Budget Account Structure: A Descriptive Overview (Letter Report,
09/18/95, GAO/AIMD-95-179).

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

 REPORTNUM:  AIMD-95-179
     TITLE:  Budget Account Structure: A Descriptive Overview
      DATE:  09/18/95
   SUBJECT:  Presidential budgets
             General fund accounts
             Trust funds
             Budget authority
             Federal agencies
             Agency missions
             Mission budgeting
             Strategic planning
             Budget administration
             Budget obligations
IDENTIFIER:  Head Start Program
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

September 1995

BUDGET ACCOUNT STRUCTURE - A
DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEW

GAO/AIMD-95-179

Budget Account Structure

(935157)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DOC - Department of Commerce
  DOD - Department of Defense
  DOE - Department of Energy
  DOI - Department of the Interior
  DOJ - Department of Justice
  DOL - Department of Labor
  DOT - Department of Transportation
  Educ.  - Department of Education
  EOP - Executive Office of the President/Funds Appropriated to the
     President
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  EX-IM - Export-Import Bank
  FASAB - Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
  FDIC - Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
  FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
  GPRA - Government Performance and Results Act
  GSA - General Services Administration
  HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
  HUD - Department of Housing and Urban Development
  Ind.  Ag.  - Other Independent Agencies
  JB - The Judiciary
  LB - Legislative Branch
  NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  NSF - National Science Foundation
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget
  OPM - Office of Personnel Management
  RRB - Railroad Retirement Board
  RTC - Resolution Trust Corporation
  SBA - Small Business Administration
  Smith.  - Smithsonian Institution
  SSA - Social Security Administration
  TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority
  USDA - Department of Agriculture
  USIA - United States Information Agency
  VA - Department of Veterans Affairs

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-261180

September 18, 1995

The Honorable Mark O.  Hatfield
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Pete V.  Domenici
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
United States Senate

The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable William V.  Roth, Jr.
United States Senate

This report responds to your request that we provide a descriptive
overview of the federal budget account structure.  The need to better
understand the budget account structure is prompted by recent
congressional actions, such as the Government Performance and Results
Act, and executive branch initiatives, such as the National
Performance Review, which call for or suggest cross-cutting changes
to budget accounts. 

As discussed with your offices, we explored the following eight
dimensions to define and explain budget accounts. 

  Number:  How many accounts are there? 

  Size:  What is the level of resources available in an account? 

  Orientation:  What is the primary focus of an account as created by
     the Congress? 

  Resource type:  What type(s) of budget authority is available to an
     account? 

  Fund type:  What is the extent of resource restriction or
     earmarking
     within an account? 

  Mission:  What are the purposes or areas of national need
     addressed by an account? 

  Organization:  What is the responsible federal entity for an
     account? 

  Appropriations
     subcommittee:  Which subcommittee acts on the resources in an
     account?\1

The first section of this report, "Understanding the Federal Budget
Account Structure," describes the structure in terms of these eight
dimensions.  The second section, "Discerning Patterns Within the
Federal Budget Account Structure," constructs profiles and discusses
relationships among the dimensions. 

Appendix I is a glossary of selected terms used in this report. 
Appendix II contains summary figures relating account number and
size, resource type, and fund type to the final three dimensions. 
Appendix III presents figures (1) summarizing medians and ranges of
account size by federal missions, federal organizations, and
cognizant appropriations subcommittees and (2) relating federal
missions, federal organizations, and appropriations subcommittees. 
In appendix IV, we present details of our scope and methodology. 
This is followed by a selected bibliography from our literature
search. 


--------------------
\1 In this report, we emphasize the role of the appropriations
subcommittees because of their central role within the appropriations
process, including the requirement to report bills which ultimately
define federal budget accounts in appropriations statutes. 


   OVERVIEW OF OBSERVATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Federal budget accounts are a product of the needs and goals of many
users and reflect the many roles which they have been asked to
address.  The present budget account "structure" was not created as a
single integrated framework but rather developed, for the most part,
as separate budget accounts over time to respond to specific needs. 
Viewing these individually developed accounts collectively discloses
not only the variety within the current structure but also its
complexity. 

Our review of fiscal year 1995\2 budget accounts revealed a structure
characterized by

  a concentration of budgetary resources in a few large accounts and
     a scattering of remaining resources among hundreds of other
     accounts;

  a mix of account orientations with an emphasis on programs and
     processes, rather than objects of expense or organizations;

  over 70 percent of total budgetary resources available in fiscal
     year 1995 from sources which did not require congressional
     approval in the current year; and

  extensive use of general funds to provide most budgetary resources
     to most accounts, but with special and trust funds supporting
     about 30 percent of total resources and 20 percent of all
     accounts. 

These observations vary significantly among federal missions, federal
organizations, and appropriations subcommittees and help to
illustrate the intricate network of relationships within the budget
account structure.  As a result, cross-cutting initiatives that
affect budget accounts will encounter in hundreds of accounts a
fundamentally heterogeneous structure that serves many different
needs and objectives. 


--------------------
\2 In this report, fiscal year 1995 refers to the fiscal year 1995
estimate as reported in the President's fiscal year 1996 budget. 


   BACKGROUND AND SCOPE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Nearly 50 years ago, the Hoover Commission examined the federal
budget account structure and concluded, "The present appropriation
structure underlying the budget is a patchwork affair evolved over a
great many years and following no rational pattern."\3

Although federal budgeting has undergone considerable change over the
years,\4 today's federal budget account structure retains a focus on
the individual account.  For example, in the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, an account is defined as

     "an item for which appropriations are made in any appropriation
     Act and, for items not provided for in appropriation Acts, [an
     account]...means an item for which there is a designated budget
     account identification code number in the President's budget."\5

We began our analysis from this definition of an account.  However,
within federal budgeting and financial management, operational
definitions for the term "account" vary depending on the user and the
purpose to be served.  For example, congressional appropriators
establish budget accounts to facilitate congressional allocation and
oversight responsibilities.  The President's budget presentation
generally reflects this structure but may consolidate separate items
into a single account.\6 Agency officials use these budget account
structures to report to the Congress and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), but they often rely on more detailed account
structures--such as standard general ledger accounts which integrate
proprietary and budgetary accounting, internal budgetary allotment
schedules, or project and activity plans maintained by program
managers--to monitor expenditures and performance and for other
management needs. 

Once defined, accounts may be quantified in various ways depending on
the user and the purpose to be served.  A wide variety of budgetary
information and subsidiary classifications are available to meet the
many needs of different users.  For example, users interested in
relative priorities within the annual budget process might
concentrate on budget authority; those interested in the approaches
used by government to address its needs might look to obligations;
and those interested in deficits and how much the government
ultimately spends might emphasize outlays.  Each perspective would
produce a different, but equally valid, universe of budget accounts. 

For this report, we have used budgetary resources as reported in the
President's budget presentation to define and measure the universe of
accounts.  Budgetary resources are equivalent to all available budget
authority--appropriations, borrowing and contract authority,
reappropriations, and offsetting collections from the public and
other federal organizations, net of transferred authority and
statutory limitations.  This approach captures a very large universe
by including all accounts with budgetary resources available for
obligation, but it can be confusing when compared to the outlays
occurring in a given fiscal year.  Because budgetary resources
include current and permanent authority as well as resources
available from offsetting collections and from prior years, they may
vary significantly from outlays.  This was the case for the fiscal
year 1995 estimate, as reported in the President's fiscal year 1996
budget, which projected budgetary resources of $2.5 trillion and net
outlays of $1.5 trillion. 

Lastly, it might be inferred that discussing budget accounts as a
structure, rather than as separate and independent decisions as
indicated by the 1985 act quoted above, suggests that there is or
should be a set of coherent rules and criteria.  This is not our
intention.  In this report, we examine budget accounts collectively
for two reasons.  First, the concept of a budget account structure is
accepted among budget practitioners and academics and allows for
succinct references to an ever-changing and complex environment. 
Second, analyses which describe the budget account structure in terms
of the characteristics and patterns of its constituent parts-- the
separate accounts--can provide rich insights into the federal budget
process and are necessary to the consideration of cross- cutting
proposals. 

For example, the following recent congressional actions and
administration initiatives call for or suggest certain cross-cutting
changes to budget accounts. 

  The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 was
     enacted to enhance program management, public accountability,
     and congressional decision-making by establishing a process to
     set strategic and annual program goals and to measure
     accomplishments.  By the fall of 1997, executive organizations
     are required to submit to OMB an annual performance plan which
     establishes a target level of performance for each project or
     activity listed in the "program by activities" section of each
     budget account presentation.  Beginning with the February 1998
     submission of the fiscal year 1999 budget, the President is
     required to transmit to the Congress a "Federal Government
     performance plan for the overall budget."\7

  The National Performance Review (NPR), under the leadership of the
     Vice President, is an executive branch management reform effort
     intended to make the government "work better and cost less."\8
     Among hundreds of NPR recommendations, generally intended to
     emphasize results and enhance managerial flexibility, were
     several dealing with "mission-driven, results-oriented
     budgeting." Some of the most significant recommendations
     concerning the budget account structure were proposals to (1)
     restructure budget accounts to reduce over-itemization and to
     align them with programs, (2) budget and manage on the basis of
     operating costs, and (3) identify accounts that should be
     converted to multi-year or no- year status. 

  The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) was created
     to consider and recommend accounting principles for the federal
     government.  Recently, FASAB has proposed cost accounting
     standards,\9 which (1) focus on "responsibility segments,"
     defined as components associated with a specific mission,
     conducting a major activity, or producing one or more related
     products and services and (2) capture, for responsibility
     segments, "full costs," defined as the costs of resources
     consumed directly or indirectly plus the costs of identifiable
     supporting services.  Restructuring budget accounts to align
     with programs and outputs could be one outgrowth from budgetary
     and financial accounting that tracks entitywide expenditures and
     expenses. 


--------------------
\3 The Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the
Government, Budgeting and Accounting, Feb.  15, 1949, pp.  12 and 13. 

\4 For a brief discussion of federal budgeting, see Budget Object
Classification:  Origins and Recent Trends (GAO/AIMD-94-147, Sept. 
13, 1994). 

\5 2 U.S.C.  section 900(c)(11). 

\6 For example, the National Institutes of Health account (75-9915)
in the President's budget presentation consolidates 25 items included
in the appropriations act. 

\7 31 U.S.C.  section 1105(a)(29). 

\8 From Red Tape to Results:  Creating a Government that Works Better
and Costs Less--Report of the National Performance Review, Office of
the Vice President, Sept.  7, 1993.  For a discussion of the National
Performance Review, see Management Reform:  GAO's Comments on the
National Performance Review's Recommendations (GAO/OCG-94-1, Dec.  3,
1993) and Management Reform:  Implementation of the National
Performance Review's Recommendations (GAO/OCG-95-1, Dec.  5, 1994). 

\9 Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal
Government (Draft Statement), Federal Accounting Standards Advisory
Board, May 1995. 


   UNDERSTANDING THE FEDERAL
   BUDGET ACCOUNT STRUCTURE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3


      THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
      ACCOUNTS AND BUDGETARY
      RESOURCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

A persistent pattern permeating the budget account structure is the
unequal distribution of budgetary resources across accounts.  When
the number and size of accounts are compared, an inverse relationship
is revealed.  Figure 1 displays this "bookend" relationship. 

   Figure 1:  Budget Accounts
   Compared to Budgetary
   Resources, Fiscal Year 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Left Cluster:  84.8 percent of budget accounts (1,104) are associated
with 5.7 percent of budgetary resources ($138.8 billion). 

Right Cluster:  3.7 percent of budget accounts (47) are associated
with 76.0 percent of budgetary resources ($1,877.3 billion). 

As figure 1 shows, nearly 80 percent of the federal government's
resources are clustered in less than 5 percent of budget accounts (47
out of 1,303).  Conversely, 85 percent of all budget accounts contain
about 6 percent of the federal government's total budgetary resources
($138.8 billion out of total budgetary resources of $2.5 trillion). 
Collectively in fiscal year 1995, there are 199 accounts with total
budgetary resources over $1 billion and 162 accounts with budgetary
resources of less than $1 million.  Table 4 on page 17 more fully
depicts the largest and smallest accounts. 

A similar pattern of inequality emerges when comparing accounts and
budgetary resources across federal missions, organizations, and
appropriations subcommittees. 

  The three missions with the fewest number of accounts--social
     security, net interest, and medicare--are among the largest in
     terms of available 1995 budgetary resources.  Consistent with
     the generally inverse relationship between accounts and
     budgetary resources, the missions with the most
     accounts--general government and natural resources and
     environment--have collectively only about 4 percent of total
     budgetary resources. 

  The Departments of Commerce and of Health and Human Services (HHS)
     have the same number of accounts but vastly different amounts of
     budgetary resources--$6.7 billion and $383.8 billion,
     respectively.  Conversely, although the Departments of Defense
     and of the Treasury have comparable resource levels--$444.1
     billion and $418.7 billion, respectively--Defense has more than
     twice the number of accounts. 

  Two appropriations subcommittees--Interior and Labor, Health and
     Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies--appropriate to
     similar numbers of accounts but provide widely different
     resource levels ($15.0 billion and $260.6 billion,
     respectively).  The subcommittee concerned with the Departments
     of Commerce, Justice, and State has the most accounts--almost 17
     percent of the accounts which the appropriations subcommittees
     acted on in 1995--but appropriated only about 4 percent of 1995
     budgetary resources. 


      THE BUDGET ACCOUNT STRUCTURE
      SHOWS A MIX OF ORIENTATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

In establishing a budget account, the Congress articulates its
interests, which in turn define the account's orientation.  The
current budget account structure displays a mix of orientations,
reflecting both the 200 years of federal budget development and
varying congressional interests.\10 We reviewed the fiscal year 1995
accounts of three judgmentally selected organizations--the
Departments of Energy (DOE), HHS, and Treasury--and found that these
accounts appear to emphasize program and process orientations to a
greater extent than objects and organizations.  Within these three
organizations, program and process accounts represented 60 percent of
accounts and 55 percent of total budgetary resources. 

Each of the four orientations used in this report--object,
organization, process, and program--reflects a specific focus or
interest of the Congress.\11 An object orientation emphasizes the
items of expense, while an organization orientation focuses on the
responsible governmental unit.  In effect, the former stresses
control of spending on an item-by-item basis; the latter accentuates
accountability.  Accounts with a process orientation concentrate on
the specific operations or approaches underlying federal activities,
while those with a program orientation focus on the missions and
objectives of governmental units. 

Object, organization, process, and program orientations are found
throughout the federal budget account structure.  Each account
generally will have a predominant orientation but may have
characteristics of other orientations.\12 Thus, assigning an account
to a specific orientation reflects a judgment based on
interpretations of an account's statutory language and obligation
patterns.  Table 1 presents examples of account orientations from
DOE, HHS, and Treasury. 



                                Table 1
                
                Examples of Account Orientations in DOE,
                           HHS, and Treasury

                           DOE            HHS            Treasury
-------------------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
Object                     Operation and  Retirement     Payment of
                           Maintenance,   pay and        government
                           Southwestern   medical        losses in
                           Power          benefits for   shipment
                           Administratio  commissioned   (20-1710)
                           n (89-0303)    officers (75-
                                          0379)

Organization               Federal        National       Office of
                           Energy         Institutes of  Inspector
                           Regulatory     Health (75-    General (20-
                           Commission     9915)          0106)
                           (89-0212)

Process                    Colorado       Service,       Exchange
                           River Basins   supply, and    stabilization
                           Power          other funds    fund
                           Marketing      (75-9941)      (20-4444)
                           Fund, Western
                           Area Power
                           Administratio
                           n (89-4452)

Program                    Clean coal     Children and   Tax law
                           technology     Families       enforcement
                           (89-0235)      Services       (20-0913)
                                          Programs (75-
                                          1536)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Numbers in parentheses are fiscal year 1995 account numbers. 

Table 2 presents the results of our assessments of the account
orientations for DOE, HHS, and Treasury, showing the percentage of
accounts and budgetary resources for each orientation. 



                                Table 2
                
                Account Orientation in Three Departments

                          (Numbers in Percent)


                     Accoun  Resourc  Accoun  Resourc  Accoun  Resourc
                         ts       es      ts       es      ts       es
-------------------  ------  -------  ------  -------  ------  -------
Object                   28        4      20        2      32       82
Organization             14       13      16        4      10        0
Process                   6        1      14       11      42       12
Program                  52       82      50       83      16        6
======================================================================
Total                   100      100     100      100     100      100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 shows that more than half of the accounts in each of the
three organizations have a program or process orientation.  Fifty
percent or more of DOE's and HHS' accounts had a program orientation,
and these accounts held most of their budgetary resources.  A total
of 42 percent of Treasury's accounts were oriented to process, but 82
percent of its resources were in object accounts, principally due to
its large Interest on the Public Debt account.  Excluding this
account changes the distribution of resources to 10 percent object, 1
percent organization, 60 percent process, and 28 percent program. 

Accounts with a program orientation do not necessarily capture all
related program costs.  For example, the costs of providing Medicare
are spread among at least three accounts with different orientations: 
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (program orientation), Federal
Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund (program orientation), and
Program Management (object orientation).  Other programs separate
accounts for salaries and expenses from other program expenditure
accounts.  Conversely, some accounts include the costs of a number of
programs and activities within a single account.  For example, the
HHS' Children and Families Services Programs account includes Head
Start and many other social service and community services programs,
while DOE's Economic Regulation account captures the costs of both
the Economic Regulatory Administration and the Office of Hearings and
Appeals. 


--------------------
\10 See GAO/AIMD-94-147. 

\11 The orientations developed for this report are a variation on a
theme developed by Allen Schick in his seminal piece, "On the Road to
PPB:  The Stages of Budget Reform," in Perspectives in Budgeting
(Washington, D.C.:  American Society for Public Administration,
1987), pp.  40-63.  Other categorizations, such as separating direct
program accounts from those providing support services, also might
provide productive lines of inquiry. 

\12 For example, all accounts with budgetary resources retain an
object classification presentation, regardless of the account
orientation, to allow for comparative analysis across accounts. 


      ACCOUNTS DISPLAY VARYING
      PATTERNS WITHIN RESOURCE
      TYPES AND FUND TYPES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

One of the more informative ways to characterize an account is by its
resource and fund types.  These closely related dimensions illustrate
the extent to which an account relies on current year authority, as
opposed to other permanent or available types of funding, and the
degree of earmarking or restriction associated with receipts
available to an account. 

Resource type indicates when and how an account received resources
available for a particular fiscal year.  We identified and analyzed
four resource types:  resources received in prior years, current
authority, permanent authority, and offsetting collections.  Fund
type refers to the extent of designation or restriction of the
receipts associated with an account.  We analyzed five fund types: 
general funds, intragovernmental revolving funds, public enterprise
funds, special funds, and trust funds.\13 Both resource and fund
types are defined in the glossary in appendix I.  Table 3 summarizes
these characteristics in terms of the number of accounts and amount
of budgetary resources for fiscal year 1995. 



                                Table 3
                
                  Accounts and Budgetary Resources by
                Resource and Fund Type, Fiscal Year 1995

                         (Dollars in thousands)


                                      Numb  Perce                Perce
Resource Type                           er     nt        Amount     nt
------------------------------------  ----  -----  ------------  -----
Prior year funding                     878   67.4  $309,193,506   12.5
Current authority                      807   61.9   714,416,650   28.9
Permanent authority                    274   21.0  1,136,595,92   46.0
                                                            5\b
Offsetting collections                 480   36.8   311,822,009   12.6
======================================================================
Total                                   \c     \c  $2,472,028,0  100.0
                                                           91\d

Fund Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------
General                                856   65.7  $1,348,838,1   54.6
                                                             44
Intragovernmental revolving             44    3.4   117,085,435    4.7
Public enterprise                      116    8.9   234,382,009    9.5
Special                                108    8.3    10,085,730    0.4
Trust                                  179   13.7   761,636,773   30.8
======================================================================
Total                                 1,30  100.0  $2,472,028,0  100.0
                                         3                   91
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Aggregating budgetary resources bears little relevance to outlays
in a given fiscal year.  Because total budgetary resources include
all current and permanent authority as well as those resources
available from offsetting collections and prior years, they vary
significantly from outlays. 

\b Permanent authority excluding net interest totals $796,622,776 in
268 accounts. 

\c Will not sum to our universe of 1,303 accounts because some
accounts have multiple resource types. 

\d Budgetary resources do not total due to rounding. 

As shown in table 3, permanent authority, the resource type
associated with the fewest accounts, provides nearly half of the
budgetary resources available in fiscal year 1995.  Conversely, prior
year authority, the most common resource type among accounts,
provides the fewest budgetary resources (12.5 percent).  Over
one-third of fiscal year 1995 budget accounts have access to
offsetting collections.  Combining offsetting collections with prior
year funding and permanent authority means that approximately 70
percent of total budgetary resources (about $1.76 trillion out of
$2.47 trillion) were available for obligation without further action
by the Congress in fiscal year 1995. 

Within fund types, general funds comprise about two-thirds of all
accounts and about 55 percent of available budgetary resources. 
About 22 percent of accounts and 31 percent of available resources
involve designated or restricted receipts in trust and special funds. 

A fund type generally aligns with a specific resource type.  Current
authority provides more than half of the resources in general fund
accounts.  Permanent authority provides over 80 percent of the
resources to trust fund accounts and almost 50 percent of resources
to special fund accounts.  Offsetting collections provide 89 percent
of the funding to intragovernmental revolving funds and 54 percent of
the resources to public enterprise funds.  (See appendix II, figure
II.1 on page 34.)

Again, interesting and variable patterns emerge when resource type
and fund type are applied to federal missions, organizations, and
appropriations subcommittees.  The figures in appendix II present
detailed information on these patterns.  The following are some of
the observations that can be drawn from that information. 


--------------------
\13 For purposes of this analysis, special and trust funds are
separated because the designation "trust" is used in the latter's
authorizing legislation. 


         FEDERAL MISSIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3.1

The federal missions used in this report correspond to the 18 OMB
budget function classifications described in appendix I.  Except for
net interest and medicare, the missions have all types of available
budgetary resources.  (See appendix II, figure II.2 on page 36.)

  Permanent authority provides nearly all the budgetary resources for
     net interest and social security and is the dominant resource
     type for medicare (83 percent).  However, this resource type
     provides less than 10 percent of available budgetary resources
     for 8 other missions. 

  Seven missions (general science, space, and technology; education,
     training, employment, and social services; administration of
     justice; veterans benefits and services; natural resources and
     environment; national defense; and health) received more than 50
     percent of their available resources from current authority,
     while 6 missions had less than 20 percent of their available
     resources in current authority. 

  International affairs and community and regional development have
     the greatest share of their resources provided through prior
     year funding (63 percent and 37 percent respectively), but more
     than half of the mission areas receive less than 13 percent of
     their budgetary resources from this source. 

  Offsetting collections are significant only to commerce and housing
     credit (62 percent), energy (55 percent), and agriculture (43
     percent). 

While virtually all missions have general fund and trust fund
accounts, more than three-fourths have special, public enterprise, or
intragovernmental fund types.  (See appendix II, figure II.5 on page
44.)

  Twelve of the 18 missions receive 50 percent or more of available
     resources from the general fund.  Three missions-- net interest;
     general science, space, and technology; and education, training,
     employment, and social services--are virtually fully funded
     through the general fund.  Conversely, 2 missions--social
     security and commerce and housing credit-- receive less than 5
     percent of their available resources from the general fund. 

  Trust funds provide the dominant share of budgetary resources for 3
     missions--social security (99 percent), medicare (81 percent)
     and transportation (71 percent)--but represent 1 percent or less
     of budgetary resources in 8 other missions. 

  Public enterprise funds are the most significant source of
     budgetary resources for 3 missions--commerce and housing credit
     (95 percent of budgetary resources in 30 percent of accounts),
     agriculture (80 percent of budgetary resources in 19 percent of
     accounts), and energy (55 percent of resources in 15 percent of
     accounts).  However, public enterprise funds provide less than 5
     percent of the budgetary resources for 12 other missions. 

  Only the general government mission has a significant amount of its
     budgetary resources (41 percent) provided by intragovernmental
     revolving funds; 13 missions receive less than 1 percent of
     their resources from these funds.  Only 1 mission--natural
     resources and environment--has a sizeable number of special fund
     accounts (24 percent), but these accounts amount to only 6
     percent of its budgetary resources. 


         FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3.2

For this report, we considered all federal government entities that
received budgetary resources in fiscal year 1995.  For presentation
purposes, the federal organizations shown in our analyses include (1)
all departments and agencies separately displayed in the President's
budget, (2) the legislative and judicial branches, (3) the Executive
Office of, and Funds Appropriated to, the President, and (4) the
following independent agencies:  the Export-Import Bank of the United
States, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, the National Science Foundation, the
Postal Service, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Resolution Trust
Corporation, the Smithsonian Institution, and the United States
Information Agency.  In our analyses, major organizations include all
departments and the Environmental Protection Agency.  (See appendix
II, figure II.6 on page 46 and appendix III, figure III.6 on page 57
for federal organizations shown in our analyses and appendix IV for a
description of how these organizations were selected.)

  Permanent authority provides more than half of available budgetary
     resources for 5 organizations:  the Social Security
     Administration (93 percent), Treasury (86 percent), HHS (56
     percent), the Railroad Retirement Board (54 percent), and Labor
     (51 percent).  However, about two-thirds of the organizations
     received less than 10 percent of their available budgetary
     resources from permanent authority. 

  For many federal organizations--including HHS; the Departments of
     Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Labor, the Interior, the
     Treasury, and Transportation; the General Services
     Administration (GSA); and the Office of Personnel Management
     (OPM)--current authority is less than half of total available
     budgetary resources.  None of the major organizations has more
     than 80 percent of available budgetary resources stemming from
     current authority. 

  Offsetting collections provided between 10 percent and 24 percent
     of available resources for 9 of 15 major organizations:  the
     Department of Defense (DOD), Energy, Commerce, Agriculture, HUD,
     Justice, Labor, State, and the Interior.  Five other
     organizations had more than 50 percent of budgetary resources in
     collections--the Postal Service, the Tennessee Valley Authority
     (TVA), GSA, the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), and the
     Small Business Administration (SBA). 

  Resources from prior year authority comprise 13 percent of all
     budgetary resources to federal organizations; however, they are
     a significant percentage of resources for only one major
     organization, HUD (49 percent). 

Although general funds are the principal fund type for most federal
organizations, there are some notable exceptions.  (See appendix II,
figure II.6 on page 46.)

  Trust funds are the dominant fund type in the Social Security
     Administration (90 percent of budgetary resources), the Railroad
     Retirement Board (87 percent), OPM (75 percent), and the
     Departments of Transportation (74 percent) and Labor (53
     percent).  However, trust funds provided less than 10 percent of
     the budgetary resources to more than two-thirds of the
     organizations. 

  Public enterprise funds are dominant for TVA, the Federal Deposit
     Insurance Corporation, RTC, and the Postal Service (all about
     100 percent), but about one-third of the organizations did not
     receive any budgetary resources from these funds. 

  Intragovernmental revolving funds are a significant fund type only
     for GSA (98 percent); about half of the organizations did not
     receive resources from this fund type. 

  Special funds provided less than 1 percent of budgetary resources
     to federal organizations but were about 17 percent of the
     budgetary resources of both the Interior and the Legislative
     Branch. 


         APPROPRIATIONS
         SUBCOMMITTEES
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3.3

The budget accounts acted on by appropriations subcommittees
represent a smaller universe than the 1,303 accounts with $2.5
trillion in available budgetary resources that we analyzed to this
point.  In fiscal year 1995, appropriations subcommittees provided
$903 billion in available budgetary resources to 860 accounts.  This
smaller universe of accounts and resources results from excluding (1)
resources provided by authorizing committees and (2) resources
available from prior years.\14

Current authority is provided exclusively through the appropriations
process.  Not surprisingly, current authority was the principal
budgetary resource among the appropriations subcommittees, comprising
almost 80 percent of budgetary resources appropriated.  Permanent
authority provides more than 10 percent of resources for only one
subcommittee--the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and
Related Agencies subcommittee.  Offsetting collections are associated
with 39 percent of subcommittee accounts and provide 15 percent of
budgetary resources.  The subcommittees in which offsetting
collections represent a larger share of resources are Defense (29
percent); Transportation and Related Agencies (27 percent); Treasury,
Postal Service, and General Government (26 percent); Military
Construction (20 percent); and Energy and Water Development (19
percent).  (See appendix II, figure II.4 on page 42.)

Similarly, budget accounts acted on by appropriations subcommittees
are largely associated with the general fund.  For example, 96
percent or more of budgetary resources come from general funds for
all subcommittees except the following: 

  Energy and Water Development (89 percent general funds);

  Defense (78 percent general fund, 22 percent intragovernmental
     revolving funds);

  Treasury, Postal Service and General Government (76 percent general
     funds, 24 percent intragovernmental revolving funds); and

  Transportation and Related Agencies (69 percent general funds, 26
     percent trust funds). 

Overall, less than 1 percent of all subcommittee resources were
appropriated to accounts with special funds and public enterprise
funds.  (See appendix II, figure II.7 on page 50.)


--------------------
\14 As discussed in appendix IV (Scope and Methodology), we could not
associate an appropriations subcommittee with prior year budgetary
resources due to data limitations. 


   DISCERNING PATTERNS WITHIN THE
   FEDERAL BUDGET ACCOUNT
   STRUCTURE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

As the preceding discussion has shown, each dimension or
characteristic can provide some insight into the federal budget
account structure.  The following discussion highlights some of the
patterns which can be detected when one or more of the variables is
mapped against the others.  However, this represents only a
preliminary and high-order analysis.  Each dimension discussed in
this report also could be analyzed at the individual budget account
level.  This kind of detailed analysis would be needed to address
specific questions or to comment on cross-cutting proposals.\15


--------------------
\15 In a series of fact sheets and associated testimony for the
Chairman, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, we used the
budget account structure to map organization spending patterns and
employment levels against the missions of the federal government. 
See Government Restructuring:  Identifying Potential Duplication in
Federal Missions and Approaches (GAO/T-AIMD-95-161, June 7, 1995);
Budget Function Classification:  Agency Spending and Personnel Levels
for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (GAO/AIMD-95- 115FS, April 11, 1995);
Budget Function Classification:  Agency Spending by Subfunction and
Object Category, Fiscal Year 1994 (GAO/AIMD-95-116FS, May 10, 1995);
and Budget Function Classification:  Relating Agency Spending and
Personnel Levels to Budget Functions (GAO/AIMD/GGD-95-69FS, Jan.  30,
1995). 


      A PROFILE OF THE LARGEST AND
      SMALLEST ACCOUNTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

As discussed earlier, the account structure is comprised of a few
very large accounts and many very small accounts (see figure 1). 
This raises the question of whether the largest and smallest accounts
have different characteristics.  Table 4 helps to answer this
question.  It separates accounts into two groups--"large," which we
have defined arbitrarily as containing over $1 billion, and "small,"
which we have defined arbitrarily as containing less than $1 million. 
While no dominant order or design emerges, tendencies can be
discerned. 



                                Table 4
                
                  Profile of Large and Small Accounts

                                Large accounts      Small accounts
                                (more than $1       (less than $1
                                billion in          million in
Dimensions                      resources)          resources)
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Number of accounts              199                 162

Total resources                 $2.3 trillion (94   $49 million (0.1
                                percent of total    percent of total
                                resources)          resources)

Size range                      $1 billion to $334  $1,000 to $997,000
                                billion (median     (median $206,000)
                                $3.2 billion)

Orientation                     Programs (e.g.,     Processes (e.g.,
                                social security     gifts and
                                and medicare)       bequests)

Fund type                       More likely to be   More likely to be
                                general funds,      trust funds
                                public enterprise
                                funds, or
                                intragovernmental
                                revolving funds

Resource type                   More large          Fewer small
                                accounts received   accounts received
                                current authority   current authority
                                and offsetting      and offsetting
                                collections than    collections than
                                small accounts      large accounts

Missions with most accounts     Defense, income     General
                                security            government,
                                                    natural resources
                                                    and environment

Appropriations subcommittees    Defense; Labor,     Commerce, Justice,
with most accounts              Health and Human    State, Judiciary
                                Services,           and Related
                                Education and       Agencies; Energy
                                Related Agencies    and Water
                                                    Development;
                                                    Legislative
                                                    Branch; Veterans
                                                    Affairs, HUD and
                                                    Independent
                                                    Agencies

Organizations with most         DOD, HHS            Legislative
accounts                                            Branch,
                                                    Agriculture
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the number of accounts with budgetary resources over $1
billion and under $1 million is roughly similar, over 94 percent of
all budgetary resources are concentrated in the accounts over $1
billion.  For the 361 accounts in these two categories, each of the
four orientations was found in the group of accounts over $1 billion
and in the group of accounts under $1 million.  However, accounts
over $1 billion are oriented to programs more often than accounts
under $1 million, which emphasize processes.  Accounts under $1
million are more likely to be trust funds and less likely to receive
current authority and offsetting collections than accounts over $1
billion.  Accounts over $1 billion are more likely than accounts
under $1 million to be general funds and to receive current authority
and offsetting collections. 


      REPRESENTATIVE ACCOUNT SIZES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

The preceding analysis helps to explain a budget account structure
marked by a wide and unequal distribution of accounts by size. 
Analyzing median account sizes--the budgetary resources level at
which half the accounts in a particular dimension are above and half
are below--is another method to deal with this persistent pattern. 
The median identifies representative accounts because it is
unaffected by a few extremely large or small values.  In table 4, the
large accounts have a median of $3.2 billion, while the small
accounts' median is $206,000.  Figures III.1, III.2, and III.3 on
pages 52, 53, and 54 in appendix III present detailed information
about account medians, the total number of accounts, and the ranges
of budgetary resources for missions, organizations, and
appropriations subcommittees.  The following are some of the more
interesting patterns shown in these figures. 

  The medicare, social security, and net interest missions have the
     largest medians and the fewest accounts.  General government and
     community and regional development--missions with more diverse
     and numerous accounts--have the smallest medians. 

  Five federal organizations (the Social Security Administration,
     RTC, TVA, OPM, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation)
     have comparatively large account medians; the Legislative Branch
     has the smallest account median. 

  The Defense appropriations subcommittee has the largest median
     account size, while the Legislative Branch subcommittee has the
     smallest.\16

Organizations with similar account medians can have quite different
profiles.  The Department of Justice (DOJ) and HUD have roughly equal
median account sizes (about $135 million).  DOJ has $18.8 billion in
budgetary resources, with 10 percent of its accounts over $1 billion,
and it has no public enterprise funds.  In contrast, HUD has
resources of $75.9 billion, with 20 percent of its accounts over $1
billion, and about 25 percent of its accounts are public enterprise
funds.  There also are some similarities.  Both organizations are
reviewed by one appropriations subcommittee and implement programs in
about the same number of missions. 

Median account size also varies by fund type.  (See appendix III,
figure III.4 on page 55.) The median of intragovernmental revolving
funds is three times that of public enterprise funds--the next
largest median--due to large revolving funds in DOD and GSA. 
Although the medians for public enterprise and general funds are
similar, there are 116 public enterprise funds and 856 general funds. 
Trust funds have the smallest median, despite the existence of some
very large trust funds such as social security, medicare, and
highways. 


--------------------
\16 The median account size for appropriations subcommittees is
measured by the amount of resources affected by an appropriations
subcommittee.  Because other budgetary resources (notably permanent
authority) are provided by other congressional committees, the
account universe and size used to compute the median may differ from
that used to compute medians for other dimensions. 


      INTERSECTIONS BETWEEN
      FEDERAL MISSIONS AND
      STRUCTURES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

Finally, combining the dimensions discussed in this report into an
overall matrix discloses the rich and complex relationships within
the budget account structure.  Figure 2 shows the intersections
between the descriptive characteristics of federal missions, federal
organizations, and cognizant appropriations subcommittees.  It
visually presents another aspect of the complex setting that would be
encountered by any cross-cutting proposals affecting the budget
account structure.  The following are some of the overall patterns
displayed in figure 2 which follows, as well as in figures III.5,
III.6, and III.7 on pages 56, 57, and 58 of appendix III. 

  Three missions are concentrated in one subcommittee each, while
     eight missions are addressed by five or more subcommittees. 

  Three missions are concentrated in one organization each, while 10
     missions are carried out by five or more organizations.\17

  Seven major federal organizations are considered by one
     appropriations subcommittee each and six others are considered
     by two subcommittees.  Five subcommittees review parts of DOD
     and HHS. 

  Two subcommittees appropriate to more than 10 federal organizations
     and two others address 8 and 7 federal organizations,
     respectively.  Five subcommittees deal with 2 or fewer federal
     organizations. 

   Figure 2:  Budget Accounts of
   Federal Organizations by
   Federal Missions and
   Appropriations Subcommittees,
   Fiscal Year 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\17 For a more complete discussion, see GAO/T-AIMD-95-161 and
GAO/AIMD- 95-115FS. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

The descriptive overview discussed in this report represents only a
first order of analysis.  As proposals suggesting across-the-board
changes to the budget account structure are generated, more detailed
analyses, keyed to the specific proposals, will be necessary. 
However, this preliminary work demonstrates both the extent of
analysis which can be performed and its potential utility.  We would
be pleased to work with your offices to determine other avenues of
inquiry. 

We provided a draft of this report to OMB for technical review and
comment.  Their comments have been included as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Ranking Minority Members
of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Committee on the Budget,
and Committee on Governmental Affairs; the Chairmen and Ranking
Members of the House Committee on Appropriations, Committee on the
Budget, and Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; and other
interested Members of the Congress.  We also will make copies
available to others upon request. 

If you have any questions, I can be reached at (202) 512-9573.  Major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Paul L.  Posner
Director, Budget Issues


GLOSSARY
=========================================================== Appendix I


   FEDERAL MISSION
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

The federal missions listed in this report are defined by OMB's
budget function classification system, in which all accounts are
assigned to one or more budget functions that generally indicate
broad areas of national need.  The following are descriptions of the
budget functions used in this report.  For a more complete
description, see appendix II in A Glossary of Terms Used in the
Federal Budget Process (Exposure Draft) (GAO/AFMD-2.1.1, Jan.  1993). 


      ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.1

Programs to provide judicial services, police protection, law
enforcement (including civil rights), rehabilitation and
incarceration of criminals, and the general maintenance of domestic
order. 


      AGRICULTURE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.2

Promoting the economic stability of agriculture and the nation's
capability to maintain and increase agricultural production. 


      COMMERCE AND HOUSING CREDIT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.3

Promotion and regulation of commerce and the housing credit and
deposit insurance industries, which pertain to collection and
dissemination of social and economic data (unless they are an
integral part of another function, such as health); general purpose
subsidies to business, including credit subsidies to the housing
industry; and the Postal Service fund and general fund subsidies of
that fund. 


      COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL
      DEVELOPMENT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.4

Development of physical facilities or financial infrastructures
designed to promote viable community economies. 


      EDUCATION, TRAINING,
      EMPLOYMENT, AND SOCIAL
      SERVICES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.5

Promoting the extension of knowledge and skills, enhancing employment
and employment opportunities, protecting workplace standards, and
providing services to the needy. 


      ENERGY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.6

Promoting an adequate supply and appropriate use of energy to serve
the needs of the economy. 


      GENERAL GOVERNMENT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.7

General overhead cost of the federal government, including
legislative and executive activities; provision of central fiscal,
personnel, and property activities; and provision of services that
cannot reasonably be classified in any other major function. 


      GENERAL SCIENCE, SPACE AND
      TECHNOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.8

Budget resources allocated to science and research activities of the
federal government that are not an integral part of the programs
conducted under any other function. 


      HEALTH
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.9

Programs other than medicare whose basic purpose is to promote
physical and mental health, including the prevention of illness and
accidents. 


      INCOME SECURITY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:1.10

Support payments (including associated administrative expenses) to
persons for whom no current service is rendered.  Included are
retirement, disability, unemployment, welfare, and similar programs,
except for social security and income security for veterans, which
are in other functions. 


      INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:1.11

Maintaining peaceful relations, commerce, and travel between the
United States and the rest of the world and promoting international
security and economic development abroad. 


      MEDICARE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:1.12

Federal hospital insurance and federal supplementary medical
insurance, along with general fund subsidies of these funds and
associated offsetting receipts. 


      NATIONAL DEFENSE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:1.13

Common defense and security of the United States, including raising,
equipping, and maintaining of armed forces; development and
utilization of weapons systems; direct compensation and benefits paid
to active military and civilian personnel; defense research,
development, testing, and evaluation; and procurement, construction,
stockpiling, and other activities undertaken to directly foster
national security. 


      NATURAL RESOURCES AND
      ENVIRONMENT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:1.14

Developing, managing, and maintaining the nation's natural resources
and environment. 


      NET INTEREST
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:1.15

Transactions which directly give rise to interest payments or income
(lending) and the general short fall or excess of outgo over income
arising out of fiscal, monetary, and other policy considerations and
leading to the creation of interest-bearing debt instruments
(normally the public debt). 


      SOCIAL SECURITY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:1.16

Federal old age and survivors and disability insurance trust funds,
along with general fund subsidies of these funds and associated
offsetting collections. 


      TRANSPORTATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:1.17

Providing for the transportation of the general public and/or its
property, regardless of whether local or national and regardless of
the particular mode of transportation.  Included are construction of
facilities; purchase of equipment; research, testing, and evaluation;
provision of communications related to transportation; operating
subsidies for transportation facilities and industries; and
regulatory activities directed specifically toward the transportation
industry rather than toward business. 


      VETERANS BENEFITS AND
      SERVICES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:1.18

Programs providing benefits and services, the eligibility for which
is related to prior military service, but the financing of which is
not an integral part of the costs of national defense. 


   FUND TYPE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

The extent of restriction or earmarking within accounts.  The five
fund types discussed in this report follow. 


      GENERAL FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1

Accounts containing resources to be expended for the general support
of the federal government. 


      INTRAGOVERNMENTAL REVOLVING
      FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.2

Accounts similar to public enterprise funds except that their
governmental receipts primarily come from other government agencies
and accounts. 


      PUBLIC ENTERPRISE FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.3

Accounts authorized by law to be credited with offsetting
collections, primarily from the public, that are generated by and
earmarked to finance a continuing cycle of business-type operations. 


      SPECIAL FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.4

Accounts whose resources are earmarked by law for specific purposes. 


      TRUST FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.5

Accounts designated by law as "trust funds" and earmarked for
specific purposes and programs according to the terms of a trust
agreement or a statute. 


   ORIENTATION
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

The focus of the Congress in creating an account.  The four
orientations discussed in this report follow. 


      OBJECT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.1

Focus on the specific items--the objects of expenditure--needed to
operate a governmental unit.  Examples are accounts containing
expenses for salaries or equipment.  The predominant goal expressed
through an object orientation is to control spending. 


      ORGANIZATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.2

Focus on a specific governmental unit.  This account orientation
emphasizes the accountability of, rather than control over, the
organization receiving the budgetary resources--that is, from a focus
on objects to a focus on stewardship. 


      PROCESS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.3

Focus on the operations, approaches, and activities underlying
federal programs, reflecting congressional interest in those
processes.  Examples include accounts for working capital funds or
inspection services. 


      PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.4

Focus on the missions and objectives of governmental units,
reflecting congressional attention to the purpose, program, or
activity of government.  Examples of such accounts include the fiscal
year 1995 appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for Human Space Flight and for Science, Aeronautics
and Technology--accounts which emphasize the purpose and major
programs of the organization.  These accounts replaced accounts for
Construction of Facilities and for Research and Development, which
emphasized activities and processes. 


   RESOURCE TYPE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

The source of funding for accounts.  Four resource types are
discussed in this report. 


      CURRENT AUTHORITY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.1

Resources provided by the Congress in, or immediately prior to, the
fiscal year or years during which the funds are available for
obligation. 


      OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.2

Resources arising as collections from government or public sources
for business-type transactions.  Laws authorize collections to be
credited directly to accounts and may make them available for
obligation to meet the account's purpose without further legislative
action.  Usually a form of permanent authority, offsetting
collections are separately discussed in this report. 


      PERMANENT AUTHORITY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.3

Resources available as a result of previously enacted legislation and
not requiring new legislation for the current year. 


      PRIOR YEAR FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.4

Current or permanent authority provided and available in a previous
fiscal year that remains available in the current fiscal year. 


UNDERSTANDING THE FEDERAL BUDGET
ACCOUNT STRUCTURE
========================================================== Appendix II

   Figure II.1:  Accounts and
   Budgetary Resources by Resource
   Type and Fund Type, Fiscal Year
   1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure II.2:  Accounts and
   Budgetary Resources by Resource
   Type and Federal Mission,
   Fiscal Year 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure II.3:  Accounts and
   Budgetary Resources by Resource
   Type and Federal Organization,
   Fiscal Year 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure II.3:  (Continued)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure II.4:  Accounts and
   Budgetary Resources by Resource
   Type and Appropriations
   Subcommittee, Fiscal Year 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure II.5:  Accounts and
   Budgetary Resources by Fund
   Type and Federal Mission,
   Fiscal Year 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure II.6:  Accounts and
   Budgetary Resources by Fund
   Type and Federal Organization,
   Fiscal Year 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure II.6:  (Continued)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure II.7:  Accounts and
   Budgetary Resources by Fund
   Type and Appropriations
   Subcommittee, Fiscal Year 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


DISCERNING PATTERNS WITHIN THE
FEDERAL BUDGET ACCOUNT STRUCTURE
========================================================= Appendix III

   Figure III.1:  Median and Range
   of Account Budgetary Resources
   by Federal Mission, Fiscal Year
   1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure III.2:  Median and Range
   of Account Budgetary Resources
   by Federal Organization, Fiscal
   Year 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure III.3:  Median and Range
   of Account Budgetary Resources
   by Appropriations Subcommittee,
   Fiscal Year 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure III.4:  Median and Range
   of Account Budgetary Resources
   by Fund Type, Fiscal Year 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure III.5:  Federal Missions
   by Federal Organization and
   Appropriations Subcommittee,
   Fiscal Year 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure III.6:  Federal
   Organizations by Federal
   Mission and Appropriations
   Subcommittee, Fiscal Year 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure III.7:  Appropriations
   Subcommittees by Federal
   Mission and Federal
   Organization, Fiscal Year 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix IV

The account-level data that formed the basis for this report were
extracted from automated information collected and maintained by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  As part of its annual process
to develop the President's budget, OMB uses its MAX budget system to
collect a wide variety of information\1 from all branches of
government, from executive departments and organizations, and from
independent agencies.  We obtained MAX data for the fiscal year 1996
budget, which included the current year 1995 estimates used in this
report.  Although we did not independently verify the extracted data
for each budget account, we reconciled total budget authority and
certain data from a judgmentally selected subset of accounts to the
published Budget of the U.S.  Government, Fiscal Year 1996--Appendix. 

To define a universe of budget accounts, we extracted current year
1995 estimates of gross budgetary resources from the 1996 budget
data.  Gross budgetary resources are equivalent to gross budget
authority given in the current year and available for obligation from
prior years, net of transfers out, enacted rescissions, and statutory
limitations on the use of authority.\2 Any regular\3 account
reporting such resources was extracted and compiled into a separate
database we used for this project.  We verified our approach with OMB
to ensure that we were accurately identifying and collecting
budgetary data consistent with the concept of gross budgetary
resources. 

We chose gross budgetary resources as the operational definition of a
budget account for two reasons.  First, it is a concept that fulfills
a wide variety of federal budget needs, from congressional oversight
and appropriations to program management.  Second, this definition
ensured the largest possible universe of accounts with available
budget authority for our study.  In effect, this approach caused a
selection of all budget accounts which had available and enacted
spending authority and thus could be the source of federal
commitments (or obligations) during fiscal year 1995. 

Budget authority is heterogeneous in nature.  It is provided in many
different forms, covers many different time periods, and reflects
congressional expectations ranging from indefinite authority that may
never be used (such as borrowing authority) to definite authority
which generally is expected to be outlayed in the current year (such
as current appropriations).  As a result, it is not additive, either
across programs or organizations for a specific year or across a
series of years for one program or organization.  However, even with
this qualification, we have aggregated budgetary resources in this
report, as OMB does in its annual Historical Tables.  Just as OMB
recognizes the need for historical data on this subject, we recognize
a comparable need for current data to express the totality of current
obligational authority. 

For each account reporting gross budgetary resources, we extracted a
variety of information from the OMB MAX system. 

  To determine the federal organization, we extracted the agency code
     for each account.  In the analyses contained in this report, we
     identify the major branches and organizations that are
     separately presented in the President's budget.  Other entities
     listed as "other independent agencies" in the budget are
     separately identified in specific analyses in this report when
     the entity represents a significant number of accounts and/or
     budgetary resources.  Thus, the actual federal organizations
     listed in analyses based on appropriations subcommittees will
     differ slightly from those used in other analyses. 

  To determine the congressional decision-making structure, we
     extracted the appropriations bill originating subcommittee code
     for each account.  The MAX system indicates both the spending
     jurisdiction (appropriations or authorizing committee) and the
     specific appropriations subcommittee associated with each
     authority action for each account.  For analyses in which
     appropriations subcommittee was a variable, only accounts (and
     resources within those accounts) for which a specific
     appropriations subcommittee took action are included.  In
     addition, because the MAX system does not indicate the
     appropriations subcommittee associated with budgetary resources
     available from prior years, analyses involving appropriations
     subcommittees and resource types exclude any budgetary resources
     available from prior years.  Therefore, the universe of accounts
     and budgetary resources for analyses involving appropriations
     subcommittees is smaller than the universe used in the remainder
     of this report. 

  To comment on the mission(s) addressed by the budgetary resources
     of an account, we extracted budget function information.  The
     budget function classification system describes 18 broad areas
     of national need and was developed to provide a coherent and
     comprehensive basis for analyzing and understanding the
     budget.\4 In some cases, the budgetary resources of a single
     account may be coded to multiple functions.  In these cases, we
     assigned the account to the budget function which received the
     majority of the account's budget authority in fiscal year 1995. 
     However, budgetary resources in multi-function accounts were
     allocated to each of the functions according to the distribution
     of budget authority in the account. 

To determine the type of budgetary resources available to an account,
we aggregated data from the OMB MAX system into four components: 
prior year authority, current year authority, permanent authority,
and offsetting collections.  Prior year authority reflects the
balances of budget authority from previous years that remain
available for obligation.  Current authority is budget authority
provided in fiscal year 1995 appropriations acts, while permanent
authority is provided in standing authorizing legislation. 
Offsetting collections represent authority that results from the
receipt of collections from other government accounts or collections
from the public that are of a business-type or market-oriented
nature.  Offsetting collections are usually a form of permanent
authority.  However, in this report, we segregated offsetting
collections because the cyclical or business- type nature of such
authority differs from other permanent authority. 

To determine the extent of restrictions associated with the resources
within an account, we extracted fund type information from the OMB
MAX system.  All governmental activities are financed through federal
funds or trust funds.  Federal funds are further separated into (1)
general funds or special funds, to distinguish unrestricted receipts
from those that are earmarked for a specific purpose, and (2) public
enterprise funds or intragovernmental revolving funds, to distinguish
between receipts arising from a cycle of business-type operations
from the public or governmental organizations.  Although trust funds
are segregated into revolving and nonrevolving funds, for this
report, we have aggregated both into a single trust fund category. 

We computed median accounts, in terms of budgetary resources, to
determine representative account sizes for federal mission, federal
organization, appropriations subcommittee, and fund type. 
Statistical medians are particularly useful when wide variations
exist across multiple dimensions.  Unlike other statistical measures
of central tendency (for example, averages), medians are not
influenced by a few extremely large or small values and thus yield a
more representative account size.  We displayed ranges of account
size with the median to illustrate variability. 

To describe the predominant interests of the Congress in enacting an
account, we defined four orientations--object, organization, process,
and program.  These orientations were derived from a literature
search which focused on the key events or developments associated
with federal budgeting practices\5 and are not directly associated
with a particular data element in the OMB MAX system.  Using the
definitions we developed for each of these orientations, we reviewed
each of the accounts in three judgmentally selected organizations and
all accounts with more than $1 billion and less than $1 million in
resources.  To aid in assigning the accounts to an orientation, we
reviewed the account's title, statutory language, narrative
statement, and budget presentations.  Many accounts possess aspects
which made assignment to a single orientation very difficult and
somewhat arbitrary.  Thus, the assignments presented in this report
should be seen as suggestive or indicative, rather than definitive. 

Lastly, to develop historical and anecdotal data on the federal
budget account structure, we performed literature searches and
conducted interviews with budget specialists in academia, OMB, the
Congressional Research Service, and the Congressional Budget Office. 
We also reviewed written documents produced by OMB, the National
Performance Review, and the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory
Board. 

Our work was performed in Washington, D.C., from April 1995 through
May 1995. 


--------------------
\1 OMB Circular A-11 details both the information to be submitted and
the format to be used. 

\2 Based on information provided in OMB's Circular A-11, Section 32,
"Program and Financing Schedules," we extracted negative balances of
lines 17 and 25, positive balances of lines 27-32, and all balances
of lines 21-23 and 40-69. 

\3 Regular refers to accounts that contain only enacted, as opposed
to proposed, appropriations. 

\4 For a description of the function classification system, see
appendix II in A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget
Process:  Exposure Draft (GAO/AFMD-2.1.1, Jan.  1993). 

\5 Budget Object Classification:  Origins and Recent Trends
(GAO/AIMD-94-147, Sept.  13, 1994).  The bibliography to this report
also contains several books and articles which provide background for
the orientations used in this report. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V

ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Michael J.  Curro, Assistant Director
Carolyn L.  Litsinger, Evaluator-in-Charge
Laura E.  Hamilton, Auditor


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
=========================================================== Appendix 0

GAO PRODUCTS

Managing for Results:  Strengthening Financial and Budgetary
Reporting (GAO/T-AIMD-95-181, July 11, 1995). 

Government Restructuring:  Identifying Potential Duplication in
Federal Missions and Approaches (GAO/T-AIMD-95-161, June 7, 1995). 

Budget Function Classification:  Agency Spending by Subfunction and
Object Category, Fiscal Year 1994 (GAO/AIMD-95-116FS, May 10, 1995). 

Budget Function Classification:  Agency Spending and Personnel Levels
for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (GAO/AIMD-95-115FS, April 11, 1995). 

Budget Function Classification:  Relating Agency Spending and
Personnel Levels to Budget Functions (GAO/AIMD/GGD-95-69FS, Jan.  30,
1995). 

Management Reform:  Implementation of the National Performance
Review's Recommendations (GAO/OCG-95-1, Dec.  5, 1994). 

Budget Object Classification:  Origins and Recent Trends
(GAO/AIMD-94-147, Sept.  13, 1994). 

Management Reform:  GAO's Comments on the National Performance
Review's Recommendations (GAO/OCG-94-1, Dec.  3, 1993). 

Budget Issues:  Assessing Executive Order 12837 on Reducing
Administrative Expenses (GAO/AIMD-94-15, Nov.  17, 1993). 

Budget Issues:  Financial Reporting to Better Support Decision-making
(GAO/AFMD-93-22, June 1993). 

A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process
(GAO/AFMD-2.1.1, Jan.  1993). 

Budget Issues:  The Use of Spending Authority and Permanent
Appropriations is Widespread (GAO/AFMD-87-44, July 17, 1987). 

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Caiden, Naomi.  "Guidelines to Federal Budget Reform." Public
Budgeting and Finance, Vol.  3, Winter 1983, pp.  4-22. 

Caldwell, Kenneth S.  "The Accounting Aspects of Budgetary Reform: 
Can We Have Meaningful Reform Without Significant Changes in
Traditional Accounting Practices?" Governmental Finance, Vol.  7,
Aug.  1978, pp.  10-17. 

The Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the
Government ("The Hoover Commission").  Budgeting and Accounting,
Washington, D.C.; Feb.  1949, pp.  12-13. 

The Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the
Government ("The Hoover Commission").  Budget and Accounting:  A
Report to the Congress, Washington, D.C.; June 1955. 

Cothran, Dan A.  "Entrepreneurial Budgeting:  An Emerging Reform?"
Public Administration Review, Vol.  53, No.  5, Sept./Oct.  1993, pp. 
445-454. 

Doost, Roger K.  "The Importance of Budget Execution in Governments."
The Government Accountants Journal, Vol.  35, No.  1, Spring 1986,
pp.  1-7. 

Draper, Frank, and Bernard Pitsvada.  "Limitations in Federal Budget
Execution." The Government Accountants Journal, Vol.  30, No.  3,
Fall 1981, pp.  15-25. 

Ehlers, Gerd.  "The German System of Budgetary Control." An
unpublished paper dated May 20, 1994. 

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.  Managerial Cost
Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government (Draft
Statement), May 1995. 

Goldman, Frances, and Edith Brashares.  "Performance and
Accountability:  Budget Reform in New Zealand." Public Budgeting and
Finance, Vol.  11, No.  4, Winter 1991, pp.  75-85. 

Grizzle, Gloria A.  "Does Budget Format Really Govern the Actions of
Budgetmakers?" Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol.  6, No.  1, Spring
1986, pp.  60-70. 

Jefferys, Marcie and Anne Kelly.  "Issues in Program Budgeting."
Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol.  11, No.  4, Winter 1991, pp. 
86-91. 

Joyce, Philip, G.  "The Reiterative Nature of Budget Reform:  Is
There Anything New in Federal Budgeting?" Public Budgeting and
Finance, Vol.  13, No.  3, Fall 1993, pp.  36-48. 

Keith, Robert, and Edward Davis.  "Congress and Continuing
Appropriations:  New Variations on an Old Theme." Public Budgeting
and Finance, Vol.  5, No.  1, Spring 1985, pp.  97-100. 

Kettl, Donald F.  "Expansion and Protection in the Budgetary
Process." Public Administration Review, Vol.  49, May/June 1989, pp. 
231-239. 

Lazarus, Steven.  "Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems and Project
PRIME," Planning Programming Budgeting:  A Systems Approach to
Management.  Chicago:  Markham Publishing Co., 1968, pp.  358-370. 

McKean, Roland N.  and Melvin Anshen.  "Limitations, Risks, and
Problems with PPB," Planning Programming Budgeting:  A Systems
Approach to Management.  Chicago:  Markham Publishing Co., 1968, pp. 
337-357. 

Office of the Vice President.  From Red Tape to Results:  Creating a
Government That Works Better & Costs Less--Report of the National
Performance Review.  Washington, D.C.; Sept.  1993. 

---.  From Red Tape to Results:  Creating a Government That Works
Better & Costs Less--Mission-Driven, Results-Oriented Budgeting,
Accompanying Report of the National Performance Review.  Washington,
D.C.; Sept.  1993. 

Pitsvada, Bernard T.  "The More It Changes, The More It Stays the
Same:  The Dilemma of the U.S.  Budget." The Government Accountants
Journal, Vol.  40, No.  3, Fall 1991, pp.  48-54. 

Public Law 103-62, Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, 31
U.S.C.  section 1105(a)(29). 

Premchand, A.  Governmental Budgeting and Expenditure Controls: 
Theory and Practice.  Washington, D.C.:  International Monetary Fund,
1983. 

Rubin, Irene S.  "Who Invented Budgeting in the United States?"
Public Administration Review, Vol.  53, No.  5, Sept./Oct.  1993, pp. 
438-444. 

Schick, Allen.  Budget Innovation in the States.  Washington, D.C.: 
Brookings Institution, 1971. 

---.  Congress and Money:  Budgeting, Spending and Taxing. 
Washington, D.C.:  Urban Institute, 1980. 

---, editor.  Perspectives on Budgeting.  Washington, D.C.:  American
Society for Public Administration, 1987. 

---.  Systems Politics and Systems Budgeting.  Washington, D.C.: 
Brookings Institution, 1969. 

Sorber, Bram.  "Performance Measurement in the Central Government
Departments of the Netherlands." Public Productivity and Management
Review, Vol.  17, No.  1, Fall 1993, pp.  59-68. 

Staats, Elmer.  "Improving the Analytical Framework for Budgetary
Decision-Making," Toward a Reconstruction of Federal Budgeting.  New
York:  The Conference Board, 1983, pp.  65-71. 

Stewart, Charles, III.  "Does Structure Matter?  The Effects of
Structural Change on Spending Decisions in the House, 1871-1922,"
American Journal of Political Science, Vol.  31, Aug.  1987, pp. 
584-605. 

Thompson, David.  "Budgetary Structures in Developing Countries,"
Journal of Administration Overseas, Vol.  19, No.  4, Oct.  1980, pp. 
250-261. 

U.S.  Bureau of Land Management.  "The President's Proposed FY95
Budget Request for the Bureau of Land Management:  An Overview,"
Washington, D.C.:  1994. 

U.S.  Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.  Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993, 103rd Congress, 1st Session, S. 
Rept.  103-58, June 16, 1993. 

Weiss, Edmond H.  "The Fallacy of Appellation in Government
Budgeting." Public Administration Review, Vol.  34, No.  4, July/Aug. 
1974, pp.  377-379. 

Wildavsky, Aaron.  "A Budget for All Seasons?  Why the Traditional
Budget Lasts." Public Administration Review, Vol.  38, Nov./Dec. 
1978, pp.  501-509. 

Wooldridge, Blue, and Claire L.  Alpert.  "Identifying Obstacles to
the Implementation of Budgetary Reform in Government." The Government
Accountants Journal, Vol.  32, Summer 1983, pp.  48-54.