this, agencies will be in a better position to improve their
financial systems next year. Agencies Have As discussed earlier,
factors contributing to agencies' lack of substantial Difficulty
Providing compliance with FFMIA include problems implementing
accounting standards. Auditors for 13 agencies reported that the
agencies had Information in problems implementing one or more of
the new accounting standards that Accordance With became effective
in fiscal year 1998. These standards relate to managerial
Accounting Standards cost accounting; property, plant, and
equipment; accounting for revenue and other financing sources; and
stewardship reporting for government investments that benefit the
nation, such as national parks and monuments. Table 6 lists the
agencies and standards for which auditors reported problems. Table
6: Agencies' Whose Auditors Reported Problems Implementing New
Accounting Standards in Fiscal Year 1998 SFFAS No. 4, SFFAS No. 7,
Managerial Accounting for Cost SFFAS No. 6, Revenue and SFFAS No.
8, Accounting Accounting for Other Supplementary Concepts and
Property, Plant Financing Stewardship Agency Standards and
Equipment Sources Reporting Department of X X X X Agriculture
Department of X X X Commerce Department of X X X X Defense
(Continued ) SFFAS No. 4, SFFAS No. 7, Managerial Accounting for
Cost SFFAS No. 6, Revenue and SFFAS No. 8, Accounting Accounting
for Other Supplementary Concepts and Property, Plant Financing
Stewardship Agency Standards and Equipment Sources Reporting
Department of X X Health and Human Services Department of X X
Housing and Urban Development Department of X the Interior
Department of X X X Justice Department of X X X Transportation
Department of X X the Treasury Department of X Veterans Affairs
Agency for X X International Development Nuclear X X Regulatory
Commission Office of X Personnel Management a Total (13) 10 8 10 2
(Continued from Previous Page) a The Office of Personnel
Management issued five separate audit opinions for each major
component. The auditors for three components the Retirement,
Health Benefits, and Life Insurance Programs reported no problems
with the new standards. Agencies face significant challenges
implementing these new standards. For example, complying with the
cost accounting standard was a key challenge. The standard
requires agencies to develop measures of the full costs of
carrying out a mission, producing products, or delivering services
to promote comparison of the costs of various programs and
results. Developing the necessary information, which is needed as
well to support Results Act 22 implementation, will be a
substantial undertaking; and while there is a broad recognition of
the importance of doing so, for the most part, agencies have just
begun this effort. Our audit of the financial statements for the
U. S. government also showed that many agencies have difficulty
providing information in accordance with applicable federal
accounting standards. We were not able to express an opinion on
the U. S. government's fiscal year 1998 financial statements
because serious deficiencies prevented us and the government from
having assurance that it had properly reported large portions of
its assets, liabilities, and costs. These deficiencies affect the
reliability of the financial statements and much of the underlying
information. They also affect the government's ability to
accurately measure the full cost of programs, and effectively and
efficiently manage its operations. Appendix I summarizes the
fiscal year 1998 audit opinions for the 20 CFO agencies that had
issued audited financial statements as of September 14, 1999. As
shown in appendix I, nine agencies received an unqualified
opinion. Nine other agencies received either qualified opinions or
disclaimers of opinion. One agency, which received more than one
audit opinion, received unqualified opinions on financial
statements covering a portion of its operations and disclaimers of
opinion on statements for the remaining segments of its
operations. One agency received an unqualified opinion on its
balance sheet and disclaimers of opinion on its other statements.
Although some agencies have obtained, and others are striving to
obtain, an unqualified ( clean) audit opinion on their financial
statements, such an opinion is not an end in and of itself.
Without fundamental improvements in internal controls and
underlying financial and management information systems, agency
efforts to obtain reliable data needed for day- to- day management
and year- end reporting will meet with limited success. As a
result of poor internal controls and systems, several agencies
were unable to prepare financial statements and have them audited
by the March 1 statutory deadline. Ten agencies did not issue
their fiscal year 1998 audited financial statements by March 1,
1999, and some agencies that did meet the deadline were able to do
so only after significantly adjusting account balances. These
adjustments were needed because financial statement 22 The
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 is commonly known
as the Results Act. preparation requires considerable reliance on
ad hoc programming and analysis of data produced by inadequate
systems that are not integrated or reconciled. Appendix I shows
the dates when agencies issued their fiscal year 1998 audited
financial statements. The quality of financial management in the
federal government has suffered for decades and has not kept up
with private sector and state and local government finance
organizations. To help promote improved federal financial
management and bring it up to par with the private and public
sectors, we recently issued an exposure draft of an executive
guide 23 to help federal agencies in achieving the objectives of
the CFO Act, FFMIA, and other related legislation. The guide
provides case study examples of 11 fundamental practices of
leading private and public sector finance organizations, including
developing systems that support the partnership between finance
and operations, and translating financial data into meaningful
information. These and other practices implemented by the
organizations are critical for establishing and maintaining sound
financial operations that, not only will achieve the goal of an
unqualified audit opinion, but, more importantly, focus on
supporting the agency's overall performance and ensure that
decisionmakers have reliable, useful, and timely information.
Agencies recognize the extent and severity of their financial
management deficiencies, and the President has designated
financial management reform as a top management priority. In May
1998, the President required heads of agencies with financial
management deficiencies that resulted in qualified opinions or
disclaimers of opinion to submit corrective action plans to OMB.
These corrective action plans are separate from the remediation
plans required by FFMIA. Although the corrective actions may
resolve financial statement reporting deficiencies and result in
unqualified opinions, they may not necessarily resolve identified
instances of noncompliance with FFMIA's requirements. We are
continuing to work with OMB, the Treasury, and other federal
agencies to recommend the actions necessary to achieve the goal of
having reliable, useful, and timely financial management
information on an ongoing basis consistent with federal accounting
standards. With concerted effort, the federal government can make
progress toward 23 Executive Guide: Creating Value Through World-
Class Financial Management (GAO/AIMD-99-45, August 1999, exposure
draft). achieving accountability and regularly generating reliable
financial and management information. Whether Remediation If an
agency head determines that the agency's systems are not in Plans
Will Adequately substantial compliance, FFMIA requires that the
agency head, in consultation with the Director of OMB, establish a
remediation plan to Address bring the systems into substantial
compliance with FFMIA's requirements. Noncompliance Issues
According to OMB guidance, agencies are to prepare remediation
plans Is Questionable that specify corrective actions and
intermediate target dates and resources necessary to implement
those actions, and include their remediation plans in their annual
agency financial management status report and 5- year plan
submitted to OMB in September. Remediation plans addressing issues
identified in fiscal year 1997 audit reports were due in September
1998. Remediation plans addressing issues identified in fiscal
year 1998 audit reports were due to OMB by September 14, 1999.
Based on our review of remediation plans for fiscal year 1997, it
is questionable, for at least 12 plans, whether the corrective
actions, if successfully implemented, would bring the agencies'
systems into compliance with FFMIA. Of the 20 agencies whose
systems were reported to be noncompliant with FFMIA in fiscal year
1997, 18 prepared remediation plans to address FFMIA noncompliance
issues identified in fiscal year 1997 audit reports. Of the 18
agencies, the Department of Education did not originally prepare a
remediation plan in accordance with OMB guidance. Based on our
inquiry, OMB requested the Department of Education to prepare and
submit a remediation plan. In response, the Department of
Education prepared a remediation plan and submitted it to OMB on
July 15, 1999. Of the 20 agencies whose systems were reported to
be noncompliant with FFMIA in fiscal year 1997, two agencies the
Department of State and the Social Security Administration (SSA)
did not submit remediation plans to OMB. The Department of State
has since contracted for the preparation of a remediation plan to
address problems with its financial management systems identified
in fiscal year 1997. SSA did not submit a remediation plan to OMB
because management determined that its systems were in substantial
compliance with FFMIA. However, SSA provided comments, including
corrective actions, in response to the auditor's recommendations.
Based on our review of the 18 available remediation plans for
fiscal year 1997, it is uncertain whether some of the corrective
actions in at least five of the plans will resolve the problems
that caused the agencies' systems to lack substantial compliance
with FFMIA. Seven plans did not contain key information to
adequately assess the plans. Specifically, three plans did not
include information on the resources needed to implement the
corrective actions, and the other four plans did not contain
corrective actions for all instances of noncompliance, nor did
they contain sufficient information on resources or target dates.
Without this key information, it is difficult, if not impossible,
to determine whether the corrective actions are realistic and if
the target dates are reasonable. For example, in January 1999, we
reported 24 that the Department of Defense's (DOD) biennial plan
25 did not include actions to adequately ensure the integrity of
the key data in the agency's feeder systems, which provide about
80 percent of the information needed for financial reporting. 26
These systems are also critical operational systems. For the six
remaining plans, we determined that, if successfully implemented,
the corrective actions may resolve the agencies' problems.
However, it is too early to tell if these agencies will be
successful in implementing these plans. Table 7 lists, by
remediation plan assessment, the 18 agencies. Table 7: Assessment
of Agencies' Remediation Plans Remediation plan did not contain
sufficient key Remediation plan, if Uncertain whether information
on corrective implemented, may remediation plan will actions,
resources and/ or resolve problems resolve problems target dates
Department of Agriculture Department of Health and Department of
Commerce Human Services Department of Education Department of the
Interior Department of Defense Department of Department of the
Treasury Department of Housing and Transportation Urban
Development (Continued ) 24 Financial Management: Analysis of
DOD's First Biennial Financial Management Improvement Plan
(GAO/AIMD-99-44, January 29, 1999). 25 DOD's Biennial Plan
includes its remediation plan as well as information to satisfy
other regulatory reporting requirements under the CFO Act and the
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982. 26 In April
1999, DOD's OIG also issued a report describing weaknesses in the
Biennial Plan. Remediation plan did not contain sufficient key
Remediation plan, if Uncertain whether information on corrective
implemented, may remediation plan will actions, resources and/ or
resolve problems resolve problems target dates Environmental
Protection Department of Veterans Department of Justice Agency
Affairs Nuclear Regulatory Agency for International Department of
Labor Commission Development Small Business Office of Personnel
Administration Management Federal Emergency Management Agency
Total 6 5 7 (Continued from Previous Page) Based on our review of
agency audit reports and remediation plans, we found that seven
agencies' corrective actions included developing new core
financial management systems to replace noncompliant systems. The
federal government is increasingly dependent on information
technology to improve its performance and meet mission goals, and
as a result, spends billions of dollars each year on information
technology. All too often, information technology projects have
resulted in huge cost overruns and limited improvement in
performance. To ensure that information technology dollars are
directed toward prudent investments designed to achieve cost
savings, increase productivity, and improve the timeliness and
quality of service delivery, agencies need to successfully
incorporate modern information technology practices and meet the
OMB and ClingerCohen Act requirements for new system developments.
27 Recent GAO and other reviews show that numerous agencies
continue to experience weaknesses with information technology
investment selection and control processes. For example, a
corrective action cited by the Agency for International
Development (AID) is to implement a new core financial management
system. On March 1, 1999, AID's OIG reported that the agency is at
risk of repeating past mistakes that led to the deployment of a
system in 1996 that did not operate effectively. Some of these
past mistakes included (1) lack of an agencywide blueprint before
beginning 27 The Clinger- Cohen Act of 1996 builds on the best
practices of leading public and private organizations by requiring
agencies to better link information technology planning and
investment decisions to program missions and goals. development,
(2) a preliminary systems architecture that only covered the core
financial system and did not address other financial management
systems, and (3) lack of an integrated strategy supported by an
investment analysis and detailed plans. Agency remediation plans
are a crucial tool for agency managers. Details in the plans could
help agencies focus on specific problems and the actions and
resources needed to correct those problems. We testified on June
18, 1998, 28 that congressional committees, as part of annual
appropriation or oversight hearings, could use the agencies'
remediation plans, along with financial statement audits and
reports on compliance with FFMIA, to measure the progress agencies
are making toward improving financial management. We also
discussed the need for the remediation plans to be sufficiently
detailed to provide a road map for agency management and staff to
resolve financial management problems. The severity of problems
facing agencies as they attempt to implement current and future
accounting standards, resolve serious information security
weaknesses, and replace or overhaul old and outdated financial
systems highlights the need for detailed remediation plans. As
part of our effort to help improve financial management throughout
the government, we will review remediation plans due to OMB in
September 1999 on issues identified in fiscal year 1998 audits. We
will determine if the plans have improved over the ones we
reviewed for this report and make any needed recommendations.
Conclusion Long- standing problems with agencies' financial
management systems decrease the government's ability to produce
reliable, useful, and timely financial information. This
information is important for formulating budgets, managing
government programs, and making difficult policy choices. In
addition, complying with FFMIA is essential for departments and
agencies to maximize their performance and ensure their
accountability. The federal government's size and complexity and
the discipline needed to overhaul or replace its financial
management systems present a significant challenge. Also, agencies
will continually face challenges in implementing new accounting
standards as FASAB continues 28 Financial Management: Fostering
the Effective Implementation of Legislative Goals (GAO/T-AIMD-98-
215, June 1998). to deliberate on new and emerging accounting
issues that will result in the issuance of additional standards.
We recognize that it will take time, investment, and sustained
emphasis on correcting deficiencies to improve federal financial
management systems to the level required by FFMIA and necessary to
effectively manage government funds. The significance of issues
facing agencies, now and in the future, emphasizes the need for
detailed remediation plans that clearly describe the corrective
actions necessary to resolve problems, as well as information
about the resources and time frames required to successfully
implement the corrective actions. As envisioned by the act, these
remediation plans would help agencies establish seamless systems
and processes to routinely generate reliable, useful, and timely
information which would improve agencies' accountability and help
them to meet the statutory deadline for issuing audited financial
statements. However, based on our review, some remediation plans
were submitted late, were not completed, or did not always contain
sufficient information about agencies' plans to address their
problems. The consultative role the act established for the
Director of OMB, with respect to the agency remediation plans, is
important to addressing the types of problems we noted in the
current remediation plans and to improve the development of future
plans. Recommendations We recommend that the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget require the Deputy Director for
Management, as part of the consultative process for future
remediation plans, to work with the agencies to ensure that all
remediation plans are prepared and submitted timely and to review
the plans for (1) detailed corrective actions that fully address
reported problems, (2) inclusion of resource requirements, and (3)
specific time frames needed to implement and resolve problems. We
also recommend that the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget require the Deputy Director for Management to work with the
agencies to ensure that the agencies' financial statements are
audited and issued by the March 1 statutory deadline. Agency
Comments In comments on a draft of this report, OMB generally
agreed that our report fairly presented the status of the federal
government's implementation of FFMIA and concurred with our
recommendations. FMS also concurred with the report's contents. We
are sending copies of this report to Senator George V. Voinovich,
Chairman, and Senator Richard J. Durbin, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring,
and the District of Columbia, Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs; Representative Stephen Horn, Chairman, and Representative
Jim Turner, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information, and Technology, House Committee on
Government Reform. We are also sending copies to the Honorable
Jacob J. Lew, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the
Honorable Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary of the Treasury; the
heads of the 24 CFO agencies; and agency CFOs and Inspectors
General. Copies will also be made available to others upon
request. This report was prepared under the direction of Gloria L.
Jarmon, Director, Health and Human Services Accounting and
Financial Management, who may be reached at (202) 512- 4476 or by
e- mail at jarmong. aimd@ gao. gov if you have any questions. Key
contributors to this assignment were Deborah A. Taylor, Diane N.
Morris, and Sandra S. Silzer. David M. Walker Comptroller General
of the United States Appendi xes CFO Agencies' Fiscal Year 1998
Audit Appendi x I Opinions and Target Dates The 1990 CFO Act was
the cornerstone of the legislative foundation for the federal
government to provide taxpayers, the nation's leaders, and agency
program managers with reliable financial information through
audited financial statements. Under the CFO Act, as expanded by
the Government Management Reform Act of 1994, the 24 major
agencies are required to annually prepare organizationwide
financial statements, beginning with those for fiscal year 1996,
and have them audited. Table 8 lists the 24 CFO agencies, the
audit opinion received for fiscal year 1998, the date the fiscal
year 1998 audit report was issued, and when the agency expects to
receive an unqualified opinion on its financial statements, as
reported in OMB's Federal Financial Management Status Report &
Five- Year Plan issued in 1999. Table 8: Opinions for the 24 CFO
Agencies' Fiscal Year 1998 Financial Statements, Date Audit Report
Issued, and When Unqualified Opinions Are Expected Expected date
for obtaining an unqualified Date fiscal year 1998 audit opinion
(fiscal Agency Fiscal year 1998 audit opinion report issued year)
Department of Agriculture Disclaimer February 22, 1999 2000
Department of Commerce Unqualified on balance sheet only; May 4,
1999 1999 disclaimer on statements of net cost and changes in net
position and combined statement of budgetary resources and
financing Department of Defense Disclaimer March 1, 1999 After
2000 Department of Education a Unqualified in fiscal year 1997 N/
A N/ A Department of Energy Qualified February 25, 1999 1999
Department of Health and Human Services Qualified February 26,
1999 1999 Department of Housing and Urban Unqualified March 29,
1999 N/ A Development Department of the Interior Unqualified April
19, 1999 N/ A Department of Justice Disclaimer February 15, 1999
1999 Department of Labor Unqualified February 26, 1999 N/ A
Department of State a Unqualified in fiscal year 1997 N/ A N/ A
Department of Transportation Disclaimer March 30, 1999 1999
Department of the Treasury Qualified March 25, 1999 1999
Department of Veterans Affairs Qualified March 10, 1999 1999
Agency for International Development Disclaimer March 1, 1999 2000
(Continued ) Expected date for obtaining an unqualified Date
fiscal year 1998 audit opinion (fiscal Agency Fiscal year 1998
audit opinion report issued year) Environmental Protection Agency
a Unqualified in fiscal year 1997 N/ A N/ A Federal Emergency
Management Agency Unqualified March 1, 1999 N/ A General Services
Administration Unqualified February 25, 1999 N/ A National
Aeronautics and Space Unqualified February 18, 1999 N/ A
Administration National Science Foundation Unqualified February
26, 1999 N/ A Nuclear Regulatory Commission Unqualified March 1,
1999 N/ A Office of Personnel Management 1999 Retirement Program
Unqualified February 23, 1999 Health Benefits Insurance Program
Unqualified February 23, 1999 Life Insurance Program Unqualified
February 23, 1999 Revolving Fund Disclaimer March 1, 1999 Salaries
and Expenses Disclaimer March 1, 1999 Small Business
Administration a Unqualified in fiscal year 1997 N/ A N/ A Social
Security Administration Unqualified November 20, 1998 N/ A
(Continued from Previous Page) a Audit report not available as of
September 14, 1999. (916272) Lett er GAO United States General
Accounting Office Page 1 GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal
Year 1998 United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.
C. 20548 Comptroller General of the United States B-283317 Page 2
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 3
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 4
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 5
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 6
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 7
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 8
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 9
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 10
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 11
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 12
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 13
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 14
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 15
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 16
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 17
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 18
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 19
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 20
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 21
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 22
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 23
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 24
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 25
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 26
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 B-283317 Page 27
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 Page 28 GAO/AIMD-
00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 Appendix I Appendix I CFO
Agencies' Fiscal Year 1998 Audit Opinions and Target Dates Page 29
GAO/AIMD-00-3 FFMIA Results for Fiscal Year 1998 Ordering
Information The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is
free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out
to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary, VISA and
MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more
copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013 or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of
4th and G Sts. NW) U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512- 6000 or by using
fax number (202) 512- 6061, or TDD (202) 512- 2537. Each day, GAO
issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive
facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A
recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these
lists. For information on how to access GAO reports on the
INTERNET, send an e- mail message with info in the body to: info@
www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at: http://
www. gao. gov United States General Accounting Office Washington,
D. C. 20548- 0001 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate Postage & Fees Paid GAO
Permit No. GI00

*** End of document. ***