Electronic Government: Federal Agencies Have Made Progress
Implementing the E-Government Act of 2002 (10-DEC-04, GAO-05-12).
The E-Government Act (E-Gov Act) of 2002 was enacted with the
general purpose of promoting better use of the Internet and other
information technologies to improve government services for
citizens, internal government operations, and opportunities for
citizen participation in government. Among other things, the act
specifically requires the establishment of the Office of
Electronic Government within the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to oversee implementation of the act's provisions and
mandates a number of specific actions, such as the establishment
of interagency committees, completion of several studies,
submission of reports with recommendations, issuance of a variety
of guidance documents, establishment of new policies, and
initiation of pilot projects. Further, the act requires federal
agencies to take a number of actions, such as conducting privacy
impact assessments, providing public access to agency
information, and allowing for electronic access to rulemaking
proceedings. OMB has linked several of the act's provisions to
ongoing e-government initiatives that it has sponsored. While
some deadlines specified in the act have passed, many required
actions do not have statutory deadlines or have deadlines that
have not yet passed. This report responds to a Congressional
request that we review the implementation status of major
provisions from Titles I and II of the E-Gov Act.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-05-12
ACCNO: A14436
TITLE: Electronic Government: Federal Agencies Have Made
Progress Implementing the E-Government Act of 2002
DATE: 12/10/2004
SUBJECT: Electronic government
Government information
Information resources management
Information technology
Performance measures
Federal agency reorganization
Agency missions
Productivity in government
Internet
Web sites
Government information dissemination
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO 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. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-12
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO Report to Congressional Requesters
December 2004
ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT
Federal Agencies Have Made Progress Implementing the E-Government Act of 2002
a
GAO-05-12
Highlights of GAO-05-12, a report to congressional requesters
The E-Government Act (E-Gov Act) of 2002 was enacted to promote the use of
the Internet and other information technologies to improve government
services for citizens, internal government operations, and opportunities
for citizen participation in government.
The act directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and federal
agencies to take specific actions to promote electronic government. GAO
was asked to review the implementation status of major provisions from
Titles I and II of the act, which include provisions covering a wide range
of activities across the federal government.
GAO is making recommendations to OMB regarding implementation of the act
in the areas of e-government approaches to crisis preparedness, contractor
innovation, and federally funded research and development, to help ensure
that the act's objectives are achieved.
In commenting on a draft of this report, officials from the Department of
Homeland Security, General Services Administration, and OMB generally
agreed with its content and recommendations.
December 2004
ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT
Federal Agencies Have Made Progress Implementing the E-Government Act of 2002
In most cases, OMB and federal agencies have taken positive steps toward
implementing provisions of Titles I and II of the E-Gov Act that GAO
reviewed. For example, OMB established the Office of E-Government,
designated its Assistant Director for Information Technology (IT) and
E-Government as the office's Administrator in April 2003, and published
guidance to federal agencies on implementing the act in August 2003. Apart
from general requirements applicable to all agencies (which GAO did not
review), in most cases, OMB and designated federal agencies have taken
action to address the act's requirements within stipulated time frames.
For example, OMB established the Interagency Committee on Government
Information in June 2003, within the deadline prescribed by the act. The
committee is to develop recommendations on the categorization of
government information and public access to electronic information.
Similarly, in most cases where deadlines are not specified, OMB and
designated federal agencies have either fully implemented the provisions
or demonstrated positive action toward implementation. For example, in May
2003, the E-Government Administrator issued a memorandum detailing
procedures for requesting funds from the E-Government Fund, although the
act did not specify a deadline for this action. As stipulated by the act,
the E-Government Fund is to be used to support projects that enable the
federal government to expand its ability to conduct activities
electronically.
Although the government has made progress in implementing the act, the
act's requirements have not always been fully addressed. In several cases,
actions taken do not satisfy the requirements of the act or no significant
action has been taken. In particular, OMB has not ensured that specified
activities have taken place regarding e-government approaches to crisis
preparedness (a study and follow-up response), contractor innovation
(establishment of a program), and federally funded research and
development (support of an information repository and Web site). In these
cases, either the actions OMB has taken do not fully address the act's
provisions, or OMB has not yet made key decisions that would allow actions
to take place. Until these issues are addressed, the government may be at
risk of not fully achieving the objective of the E-Government Act to
promote better use of the Internet and other information technologies to
improve government services and enhance opportunities for citizen
participation in government.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-12.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Linda D. Koontz at (202)
512-6240 or [email protected].
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 2
Background 4
OMB and Agencies Have Made Progress Implementing Major
Provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002 6
Conclusions 12
Recommendations for Executive Action 13
Agency Comments 13
Appendixes
Appendix I:
Appendix II:
Appendix III:
Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Federal Information and IT Management Statutory Framework
Implementation Status of Major Provisions from Titles I and
II of the E-Government Act of 2002
Office of Electronic Government: Title I, Section 101 (44 U.S.C. 3602)
Chief Information Officers Council: Title I, Section 101 (44 U.S.C. 3603)
Administration of the E-Government Fund: Title I, Section 101 (44 U.S.C.
3604) Program to Encourage Innovative Solutions: Title I, Section 101 (44
U.S.C. 3605) E-Government Report: Title I, Section 101 (44 U.S.C. 3606)
Electronic Signatures: Title II, Section 203 Federal Internet Portal:
Title II, Section 204 Federal Courts: Title II, Section 205 Regulatory
Agencies: Title II, Section 206 Accessibility, Usability, and Preservation
of Government
Information: Title II, Section 207 Privacy Provisions: Title II, Section
208 IT Workforce Development: Title II, Section 209 State and Local
Government Use of Federal Supply Schedules: Title
II, Section 211 Integrated Reporting Study and Pilot Projects: Title II,
Section 212 Community Technology Centers: Title II, Section 213 Enhancing
Crisis Management through Advanced Information
Technology: Title II, Section 214 15
18
20
20
22
23
25 27 28 29 31 33
35 38 39
41
42 44
45
Contents
Disparities in Access to the Internet: Title II, Section 215 46 Common
Protocols for Geographic Information Systems: Title II,
Section 216 48
Tables Table 1:
Table 2: Table 3:
Table 4: Table 5: Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:
Summary Implementation Status of Major Sections from
Titles I and II of the E-Gov Act 7
Actions Required under 44 U.S.C. 3604 24
Summary of E-Government Fund Usage, Fiscal Years
2002-2005 25
Actions Required under 44 U.S.C. 3605 26
Action Required under 44 U.S.C. 3606 27
Action Required under Section 203 of the E-Government
Act 28
Actions Required under Section 204 of the E-Government
Act 30
Usage Statistics for FirstGov.gov, Fiscal Years
2002-2004 31
Actions Required under Section 205 of the E-Government
Act 32
Table 10: Actions Required under Section 206 of the E-Government Act 34
Table 11: Actions Required under Section 207 of the E-Government Act 35
Table 12: Actions Required under Section 208 of the E-Government Act 38
Table 13: Actions Required under Section 209 of the E-Government Act 39
Table 14: Actions Required under Section 211 of the E-Government Act 42
Table 15: Actions Required under Section 212 of the E-Government Act 43
Table 16: Actions Required under Section 213 of the E-Government Act 44
Table 17: Actions Required under Section 214 of the E-Government Act 45
Table 18: Actions Required under Section 215 of the E-Government Act 47
Table 19: Action Required under Section 216 of the E-Government Act 48
Figure Figure 1: CIO Council Organization Chart 23
Contents
Abbreviations
CIO chief information officer
DHS Department of Homeland Security
GSA General Services Administration
ICGI Interagency Committee on Government Information
IPT Information Policy and Technology
IRM information resources management
IT information technology
NARA National Archives and Records Administration
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPM Office of Personnel Management
PIA privacy impact assessment
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFI request for information
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
Contents
Abbreviations
CIO chief information officer
DHS Department of Homeland Security
GSA General Services Administration
ICGI Interagency Committee on Government Information
IPT Information Policy and Technology
IRM information resources management
IT information technology
NARA National Archives and Records Administration
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPM Office of Personnel Management
PIA privacy impact assessment
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFI request for information
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
A
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
December 10, 2004
The Honorable Susan M. Collins Chairman The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman
Ranking Minority Member Committee on Governmental Affairs United States
Senate
The Honorable Tom Davis Chairman Committee on Government Reform House of
Representatives
The Honorable Candice S. Miller House of Representatives
The E-Government Act (E-Gov Act) of 2002 was enacted with the general
purpose of promoting better use of the Internet and other information
technologies to improve government services for citizens, internal
government operations, and opportunities for citizen participation in
government. Among other things, the act specifically requires the
establishment of the Office of Electronic Government within the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to oversee implementation of the act's
provisions and mandates a number of specific actions, such as the
establishment of interagency committees, completion of several studies,
submission of reports with recommendations, issuance of a variety of
guidance documents, establishment of new policies, and initiation of pilot
projects. Further, the act requires federal agencies to take a number of
actions, such as conducting privacy impact assessments, providing public
access to agency information, and allowing for electronic access to
rulemaking proceedings. OMB has linked several of the act's provisions to
ongoing e-government initiatives that it has sponsored.1 While some
deadlines specified in the act have passed, many required actions do not
have statutory deadlines or have deadlines that have not yet passed.
1For detailed information on the progress of the 25 initiatives sponsored
by OMB, see GAO, Electronic Government: Initiatives Sponsored by the
Office of Management and Budget Have Made Mixed Progress, GAO-04-0561T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24, 2004).
This report responds to your request that we review the implementation
status of major provisions from Titles I and II of the E-Gov Act. To
address this objective, we analyzed the act, reviewed OMB's fiscal year
2003 report to Congress on the implementation status of the act, and
interviewed officials from OMB, the General Services Administration (GSA),
and other agencies that have specific responsibilities under Title II. We
included the major e-government sections of the act in this review, except
for two sections,2 as agreed upon with your staff. Within the sections we
included, we did not address general requirements applicable to all
agencies.3 Details of our objectives, scope, and methodology are provided
in appendix I. Our work was conducted in Washington, D.C., from April 2004
to August 2004, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief In most cases, OMB and federal agencies have taken
positive steps toward implementing the provisions of Titles I and II of
the E-Gov Act. For example, OMB established the Office of E-Government,
designated its Assistant Director for Information Technology (IT) and
E-Government as the office's Administrator in April 2003, and published
guidance to federal agencies on implementing the act in August 2003. In
most cases, OMB and federal agencies have taken action to address the
act's requirements within stipulated time frames. For example, OMB
established the Interagency Committee on Government Information in June
2003, within the deadline prescribed by the act. The committee is to
develop recommendations on the categorization of government information
and public access to electronic information. Even when deadlines have not
yet passed, in all but one case OMB and agencies have taken action to
implement the act. For example, federal courts have established
informational Web sites in
2We did not include section 202, which prescribes general requirements
applying to all major federal agencies. Further, we did not review section
210, which concerns share-in-savings contracts, since this section
mandates a separate, more in-depth GAO review on the implementation and
effects of this provision at a future date.
3Examples include 203(b), which addresses agency implementation of
electronic signatures; 207(e)(4), which requires annual agency reporting
on accessibility, usability, and preservation of government information;
207(f)(2), stipulating agency requirements for making government
information available on the Internet or by other means; 207(g)(2),
requiring agencies to provide information for the repository on federal
research and development; 208(b)(1), which stipulates agency requirements
related to privacy impact assessments; and 209(b)(2) and (4), stipulating
requirements for agency information technology training programs. For
section 206, we assessed governmentwide implementation by reviewing the
status of the e-Rulemaking initiative.
advance of the April 2005 deadline specified by the act, and court
officials are taking steps to ensure that the Web sites fully meet the
criteria stipulated by the act.
Similarly, in most cases where deadlines are not specified, OMB and
federal agencies have either fully implemented the provisions or
demonstrated positive action toward implementation. For example, in May
2003, the E-Government Administrator issued a memorandum detailing
procedures for requesting funds from the E-Government Fund,4 although the
act did not specify a deadline for this action.
Although the government has made progress in implementing the act, the
act's requirements have not always been fully addressed. Specifically, OMB
has not
o ensured that a study on using IT to enhance crisis preparedness and
response has been conducted that addresses the content specified by the
act,
o established a required program to encourage contractor innovation and
excellence in facilitating the development and enhancement of electronic
government services and processes, or
o ensured the development and maintenance of a required repository and
Web site of information about research and development funded by the
federal government.
Further, GSA has not contracted with the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) to conduct a required study on disparities in Internet access for
online government services.
In the first three cases, OMB has either taken actions that are related to
the act's provisions but do not fully address them (in the first and
second cases) or has not yet made key decisions that would allow actions
to take place (in the third case). In the last case, GSA is seeking
funding for the required study in fiscal year 2006. Until these issues are
addressed, the government may be at risk of not fully achieving the
objective of the E-Government Act to promote better use of the Internet
and other
4As stipulated by the act, the E-Government Fund is to be used to support
projects that enable the federal government to expand its ability to
conduct activities electronically.
information technologies to improve government services and enhance
opportunities for citizen participation in government.
To ensure the successful implementation of the E-Government Act and
achievement of its goals, we are recommending that the Administrator of
the Office of E-Government take action to address those instances where
the act's requirements have not been fully addressed. In commenting on a
draft of this report, officials from the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), GSA, and OMB generally agreed with its content and recommendations.
Background The E-Gov Act was enacted into law on December 17, 2002. The
act's provisions add to a variety of previously established statutory
requirements regarding federal information and IT management, such as the
Paperwork Reduction Act, which also prescribes responsibilities within OMB
for overseeing information and IT management in the federal government.5
Appendix II provides further details on the statutory framework for
federal information and IT management.
Even before passage of the E-Gov Act, OMB was working on e-government
issues, primarily through its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) and through the activities of the Associate Director for
Information Technology and E-Government (the predecessor position to the
current Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government). In February
2002, OMB issued its first E-Government Strategy6 and designated 24
high-profile initiatives7 to lead the government's transformation to
e-government.8
5P.L. 96-511 (Dec. 11, 1980) and P.L. 104-13 (May 22, 1995). For more
detailed information regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act and its
relationship to the E-Government Act of 2002, see appendix II.
6Office of Management and Budget, E-Government Strategy (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 27, 2002).
7Based on analysis by the E-Government Task Force, 23 initiatives were
originally selected in September 2001. A 24th, e-Payroll, was then added
by the President's Management Council. In 2002, a decision was made to
separate the e-Clearance initiative from the Integrated Human Resources
initiative, resulting in the current count of 25 projects.
8For more information about the selection of the initiatives, see GAO,
Electronic Government: Selection and Implementation of the Office of
Management and Budget's 24 Initiatives, GAO-03-229 (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
22, 2002).
Title I of the E-Government Act established the Office of Electronic
Government within OMB, to be headed by an Administrator. The
Administrator's responsibilities include
o assisting the Director in carrying out the act and other e-government
initiatives, including promoting innovative use of IT by agencies,
overseeing the E-Government Fund, and leading the activities of the
federal Chief Information Officers Council;
o working with the OIRA Administrator in setting strategic direction for
e-government under relevant laws, including the Paperwork Reduction Act
and the Clinger-Cohen Act; and
o working with the OIRA Administrator and other OMB offices to oversee
implementation of e-government under the act and other laws, including the
Paperwork Reduction Act, relating to IT management, enterprise
architecture, information security, privacy, access, dissemination,
preservation, accessibility of IT for persons with disabilities, and other
areas of e-government.
Title II of the E-Gov Act contains 16 sections that include a range of
provisions aimed at promoting electronic government services and
increasing citizen access to and participation in government. The sections
of Title II address such topics as maintaining and promoting a federal
Internet portal to make government information more accessible to the
public, protecting the privacy of personal information, establishing a
framework for use of electronic signatures for secure transactions with
government, and providing online access to documents filed electronically
with federal courts. Appendix I contains a complete list of the Title II
sections included in our review.
OMB and Agencies Have Made Progress Implementing Major Provisions of the
E-Government Act of 2002
Overall, OMB and federal agencies have made progress implementing Titles I
and II of the E-Gov Act. In April 2003, OMB established the Office of
E-Government (also known as the Office of E-Government and Information
Technology) and designated its Assistant Director for IT and E-Government
as its Administrator. Also in April 2003, OMB issued its second
E-Government Strategy,9 which laid out its approach to implementing the
E-Gov Act. In August 2003, OMB issued guidance to agencies on implementing
the act, and in March 2004, it issued its first annual report to Congress
on implementation of the act.10 In its report to Congress, OMB summarized
individual agency e-gov reports, described actions taken to address the
act's provisions, and provided details of the operation of the
E-Government Fund.
As shown in table 1, OMB and designated federal agencies have taken steps
to implement the provisions of most of the major sections of Titles I and
II of the E-Gov Act that we reviewed.11 Specifically, apart from general
requirements applicable to all agencies, OMB and designated agencies have
already implemented the provisions of 7 of the 18 major sections, have
actions in progress to address provisions of another 7 sections, and have
not fully addressed provisions of the remaining 4 sections. Each of these
18 sections includes many specific provisions, such as developing and
issuing guidance and policies, conducting studies, initiating pilot
projects, and establishing specific programs and working groups. Appendix
III contains details of the specific provisions in each of these sections
and their current implementation status.
9Office of Management and Budget, E-Government Strategy (Washington, D.C.:
April 2003).
10Office of Management and Budget, FY 2003 Report to Congress on
Implementation of the E-Government Act (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2004).
11Appendix I contains details of how we assessed the overall
implementation status for each section.
Table 1: Summary Implementation Status of Major Sections from Titles I and
II of the E-Gov Act
Section reviewed Status a
101: Office of Electronic Government Implemented
Chief Information Officers Council Implemented
E-Government Fund Implemented
Program to Encourage Innovative Solutions Not fully addressed
E-Government Report Implemented
203: Electronic Signatures (excluding 203(b)) In progress
204: Federal Internet Portal Implemented
205: Federal Courts In progress
206: Regulatory Agenciesb In progress
207: Accessibility, Usability, and Preservation of Not fully addressed
Government Information (excluding 207(e)(4), (f)(2) and
g(2))
208: Privacy Provisions (excluding 208(b)(1)) Implemented
209: IT Workforce Development (excluding 209(b)(2) and In progress (b)(4))
211: State and Local Government Use of Federal Supply Implemented
Schedules
212: Integrated Reporting Study and Pilot Projects In progress
213: Community Technology Centers In progress
214: Enhancing Crisis Management through Advanced Not fully addressed
Information Technology
215: Disparities in Access to the Internet Not fully addressed
216: Common Protocols for Geographic Information In progress Systems
Source: GAO.
aThe E-Government Fund, E-Government Report, and Federal Internet Portal
provisions of the act, while considered implemented, require ongoing and
future activities (i.e., annual reports and maintenance of the federal
Internet portal).
bFor section 206, we assessed governmentwide implementation by reviewing
the status of the e-Rulemaking initiative.
OMB and designated federal agencies are taking actions to implement the
provisions of the act in most cases; however, the act's requirements have
not always been fully addressed. In several cases, actions taken do not
satisfy the requirements of the act, or no significant action has been
taken.
Progress in Implementing Provisions with Statutory Deadlines
In most cases, OMB and designated federal agencies have taken responsive
action to address the act's requirements with statutory deadlines,
although these have not always been completed within stipulated time
frames. For example, OMB established the Interagency Committee on
Government Information in June 2003, within the deadline prescribed by the
act. The committee is to develop recommendations on the categorization of
government information and public access to electronic information. In
another example, as required by section 211, GSA developed and issued
procedures for the acquisition of IT by state and local governments
through Federal Supply Schedules, which previously had been available only
to federal agencies. Although the act required that the procedures be
issued by January 17, 2003, GSA did not finalize the new procedures until
May 2004. The agency had issued a proposed rule to implement the
procedures on January 23, 2003, and an interim rule on May 7, 2003.
In one case, OMB has not taken fully responsive action to address the
requirements of the act. Specifically, OMB did not ensure that a study on
using IT to enhance crisis preparedness and response was conducted that
addresses the content specified by the act. Section 214 of the act
required, within 90 days of enactment, that OMB ensure that this study is
conducted, and it specifies the content of the study. For example, the
study was required to address a research and implementation strategy for
the effective use of IT in crisis response and consequence management. OMB
was further required to report on findings and recommendations from this
study within 2 years of the study's initiation. According to DHS
officials, a study conducted by the MITRE Corporation for Project
SAFECOM12 fulfills this requirement. However, the MITRE study-which was
chiefly an assessment of a Web tool for disseminating information about
solutions to the problem of interoperability among first responders'
communications systems-did not address the content specified by the act.
For example, the study did not include research regarding use of IT to
enhance crisis preparedness, nor did it include a research and
implementation strategy for more effective use of IT in crisis response
and consequence management. Until the required elements of the study are
addressed, OMB may not be able to make a fully informed response to the
act's requirement that it report on findings and recommendations for
improving the use of IT in
12For more information about Project SAFECOM, see GAO, Project SAFECOM:
Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort Requires Stronger
Collaboration, GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2004).
coordinating and facilitating information on disaster preparedness,
response, and recovery.
In another case, GSA has not taken fully responsive action to address the
requirements of the act. Specifically, Section 215 required the
Administrator of GSA to contract with NAS by March 17, 2003, to conduct a
study on disparities in Internet access for online government services.
GSA was to submit a report to Congress on the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the study by December 2004. GSA officials reported that
they were unable to request funds as part of the fiscal year 2003 or 2004
budget cycles because the act passed in December 2002, after fiscal year
2003 had begun and the deadline for fiscal year 2004 agency budget
submissions (August 2002) had passed. Although GSA officials did not
provide any information regarding their actions for fiscal year 2005, they
reported that the agency had requested the funds authorized in the act for
the fiscal year 2006 budget cycle and was working on compiling an interim
study based on existing research on disparities in access to the Internet.
This compilation report is expected to be completed by December 2004 and
submitted to Congress in OMB's annual report on implementation of the act.
For those provisions with future deadlines, OMB and agencies have taken
action to implement the act. For example, under section 207 of the act, by
December 2004, the Interagency Committee on Government Information must
submit recommendations to OMB and to the Archivist of the United States on
the categorization of government information and how to apply the Federal
Records Act to information on the Internet and other electronic records.
The committee structure, work plans, and interim products show progress
toward meeting this deadline. As another example, under section 205 of the
act, federal courts are required to establish Web sites by April 2005 that
provide information such as location, contact information, and local and
individual rules. By April 2007, these sites must also provide access to
documents that are filed electronically. In June 2004, officials from the
Administrative Office of the Courts reported that all 198 federal courts
had established Web sites, 10 months before the April 2005 deadline. Court
officials also reported that the individual court Web sites were making
progress providing the information stipulated in the act and that 128 of
the courts already allowed access to documents filed electronically, in
advance of the April 2007 deadline.
Progress in Implementing Provisions without Statutory Deadlines
As with the provisions specifying deadlines, in most cases where deadlines
are not specified, OMB and federal agencies have either fully implemented
the provisions or demonstrated positive action toward implementation. For
example, in May 2003, the E-Gov Administrator issued a memorandum
detailing procedures for requesting funds from the E-Government Fund,
although the act did not specify a deadline for this action. As stipulated
by the act, the E-Government Fund is to be used to support projects that
enable the federal government to expand its ability to conduct activities
electronically. Similarly, section 208 requires the Director of OMB to
develop policies and guidelines for agencies on the conduct of privacy
impact assessments but does not stipulate a deadline. In September 2003,
OMB issued guidance for implementing the privacy provisions of the
E-Government Act, including guidance on conducting privacy impact
assessments.
In two instances in which statutory deadlines were not specified, OMB's
actions have not yet fully addressed the act's requirements. Specifically:
o OMB has not established a program to satisfy the requirements in
section 101 (44 U.S.C. 3605), which requires the Administrator to
establish and promote a governmentwide program to encourage contractor
innovation and excellence in facilitating the development and enhancement
of electronic government services and processes. OMB officials reported
that no program had been established specifically to satisfy the
requirements of 44 U.S.C. 3605. The OIRA Information Policy and Technology
(IPT) Branch Chief and other OMB officials stated that they believed the
mandated program was not necessary because the functions of such a program
were being accomplished through other ongoing OMB initiatives, such as the
SmartBuy initiative,13 the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) Web
portal,14 and the recently inaugurated "lines of business" initiatives.15
Specifically, the officials stated that a recently issued request for
information16 (RFI) for several of the lines of business initiatives
addressed the act's requirement that, under the stipulated program,
announcements be issued seeking unique and innovative solutions. However,
while OMB's recent RFI represents one example of an announcement seeking
innovative solutions, it does not represent a commitment to issuing such
announcements and promoting innovative solutions on an ongoing basis. In
contrast, establishing a dedicated program-as stipulated by the act-would
represent such a commitment. Until OMB establishes such a program, it is
at risk of not fully meeting the objective of this section to encourage
contractor innovation and excellence in facilitating the development and
enhancement of electronic government services and processes.
13The SmartBuy initiative, managed by GSA, is aimed at reducing costs and
improving quality in federal purchases of commercial software through the
use of enterprise licenses.
14The FedBizOpps portal, also managed by GSA, serves as a single
government point of entry for federal government procurement opportunities
over $25,000. Government buyers are able to publicize their business
opportunities by posting information directly to FedBizOpps. Through one
portal, commercial vendors seeking federal markets for their services and
products can search, monitor, and retrieve opportunities solicited by the
federal contracting community.
15In March 2004, OMB announced the launch of a task force to examine five
government lines of business: case management, federal health
architecture, grants management, human resources management, and financial
management.
16In April 2004, OMB issued an RFI to provide industry and government
service providers with an opportunity to describe solutions and
implementation approaches for achieving the goals of three of the lines of
business (financial management, human resources, and grants management).
o OMB has not yet taken sufficient action to ensure the development and
maintenance of a repository and Web site of information about research and
development funded by the federal government, as required by section 207
of the act. In its fiscal year 2003 report to Congress, OMB reported that
an analysis had been conducted of the National Science Foundation's
"Research and Development in the United States" database system and that
the system was closely aligned with the act's requirements. However, OMB
also said it had not yet determined whether the National Science
Foundation's system would serve as the repository required by the act.
Until OMB decides on a specific course of action, it may not fully meet
the objective of section 207 to improve the methods by which government
information, including information on the Internet, is organized,
preserved, and made accessible to the public.
Conclusions In most cases, OMB and designated federal agencies have made
progress in addressing the specific requirements of the E-Government Act
of 2002. OMB and federal agencies made efforts to implement provisions
before the expiration of statutory deadlines that have now passed, and
they are also taking positive steps toward implementing provisions without
deadlines or with deadlines in the future.
Despite the overall progress, in several cases, actions taken do not
satisfy the requirements of the act, or no significant action has been
taken. In one case-the requirement to conduct a study in disparities in
access to the Internet-the responsible agency, GSA, is taking steps to
address the act's requirements, even though a statutory deadline has
already passed. In other cases, OMB has either taken actions that are
related to the act's provisions but do not fully address them, or it has
not yet made key decisions that would allow actions to take place.
Specifically, OMB has not ensured that a study on using IT to enhance
crisis preparedness and response has been conducted that addresses the
content specified by the act, established a required program to encourage
contractor innovation and excellence in facilitating the development and
enhancement of electronic government services and processes, or ensured
the development and maintenance of a required repository and Web site of
information about research and development funded by the federal
government. Until these issues are addressed, the government is at risk of
not fully achieving the objective of the E-Government Act to promote
better use of the Internet and other information technologies to improve
government services to its citizens, internal government operations, and
opportunities for citizen participation in government.
Recommendations for Executive Action
To ensure the successful implementation of the E-Government Act and its
goal of promoting better use of the Internet and other information
technologies to improve government services to citizens, internal
government operations, and opportunities for citizen participation in
government, we recommend that the Director, OMB, direct the Administrator
of the Office of E-Government to carry out the following three actions:
o ensure that the report to Congress regarding the study on enhancement
of crisis response required under section 214 addresses the content
specified by the act;
o establish and promote a governmentwide program, as prescribed by 44
U.S.C. 3605, to encourage contractor innovation and excellence in
facilitating the development and enhancement of electronic government
services and processes; and
o ensure the development and maintenance of a governmentwide repository
and Web site that integrates information about research and development
funded by the federal government.
Agency Comments We received oral comments on a draft of this report from
representatives of OMB's Offices of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
E-Government, and General Counsel. We also received oral comments from
representatives of DHS's Development Science and Technology Directorate
and GSA's Office of Governmentwide Policy. These representatives generally
agreed with the content of our draft report and our recommendations and
provided technical comments, which have been incorporated where
appropriate. GSA officials also provided updated information regarding the
status of the required actions under the community technology centers
provision of the act (section 213), which has been incorporated in the
report.
Regarding our recommendation that OMB ensure that its report to Congress
regarding the study on enhancement of crisis response addresses the
content specified by the act (section 214), OMB officials agreed that the
study conducted by Project SAFECOM did not address the requirements of the
act. OMB officials stated that a new study would be initiated to meet the
requirements of the act.
Regarding our recommendation that OMB establish and promote a
governmentwide program, as prescribed by 44 U.S.C. 3605, to encourage
contractor innovation and excellence in facilitating the development and
enhancement of electronic government services and processes, OMB officials
reiterated their position that OMB's ongoing activities address the
substance of the required program and that establishing a separate new
program could introduce delay. The officials stated that a recently issued
RFI for several of the recently inaugurated "lines of business"
initiatives is an example of an announcement seeking innovative solutions,
as required by the act. We made changes to the report to reflect that the
RFI partially addressed the act's requirements. However, while the RFI
represents one example of an announcement seeking innovative solutions, it
does not represent a commitment to issuing such announcements and
promoting innovative solutions on an ongoing basis. In contrast,
establishing a dedicated program-as stipulated by the act-would represent
such a commitment. Until OMB establishes such a program, it is at risk of
not fully meeting the objective of this section to encourage contractor
innovation and excellence in facilitating the development and enhancement
of electronic government services and processes.
Unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan
no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time,
we will provide copies of this report to the Director of OMB, the GSA
Administrator, and the Secretary of Homeland Security. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov. Should you have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-6240 or John de Ferrari, Assistant
Director, at (202) 512-6335. We can also be reached by e-mail at
[email protected] and [email protected], respectively. Other key
contributors to this report included Barbara Collier, Sandra Kerr, David
F. Plocher, and Jamie Pressman.
Linda D. Koontz Director, Information Management Issues
Appendix I
Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Our objective was to assess the implementation status of major provisions
of the E-Government Act of 2002, Titles I and II.
Titles I and II of the act contain numerous provisions that cover a wide
range of activities across the federal government aimed at promoting
electronic government. Because it was not feasible to conduct in-depth
assessments of all the provisions of Titles I and II for this engagement,
we conducted a high-level review of the implementation status of major
provisions of the act, determining whether actions have been taken or are
under way to address their major provisions. Listed below are the sections
included in this review, as agreed.
o Title I, Section 101-Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services
o Title II, Section 203-Compatibility of Executive Agency Methods for
Use and Acceptance of Electronic Signatures
o Title II, Section 204-Federal Internet Portal
o Title II, Section 205-Federal Courts
o Title II, Section 206-Regulatory Agencies
o Title II, Section 207-Accessibility, Usability, and Preservation of
Government Information
o Title II, Section 208-Privacy Provisions
o Title II, Section 209-Federal IT Workforce Development
o Title II, Section 211-Authorization for Acquisition of Information
Technology by State and Local Governments through Federal Supply Schedules
o Title II, Section 212-Integrated Reporting Study and Pilot Projects
o Title II, Section 213-Community Technology Centers
o Title II, Section 214-Enhancing Crisis Management through Advanced
Information Technology
Appendix I Objective, Scope, and Methodology
o Title II, Section 215-Disparities in Access to the Internet
o Title II, Section 216-Common Protocols for Geographic Information
Systems
We did not include section 201, which provides definitions, or section
202, which prescribes general requirements applying to all major federal
agencies, in our review. Similarly, for the sections we reviewed, we did
not assess the implementation of general requirements applying to all
federal agencies, such as sections 203(b), which addresses agency
implementation of electronic signatures; 207(e)(4), which requires annual
agency reporting on accessibility, usability, and preservation of
government information; 207(f)(2), stipulating agency requirements for
making government information available on the Internet or by other means;
207(g)(2), requiring agencies to provide information for the repository on
federal research and development; 208(b)(1), which stipulates agency
requirements related to privacy impact assessments; and 209(b)(2) and (4),
stipulating requirements for agency information technology training
programs. For section 206, we assessed governmentwide implementation by
reviewing the status of the e-Rulemaking initiative. Finally, we did not
assess Section 210, which concerns share-in-savings contracts, since this
section mandates a separate, more in-depth GAO review on the
implementation and effects of this provision at a future date.
To assess the implementation status of the major provisions, we
interviewed cognizant officials from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), the General Services Administration (GSA), and other agencies that
have specific responsibilities under Title II. For several sections, the
act requires specific actions, such as the initiation of pilot projects,
establishment of interagency workgroups or committees, development and
issuance of guidance/policies, conduct of a study, or issuance of reports.
The majority of these actions include statutory deadlines for completion.
For provisions with deadlines that have passed, we determined whether the
requirement had been met. For provisions with deadlines that had not yet
expired or that had no explicit deadline attached, we obtained information
on actions taken and progress made to date. We analyzed relevant
documentation, including OMB's fiscal year 2003 report to Congress on
implementation status of the E-Gov Act. We determined the implementation
status of the major provisions by comparing the information we obtained to
the requirements established in the act.
Appendix I Objective, Scope, and Methodology
We assessed the overall status of the major sections according to the
following three categories:
1. Implemented. A section was assessed as implemented if the responsible
agency had completed responsive actions to address each of the section's
requirements that we reviewed.1
2. In progress. We assessed status as "in progress" if responsive action
was under way to address each of the section's requirements, even if
statutory deadlines had not been fully met.
3. Not fully addressed. We assessed a section's status as not fully
addressed when an agency had taken actions that did not meet the
requirements specified in the act or had not taken action on requirements
with imminent or expired deadlines.
Our work was conducted from April 2004 to September 2004, in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
1Some of the act's sections require ongoing actions, such as annual
reporting or the maintenance of a Web site. We did not consider such
ongoing activities when assessing whether provisions had been implemented.
Appendix II
Federal Information and IT Management Statutory Framework
For more than 20 years before the enactment of the E-Government Act, the
management of federal information and information technology (IT) was
governed by a number of issue-specific laws and one law that coordinates
across those issue areas. Examples of the issue-specific laws are the
Privacy Act, which governs the protection of personal privacy in
government records; the Freedom of Information Act, which provides for
public access to government information; and the Clinger-Cohen Act, which
applies investment control concepts to IT management. The coordinating law
is the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Like the E-Government Act, the
Paperwork Reduction Act gives management responsibilities to agencies and
oversight responsibilities to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The PRA, as first enacted in 1980 and as significantly revised in 1995,
established the concept of "information resources management" (IRM) to
coordinate information and IT management functions throughout the
information life cycle, from collection through disposition.1 The PRA
established the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
for governmentwide oversight and stated that the Administrator of OIRA
should "serve as principal adviser to the Director [of OMB] on Federal
information resources management policy."2 Under the PRA IRM umbrella,
OIRA is responsible for overseeing
o information collection and the control of paperwork, including review
of agency information collection proposals;
o information dissemination;
o statistical policy and coordination;
o records management, including oversight of compliance with the Federal
Records Act;
o privacy, including oversight of compliance with the Privacy Act;
1P.L. 96-511 (Dec. 11, 1980) and P.L. 104-13 (May 22, 1995). See Paperwork
Reduction Act Amendments of 1984, Senate Report 98-576 (Aug. 6, 1984);
Federal Management Reorganization and Cost Control Act of 1986, Senate
Report 99-347 (July 31, 1986), pp. 12- 17 and 52-59; and Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Senate Report 104-8 (Feb. 14, 1995).
244 U.S.C. 3503. In addition to its responsibilities under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, OIRA reviews agency regulations under the authority of
presidential executive orders.
Appendix II
Federal Information and IT Management
Statutory Framework
o information security, including oversight of compliance with the
Federal Information Security Management Act;
o information disclosure, including oversight of compliance with the
Freedom of Information Act; and
o information technology, including oversight of the Clinger-Cohen Act
and promoting the use of information technology "to improve the
productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs, including
through dissemination of public information and the reduction of
information collection burdens on the public."3
The E-Government Act of 2002 added to OMB's statutory PRA duties with
requirements to promote "electronic government," defined as government use
of Web-based Internet applications and other information technologies to
enhance access to and delivery of government information and services and
to improve government operations.4 To oversee these electronic government
activities, the E-Government Act created the OMB Office of Electronic
Government, to be headed by an Administrator.5 The E-Gov Administrator's
responsibilities include assisting the Director in carrying out the act
and other e-government initiatives and working with the OIRA Administrator
and other OMB offices to oversee implementation of e-government under the
E-Government Act and other laws, including the PRA.6
Both the OIRA Administrator and the E-Government Administrator report to
the OMB Deputy Director for Management, who exercises all functions of the
OMB Director with regard to information policy and other management
functions under 31 U.S.C. 503(b), as enacted by the Chief Financial
Officers Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-576, Nov. 15, 1990).
344 U.S.C. 3504(h)(5). 444 U.S.C. 3601(3). 544 U.S.C. 3602(a) and (b). 644
U.S.C. 3602(c)-(f).
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions from Titles I and II of the
E-Government Act of 2002
Titles I and II of the E-Government Act of 2002 include provisions
covering a wide range of activities across the federal government aimed at
promoting electronic government. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and other federal agencies likewise have a variety of activities under way
that address these provisions. This appendix summarizes the status of
implementation of the act's requirements that we reviewed. As noted in
appendix I, we did not review all sections of Titles I and II, nor did we
review the implementation of general requirements applying to all federal
agencies.
Office of Electronic Government: Title I, Section 101 (44 U.S.C. 3602)
Section 3602 of Title 44 of the U.S. Code1 establishes the Office of
Electronic Government (E-Government) within OMB, which is to be headed by
a presidentially appointed Administrator. The Administrator is required to
assist both the OMB Director and the Deputy Director for Management, as
well as work with the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in setting strategic direction for and assisting
in implementing electronic government. In addition, the Director is to
ensure that there are adequate resources in OMB to carry out its functions
under the act.
OMB has taken responsive action to address the requirements of this
section. The Office of E-Government was established on April 17, 2003,
with an Administrator appointed on the same day. OMB officials stated that
this office, working closely with the OIRA Administrator and OIRA's IPT
Branch, has taken steps to carry out the functions specified in the act.
For example, to set strategic direction for electronic government, OMB
issued an E-Government Strategy in April 2003.2 OMB officials said they
plan to issue an update to the E-Government Strategy during the fall of
2004.
1In referring to specific provisions of Title I, section 101, of the
E-Government Act, we refer to Title 44 of the U.S. Code, because section
101 of the act amends the U.S. Code. In discussing Title II, which does
not amend the U.S. Code, we refer to the relevant sections of the
E-Government Act: sections 203 to 216.
2Office of Management and Budget, E-Government Strategy (Washington, D.C.:
April 2003).
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
OMB had been working on electronic government issues before the E-Gov Act
was passed and the Office of E-Government officially established. For
example, OMB issued its first E-Government Strategy in February 2002,3
which designated a number of high-profile initiatives to lead the
government's transformation to e-government.4 This work was performed
through OIRA's IPT Branch and supervised by the Associate Director for
Information Technology and E-Government (a position that was the
predecessor to the current E-Government Administrator position).5
OMB officials reported that under the current organizational structure,
the E-Government Administrator works collaboratively with the OIRA
Administrator (primarily through working with OIRA's IPT Branch) to carry
out the requirements of the act. Along with its E-Government Strategies,
OMB officials cited its oversight of the e-government initiatives as
examples of setting strategic direction for e-government.
Regarding resources for carrying out the functions of the act, OMB
officials reported that as of June 14, 2004, the Office of E-Government
consisted of eight full-time positions, including the Administrator,
Deputy Administrator, Special Assistant, Chief Architect, and four
Portfolio Managers. In addition, four employees on detail from other
agencies provide further assistance. Finally, there are 12 employees in
OIRA's IPT Branch who also support the activities of the Office of E-Gov.
Accordingly, the IPT Branch chief reports both to the Administrator of the
Office of E-Government and to the Administrator of OIRA.
3Office of Management and Budget, E-Government Strategy (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 27, 2002).
4GAO, Electronic Government: Selection and Implementation of the Office of
Management and Budget's 24 Initiatives, GAO-03-229 (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
22, 2002). These initiatives currently number 25; in 2002, a decision was
made to separate the e-Clearance initiative from the Integrated Human
Resources initiative.
5In June 2001, OMB established the position of Associate Director for
Information Technology and E-Government to oversee IT policy, the CIO
Council, and the Administration's proposed E-Government Fund.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
Chief Information Officers Council: Title I, Section 101 (44 U.S.C. 3603)
Section 3603 of Title 44 codifies the establishment, structure, and
responsibilities of the Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council, which
was established on July 16, 1996, by Executive Order 13011. The CIO
Council's responsibilities include developing recommendations for
information and information technology (IT) management policies,
procedures, and standards; sharing management best practices; and
assessing and addressing the needs of the federal government's IT
workforce.
The CIO Council has taken responsive action to address the requirements of
this section of the act. Membership on the CIO Council includes CIOs from
federal executive agencies, the OMB Deputy Director for Management, the
E-Government Administrator, and the OIRA Administrator. The E-Government
Administrator is to lead the council on behalf of the Deputy Director for
Management, who serves as the council chair. According to its strategic
plan for fiscal year 2004, the CIO Council's structure and activities are
aligned with the applicable provisions of the E-Gov Act. (Fig. 1 shows the
organization of the CIO Council.) For example, the Best Practices
Committee has published recommendations and experiences on the CIO
Council's Web site (www.cio.gov) and contributed to the development of
resources such as its report on Lessons Learned on Information Technology
Performance Management, which is also available on the Web site. In
addition, the Architecture and Infrastructure Committee has provided
models for a component-based architecture, which assists agencies in
identifying opportunities to share information resources. Furthermore, the
Workforce and Human Capital for IT Committee is working with the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) to address issues regarding recruitment and
development of the federal IT workforce.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
Figure 1: CIO Council Organization Chart
Source: CIO Council.
Administration of the E-Government Fund: Title I, Section 101 (44 U.S.C.
3604)
Section 3604 of Title 44 establishes the E-Government Fund, which is to be
used to support projects that enable the federal government to expand its
ability to conduct activities electronically. The Director of OMB,
assisted by the E-Government Administrator, approves which projects will
receive support from the E-Government Fund. The E-Government Administrator
is required to establish procedures for accepting and reviewing proposals
for funding. In addition, the Director of OMB is required to report on the
operation of the fund in OMB's annual report to Congress on the
implementation status of the E-Government Act. GSA is responsible for
administration of the fund and is required to submit to Congress a
notification of how the funds are to be allocated to projects approved by
OMB. Table 2 summarizes the actions required by this provision.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
Table 2: Actions Required under 44 U.S.C. 3604
Action Responsibility Statutory
deadline
Develop procedures Administrator of the No deadline
for Office given
accepting and of E-Government
reviewing
proposals for
funding
Submit a report on operation Director of OMB Not later than March 1 of
of the E-Government Fund in each year
the annual E-Government
Act Report required under
section 3606
Submit a notification and GSA Administrator Funds provided from the
description of how the E-Government Fund cannot e-government funds are to
be transferred to any be allocated and how the agency until 15 days after
funds will further the the notifications and purposes of section 3604
descriptions are provided to
Congress
Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.
OMB has taken responsive action to address the requirements of this
section. In May 2003, the agency issued a memorandum detailing procedures
for requesting funds from the E-Government Fund. The memorandum
establishes a process for submitting proposals and details the process by
which OMB will review proposals.
In March 2004, OMB submitted its first annual report to Congress on
implementation of the E-Government Act. As required by 44 U.S.C. 3604,
this report detailed the operations of the E-Government Fund for fiscal
years 2002 to 2003. Also, in accordance with its responsibilities in
administering the fund, GSA submitted notifications and descriptions to
Congress on how the e-gov funds were to be allocated and spent for the
approved projects. Table 3 summarizes the projects funded for fiscal years
2002 to 2004, as reported by GSA's notifications to Congress.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
Table 3: Summary of E-Government Fund Usage, Fiscal Years 2002-2005
Fiscal Authorized by the Allocated to
year E-Gov Act Appropriation projects
2002 N/A $5 million a $4.89 million
2003 $45 million $4.967 million $5.067 million
2004 $50 million $3 million $3 million
2005 $100 million N/A N/A
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
aOf the fiscal year 2002 appropriation, $100,000 was not allocated to
e-gov projects. The fiscal year 2003 appropriation of $5 million was
reduced by the rescission of 0.65 percent under Pub. L. 108-7. The
unallocated $100,000 from fiscal year 2002 was then added to the remaining
$4.967 million, for a total of $5.067 million available for allocation to
e-gov projects in fiscal year 2003.
In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the amount requested by OMB for the fund
was close to the amount authorized by the act, yet in the fiscal year 2005
budget, $5 million was requested although $100 million was authorized. An
OMB official stated that OMB requested significantly less than what was
authorized by the act because it was seeking authority in fiscal year 2005
to allow surplus receipts in the General Supply Fund6 to be spent on
e-government projects.
Program to Encourage Innovative Solutions: Title I, Section 101 (44 U.S.C.
3605)
Section 3605 of Title 44 requires the Administrator of the Office of
E-Government to establish and promote a governmentwide program to
encourage contractor innovation and excellence in facilitating the
development and enhancement of e-government services and processes. Under
this program, the E-Government Administrator is required to issue
announcements seeking innovative solutions as well as convene a
multiagency technical assistance team to screen proposals. The
E-Government Administrator is to either consider the screened proposals
for funding from the E-Government Fund or forward the proposals to the
appropriate executive agencies. Table 4 summarizes the actions required by
this provision.
6This fund, which is managed by GSA, is supplied by a 0.75 percent fee
paid by federal agencies that buy IT goods and services using
governmentwide acquisition contracts.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
Table 4: Actions Required under 44 U.S.C. 3605 Statutory
Action Responsibility deadline
Establish a program to Administrator of the No deadline
encourage Office given
contractor innovation and of E-Government
excellence
Issue announcements Administrator of the No deadline
seeking Office given
innovative solutions of E-Government
Convene a multiagency Administrator of the No deadline
technical Office given
assistance team to screen of E-Government
proposals submitted in
response to
announcements
Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.
OMB has not fully addressed the requirements of this section of the act.
OMB officials reported that no program had been established specifically
to satisfy the requirements of 44 U.S.C. 3605. The OIRA IPT Branch Chief
and other OMB officials stated that they believed the mandated program was
not necessary because the functions of such a program were being
accomplished through other ongoing OMB initiatives, such as the SmartBuy
initiative,7 the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) Web portal,8
and the recently inaugurated "lines of business" initiatives.9
Specifically, the officials stated that a recently issued request for
information10 (RFI) for several of the lines of business initiatives
addressed the act's requirement that, under the stipulated program,
announcements
7The SmartBuy initiative, managed by GSA, is aimed at reducing costs and
improving quality in federal purchases of commercial software through use
of enterprise licenses.
8The FedBizOpps portal, also managed by GSA, serves as a single government
point of entry for federal government procurement opportunities over
$25,000. Government buyers are able to publicize their business
opportunities by posting information directly to FedBizOpps. Through one
portal, commercial vendors seeking federal markets for their services and
products can search, monitor, and retrieve opportunities solicited by the
federal contracting community.
9In March 2004, OMB announced the launch of a task force to examine five
government lines of business: case management, federal health
architecture, grants management, human resources management, and financial
management.
10In April 2004, OMB issued an RFI to provide industry and government
service providers with an opportunity to describe solutions and
implementation approaches for achieving the goals of three of the lines of
business (financial management, human resources, and grants management).
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
be issued seeking unique and innovative solutions. However, while OMB's
recent RFI represents one example of an announcement seeking innovative
solutions, it does not represent a commitment to issuing such
announcements and promoting innovative solutions on an ongoing basis. In
contrast, establishing a dedicated program-as stipulated by the act- would
represent such a commitment. Until OMB establishes such a program, it is
at risk of not fully meeting the objective of this section to encourage
contractor innovation and excellence in facilitating the development and
enhancement of electronic government services and processes.
E-Government Report: Section 3606 of Title 44 requires the Director of OMB
to develop an annual
e-government status report and submit it to Congress (see table 5).
TheTitle I, Section 101 (44 report is required to summarize information
reported by agencies,11 U.S.C. 3606) describe compliance with other goals
and provisions of the act, and detail
the operation of the E-Government Fund.
Table 5: Action Required under 44 U.S.C. 3606
Action Responsibility Statutory deadline
Submit an Director of OMB March 1 of each
e-government status year
report to Congress
Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.
OMB has taken responsive action to address the requirements of this
section. The agency submitted its first annual E-Government Act status
report to Congress in March 2004. The report was based on individual
agency e-government reports submitted to OMB in December 2003 and
supplemented by fiscal year 2005 agency budget submissions, as
appropriate. OMB's e-government status report contained the required
elements described above.
11Section 202(g) of the E-Government Act of 2002 requires agencies to
submit annual reports to OMB that address the status of e-government
initiatives relevant to the agency. On November 21, 2003, OMB issued
reporting instructions to the agencies and required submission of reports
by December 15, 2003.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
Electronic Signatures: Section 203 of the E-Government Act addresses
implementation of electronic signatures to enable secure electronic
transactions with the
Title II, Section 203 government. The provision in this section that we
reviewed12 directs the GSA Administrator, supported by the Director of
OMB, to establish a framework that allows for efficient interoperability
among executive agencies when using electronic signatures, including
processing of digital signatures. Table 6 summarizes the actions required
by this provision.
Table 6: Action Required under Section 203 of the E-Government Act
Action Responsibility Statutory
deadline
Establish a framework to No deadline
allow GSA Administrator, given
interoperability when supported by the
using Director
electronic signatures, of OMB
including
processing of digital
signatures
Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.
GSA, with the assistance of OMB and the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), has responsive actions under way to address the
requirements of this section. In December 2003, the Director of OMB issued
guidance on electronic authentication13 to assist agencies in determining
their authentication needs for electronic transactions, including the use
of electronic signatures. The guidance directs agencies to conduct
e-authentication risk assessments on electronic transactions to ensure a
consistent approach across government. As a follow-up to OMB's guidance,
in June 2004, NIST issued technical guidance on requirements for
electronic transactions requiring authentication.14
12Section 203 (b), which we did not review, directs executive agencies to
ensure that their methods for use and acceptance of electronic signatures
are compatible with the relevant policies and procedures issued by the
Director of OMB. The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (section 1703 of
Pub. L. 105-277, 44 U.S.C. 3501 note) requires the Director of OMB to
develop procedures for the use and acceptance of electronic signatures.
13Office of Management and Budget, Electronic Authentication Guidance for
Federal Agencies, Memorandum M-04-04 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 16, 2003).
14National Institute of Standards and Technology, Electronic
Authentication Guideline, Special Publication 800-63 (Gaithersburg, Md.:
June 2004).
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
OMB reported in its fiscal year 2003 e-government report to Congress that
the activities of the e-Authentication initiative, managed by GSA, begin
to meet the requirements of section 203 in establishing a framework to
allow interoperability. The e-Authentication initiative is intended to
minimize the burden on businesses, the public, and government when
obtaining Internet services by providing a secure infrastructure for
online transactions. The initiative is currently focused on setting a
framework of policies and standards for agencies to use in procuring
commercial products to meet their authentication needs. In July 2004, the
initiative released documentation on its technical approach, which is
based on an architectural framework that allows multiple protocols and
federation schemes to be supported over time.15 The technical approach
includes provisions for the use of electronic signatures when conducting
electronic transactions.
Federal Internet Portal: Title II, Section 204
Section 204 of the E-Government Act requires the Director of OMB to work
with the GSA Administrator to maintain and promote an integrated
Internet-based system that provides the public with access to government
information and services (see table 7). To the extent practicable, the
federal Internet portal is to be designed and operated according to
specific criteria; for example, the portal is to provide information and
services directed to key groups (e.g., citizens, businesses, other
governments), endeavor to make Internet-based services relevant to a given
citizen activity available from a single point, integrate information
according to function or topic, and consolidate access to federal
information with Internet-based information and services provided by
state, local, and tribal governments.
15General Services Administration, Technical Approach for the
Authentication Service Component Version 1.0 .0 (Washington, D.C.: June
28, 2004).
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
Table 7: Actions Required under Section 204 of the E-Government Act Statutory
Action Responsibility deadline
Maintain and promote an Director of OMB working with No deadline given
integrated Internet-based the GSA Administrator
system that provides the public
with access to government
information and services
Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.
GSA has taken responsive action to address the requirements of this
section. As indicated in OMB's fiscal year 2003 report to Congress,
FirstGov.gov serves as the federal Internet portal prescribed under
section 204. FirstGov.gov was launched in September 2000 as an interagency
initiative, managed by GSA and supported and assisted by OMB and federal
agencies. With this support and assistance, GSA established the portal to
provide the public with access to U.S. government information and
services, and GSA has maintained and promoted it since that time.
The portal's design and operation generally adhere to the criteria
established by section 204. For example, one of the ways the portal
organizes its content is by key group, including citizens, businesses,
nonprofits, federal employees, and other governments (state, local, and
tribal). FirstGov.gov also organizes content according to online services
rather than organization; this allows the public to conduct business with
the government via the Internet without having to know how the government
is organized. According to the FirstGov.gov program manager, many citizens
do not know what services are federal versus state or local, and so
FirstGov.gov searches not only federal Web sites, but also state sites. In
addition, through its browse feature, FirstGov.gov links to state, tribal,
and local government home pages, as well as state services such as
departments of motor vehicles and state lottery pages. Table 8 provides
usage statistics for Firstgov.gov.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
Table 8: Usage Statistics for FirstGov.gov, Fiscal Years 2002-2004
Fiscal year Unique visitors Page views Sites that link to FirstGov
2002 33 million 91 million 77,000
2003 63 million 176 million 129,000
2004a 70 million 200 million 209,000
Source: GAO compilation of GSA-provided data.
aUsage statistics for 2004 are projected.
GSA has several activities under way to promote the portal, including a
nationwide television public service advertising campaign that began in
June 2003 to educate citizens on how to find and use the information on
FirstGov.gov. GSA officials estimate that the campaign has been used in 62
percent of the nation's television markets. In June 2004, GSA's Office of
Citizen Services and Communications launched a public service advertising
campaign to encourage citizens to take advantage of federal information
and services through FirstGov.gov and 1-800-FED-INFO. The campaign
includes a television public service announcement, prerecorded radio
messages, and print advertisements for magazines and newspapers.
Federal Courts: Title II, Section 205
Section 205 of the E-Government Act promotes public Internet access to
federal court information. By April 2005, individual courts are required
to establish and maintain Web sites to provide public access to specific
types of information, such as location and contact information, court
rules, case docket information, and opinions. In addition, the courts are
required to make any documents filed electronically available to the
public by April 2007. Privacy and security rules are to be established by
the Supreme Court to protect electronically filed documents; however, the
Judicial Conference may issue interim rules until the Supreme Court issues
final rules. Finally, individual courts may defer compliance with the
requirements of section 205 by submitting a notification to the
Administrative Office of the Courts. Table 9 summarizes the actions
required by this provision.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
Table 9: Actions Required under Section 205 of the E-Government Act
Action Responsibility Statutory
deadline
Establish a Web site Individual courts April 17, 2005
Provide access to Individual courts
electronic April 17, 2007
filings
Issue interim rules to address Judicial Conference No deadline given
privacy and security relating to
electronic filing and public
availability of documents
Issue final rules to address The Supreme Court No deadline given
privacy and security relating to
electronic filing and public
availability of documents
Report to Congress on the Judicial Conference 1 year after Supreme Court's
adequacy of the Supreme rules take effect; every 2 years Court's final
rules to protect thereafter privacy and security
Report to Congress on Judicial Conference April 17, 2004; every year
notifications submitted to defer thereafter
compliance with any
requirements from section 205
Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.
The federal courts have made progress establishing individual Web sites
for the circuit, district, appellate, and bankruptcy courts, as required
by this section of the act. Officials from the Administrative Office of
the Courts reported that as of June 2004, all 198 courts had established
individual Web sites, 10 months before the April 2005 deadline. Court
officials further reported that individual courts were making progress
providing the information stipulated in the act on their Web sites.
Court officials reported that as of August 2004, 128 of the 198 courts had
provided public Internet access to their electronic filings, in advance of
the April 2007 deadline. In addition, court officials reported that
district and bankruptcy courts will provide public Internet access to
electronic filings by September 2005, and appellate courts will provide
such access by 2006.
To address privacy and security concerns, in September 2003, the Judicial
Conference adopted a policy permitting remote public access to criminal
case file documents to be the same as public access at courthouses, with a
requirement that filers remove personal data identifiers from documents
filed electronically or on paper. While the act does not specify a
deadline
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
for the Supreme Court to issue final rules to protect privacy and
security, federal court officials expect the Supreme Court to prescribe
such rules by 2007. As required by the act, 1 year after the final rules
take effect, and then every 2 years thereafter, the Judicial Conference
will be responsible for submitting a report to Congress on the adequacy of
the final rules to protect privacy and security.
To date, no notifications deferring compliance with the requirements of
section 205 have been submitted to the Administrative Office of the
Courts. However, the Judicial Conference submitted a report to Congress,
dated April 2, 2004, noting that because the statutory deadlines for the
establishment of the individual courts' Web sites and access to electronic
filings (April 2005 and April 2007, respectively) have not passed, there
are no notifications to report.
Regulatory Agencies: Title II, Section 206
Section 206 of the E-Government Act is aimed at enhancing public
participation in government by electronic means and improving performance
in the development and issuance of agency regulations through the use of
information technology. This section, in part, calls for agencies, to the
extent practicable, to accept submissions electronically (e.g., comments
submitted on proposed rules) and to make electronic dockets-the full set
of material related to a rule-publicly available online. The Director of
OMB is charged with establishing a timetable for agencies to implement
these requirements in its first annual report to Congress on
implementation of the act. Table 10 summarizes the actions required by
this provision.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
Table 10: Actions Required under Section 206 of the E-Government Act
Action Responsibility Statutory deadline
In rulemaking proceedings, to Federal agencies Timetable for agency the
extent practicable, provide compliance to be established by for the
Director of OMB
o electronic submission of comments
o electronic dockets to be made publicly available online
Establish a timetable for agency Director of OMB By the first annual
report to
compliance with section 206 Congress required under 44 U.S.C. 3606
Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.
OMB and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have actions under way
to address the rulemaking requirements of this section. OMB designated the
e-Rulemaking initiative, managed by EPA, as the vehicle for addressing
these requirements of section 206. In January 2003, www.regulations.gov
was launched, which enables citizens and businesses to search for and
respond electronically16 to proposed rules open for comment in the Federal
Register.17 The ability to search full rulemaking dockets-the complete set
of publicly available material (i.e., economic analyses, models, etc.)
associated with a proposed rule-is not yet available; its availability is
contingent on the development of a governmentwide electronic docket
system.
In its fiscal year 2003 report to Congress, OMB established a goal of
completing migrations to the common federal docket management system by
September 2005, with agencies beginning migrations to the central system
in September 2004. According to the e-Rulemaking director, this timetable
is contingent on funding. The director stated that an operational
16In cases where agencies accept only paper submissions,
www.regulations.gov allows a user to fill out a Web form and print
comments, and it provides a mailing address to the user for mailing the
comments directly to the agency. Even if an agency accepts electronic
submissions, a user has the option to fill out the Web form and mail the
comment directly to the agency.
17For a more detailed examination of the first phase of this initiative,
see GAO, Electronic Rulemaking: Efforts to Facilitate Public Participation
Can Be Improved, GAO-03-901 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2003).
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
version of the electronic docketing application would be ready by
September 2005.
Accessibility, Usability, and Preservation of Government Information:
Title II, Section 207
Section 207 of the E-Government Act requires the Director of OMB to
establish an Interagency Committee on Government Information (ICGI) to
develop recommendations on the categorization of government information
and public access to electronic information. The Director of OMB is to
issue guidance for agency Web sites and establish a public domain
directory of federal government Web sites. Further, OMB is required to
ensure the development and maintenance of a governmentwide repository and
Web site that integrates information about research and development funded
by the federal government. The ICGI is to submit recommendations to the
Director of OMB on policies to improve reporting and dissemination of
information related to research performed by federal agencies and
federally funded development centers. Table 11 summarizes the actions
required by this provision.
Table 11: Actions Required under Section 207 of the E-Government Act
Action Responsibility Statutory deadline
Establish an Interagency Committee on Director of OMB June 17, 2003
Government Information (ICGI)
Submit recommendations to OMB on the ICGI December 17, 2004 adoption of
standards for categorizing and indexing government information
Issue policies based on the above ICGI Director of OMB December 17, 2005
recommendation
Submit recommendations to the Director ICGI December 17, 2004
of OMB and the Archivist on the adoption
of policies and procedures for applying
the Federal Records Act to government
information on the Internet and other
electronic records
Issue policies based on the Archivist December 17, 2005
ICGI's
recommendation for the above
Develop guidance for agency Web Director of OMB December 17, 2004
sites
Establish a public domain Director of OMB December 17, 2004
directory of
public federal government Web
sites
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
(Continued From Previous Page)
Action Responsibility Statutory deadline
Develop and maintain a governmentwide Director of OMB, in No deadline
given
repository and Web site of research and consultation with the
development funded by the federal Director of the Office
government of Science and
Technology Policy
Submit recommendations to the Director ICGI, working with June 17, 2004
of OMB on policies to improve reporting the Director of the
and dissemination of information related Office of Science
to research performed by federal and Technology
agencies and federally funded Policy
development centers
Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.
Although OMB and the ICGI have taken steps toward complying with many of
the provisions of this section, no significant action has been taken on
one of them. Among the steps toward compliance is OMB's establishment of
the ICGI on June 17, 2003; the committee consists of representatives from
the National Archives and Records Administration, representatives of
agency CIOs, and other relevant officers from the executive branch. The
ICGI consists of an Executive Committee under the auspices of the CIO
Council, as well as four working groups: Categorization of Government
Information, Electronic Records Policy, Web Content Management, and E-Gov
Act Access. The E-Gov Act Access working group was tasked with addressing
the requirements of section 213 (community technology centers) and section
215 (disparities in access to the Internet). The Executive Committee is
co-chaired by OIRA's IPT Branch Chief and the Department of Commerce CIO.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
ICGI's working groups have made progress toward meeting the deadlines for
developing the various recommendations prescribed in section 207. In
August 2004, the Categorization of Government Information working group
published for public comment a recommendation for search interoperability,
in preparation for the required December 2004 submission of
recommendations to OMB. In June 2004, the Electronic Records Policy
working group, tasked with developing recommendations on the application
of the Federal Records Act to government information on the Internet and
other electronic records, released a report on barriers to effective
management of government information on the Internet and other electronic
records.18 The Web Content Management working group is assisting OMB with
its responsibilities to issue guidance on standards for agency Web sites
and establish a public domain directory of federal government Web sites.
In June 2004, this working group submitted a report to OMB on recommended
policies and guidelines for federal public Web sites.19 As for
establishment of the public domain directory and subject taxonomies, the
working group intends to build on the existing directory and taxonomies of
the federal Internet portal prescribed under section 204.
OMB has not yet taken significant action to ensure the development and
maintenance of a repository and Web site of information about research and
development funded by the federal government, as required by the act. In
its fiscal year 2003 report to Congress, OMB reported that an analysis had
been conducted of the National Science Foundation's Research and
Development in the United States (RaDiUS) database system and that the
system was closely aligned with the act's requirements. However, OMB also
said it had not yet determined whether RaDiUS would serve as the
repository required by the act. Until OMB decides on a specific course of
action, it may not fully meet the objective of section 207 to improve the
methods by which government information, including information on the
Internet, is organized, preserved, and made accessible to the public.
According to the executive sponsor of the Web Content Standards working
group, the ICGI has addressed the requirement to make recommendations on
policies to improve reporting and dissemination of federal research
18Electronic Records Policy Working Group, Interagency Committee on
Government Information, Barriers to the Effective Management of Government
Information on the Internet and Other Electronic Records (Washington,
D.C.: June 2004).
19Interagency Committee on Government Information, Recommended Policies
and Guidelines for Federal Public Websites (Washington, D.C.: June 9,
2004).
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
results in its June 2004 report on recommended policies and guidelines for
federal public Web sites.
Privacy Provisions:
Title II, Section 208
Section 208 of the E-Government Act is aimed at ensuring sufficient
protection for the privacy of personal information as agencies implement
electronic government. Section 208 requires the agencies to prepare a
privacy impact assessment (PIA), which is an analysis of how information
is handled in order to determine risks and examine protections for systems
that collect information in a personally identifiable form (that is,
information that could identify a particular person). Also, the act
requires the Director of OMB to develop and issue guidance for completing
the PIA. In addition, the Director of OMB is to develop guidance for
privacy notices on agency Web sites accessed by the public. Finally,
section 208 states that the Director of OMB is to issue guidance requiring
agencies to translate privacy policies into a standardized
machine-readable format. Table 12 summarizes the deliverables required by
this provision.
Table 12: Actions Required under Section 208 of the E-Government Act
Statutory
Action Responsibility deadline
Develop PIA guidance Director of OMB No deadline given
Develop guidance for privacy Director of OMB
notices on No deadline given
agency Web sites used by the
public
Develop guidance for Director of OMB
machine-readable No deadline given
privacy policies
Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.
OMB has taken responsive action to address the requirements of this
section. In September 2003, OMB issued guidance on implementing the
privacy provisions of Section 208 that included requirements for PIAs as
well as privacy policies for Web sites. OMB requires that agencies report
compliance with the PIA and Web site privacy policy requirements in their
agency-specific annual e-gov reports. In addition, OMB has built privacy
compliance requirements into the budget process by requiring agencies to
conduct a PIA for each major information technology system. Other efforts
made by OMB to oversee agency PIA development include speaking
engagements, agency-specific meetings, and workshops. Rules for agency Web
site privacy policies including notices were also outlined in OMB's
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
privacy implementation guidance and took effect on December 15, 2003.
Finally, the guidance document included requirements for translating Web
site privacy policies into standardized machine-readable format.
IT Workforce Development: Title II, Section 209
Section 209 of the E-Government Act requires the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), in consultation with OMB, GSA, and the CIO Council, to
conduct activities aimed at improving the skills of the federal IT
workforce. OPM is required to develop governmentwide policies so that
executive agencies can promote the development of performance standards
for training as well as uniform implementation of workforce development
requirements. OPM is also required to submit a report to Congress on the
establishment of an IT training program. Additionally, OPM is required to
establish procedures for administration of an IT Exchange Program, report
to Congress on existing IT Exchange Programs, and submit biennial reports
to Congress on the operation of such programs. Table 13 summarizes the
actions required by this provision.
Table 13: Actions Required under Section 209 of the E-Government Act
Action Responsibility Statutory deadline
Conduct activities aimed at OPM, in consultation with No deadline given
improving the skills of the federal IT OMB, the CIO Council, and workforce
(i.e., analyze the Administrator of GSA personnel needs of the federal
government related to IT and identify where current training does not
satisfy the needs of the federal workforce)
Issue governmentwide policies to OPM, in coordination with No deadline
given promote the development of OMB performance standards and uniform
implementation of IT workforce development by executive agencies
Submit report to Congress on OPM, in consultation with January 1, 2003
establishment of a governmentwide the CIO Council and the IT training
program Administrator of GSA
Prescribe regulations for the OPM No deadline given
administration of the IT Exchange
Program
Submit report to Congress on OPM December 17, 2003
existing exchange programs
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
(Continued From Previous Page)
Action Responsibility Statutory deadline
Submit report to Congress on the OPM Not later than April 30
status of the IT Exchange Program and October 31 of each year
Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.
OPM, GSA, and the CIO Council all have efforts under way in IT workforce
development that address the requirements of this section of the act.
These efforts include baseline activities such as surveying the personnel
needs of the federal government related to IT as well as information
resources management. In a June 2004 report, 20 we highlighted that the
CIO Council's Workforce and Human Capital for IT Committee, in
consultation with OPM and OMB, developed the Clinger-Cohen Assessment
(CCA) survey.21 This survey was conducted via the Internet in September
2003 to collect information regarding federal employee IT competencies,
skills, certifications, and specialized job activities. The data collected
by the CCA survey provided agencies with an "as is" IT workforce baseline
for use in developing IT training programs that would close the gap
between the current and necessary federal IT skills. OPM officials
reported that the survey would be performed every year to give agencies a
measure of their progress in closing skills gaps.
As we reported in June 2004,22 OPM has not yet issued policies that
encourage the executive agencies to promote the development of performance
standards for workforce training. However, OPM has established milestones
for the development and issuance of such policies and estimates that
guidance will be communicated via the CIO Council and OPM's Human Capital
Officers in November 2004.
In August 2004, OPM issued its report on the establishment of a
governmentwide IT training program. The report establishes an IT framework
based on the Clinger-Cohen "Core Competencies" developed by the CIO
Council. The E-Government Act was enacted on December 17,
20GAO, Information Technology: Training Can Be Enhanced by Greater Use of
Leading Practices, GAO-04-791 (Washington, D.C.: June 2004). This report
also provides more detailed information on governmentwide IT workforce
development efforts.
21For more detailed information on the survey results, see CIO Council,
Clinger-Cohen Assessment Survey (2003) Analysis of Survey Results
(Washington, D.C.: May 2004).
22GAO-04-791.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
2002, leaving OPM approximately 2 weeks to prepare the required report.
Consequently, OPM officials instead provided an interim report to Congress
in June 2003 that provided a descriptive view of existing governmentwide
IT training programs, noting that a more comprehensive report would be
provided at a later date.
In January 2004, OPM published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on
the establishment of an IT Exchange Program. OPM officials reported that
they reviewed public comments and drafted a final rule but could not give
an estimate as to when the final rule would be published. As required by
the act, OPM provided Congress with a report on existing exchange programs
in December 2003. In addition, OPM submitted reports to Congress in April
2003 and April 2004, both of which stated that the IT Exchange Program had
not yet been established.
State and Local Government Use of Federal Supply Schedules: Title II,
Section 211
Section 211 of the E-Government Act provides for the use of Federal Supply
Schedules23 by state and local governments for the acquisition of IT. The
GSA Administrator is charged with establishing procedures to govern the
use of Federal Supply Schedules by state and local governments. The
E-Government Administrator is required to report to Congress on the
implementation and effects of state and local government use of these
schedules. Table 14 summarizes the actions required by this provision.
23The Federal Supply Schedule Program, which is directed and managed by
GSA, is designed to provide federal agencies with a simplified process for
acquiring commonly used commercial supplies and services at prices
associated with volume buying.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
Table 14: Actions Required under Section 211 of the E-Government Act
Action Responsibility Statutory deadline
Establish procedures to Administrator of GSA January 17, 2003
govern
the use of Federal Supply
Schedules for the
acquisition of
IT by state or local
governments
Report to Congress on the Administrator of the December 31,
Office of 2004
implementation and effects E-Government
of
the use of Federal Supply
Schedules for the
acquisition of
IT by state or local
governments
Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.
GSA has taken responsive action to address the requirements of this
section. On May 18, 2004, GSA issued its final rule authorizing
acquisition of IT by state and local governments through Federal Supply
Schedules.24 Although the act required that the procedures be issued by
January 17, 2003, GSA did not finalize the new procedures until May 2004.
The agency had issued a proposed rule to implement the procedures on
January 23, 2003, and an interim rule on May 7, 2003. GSA officials noted
that the use of these schedules on the part of vendors as well as state
and local governments is voluntary. The deadline for the required
implementation report has not yet passed; OMB officials reported that they
plan to report to Congress in December 2004.
Integrated Reporting Section 212 of the E-Government Act requires the
Director of OMB to
oversee a study and report to Congress on progress toward integratingStudy
and Pilot federal information systems across agencies. In addition, in
order to Projects: Title II, provide input to the study, the Director of
OMB is required to designate up Section 212 to five pilot projects to
encourage integrated collection and management of
data and interoperability of federal information systems. Table 15
summarizes the actions required by this provision.
24Federal Register, Volume 69, No. 96 (Tuesday, May 18, 2004),
28,063-28,066.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
Table 15: Actions Required under Section 212 of the E-Government Act
Action Responsibility Statutory deadline
Designate no more than five Director of OMB, in consultation No deadline
given
pilot projects to encourage with agencies
integrated collection and
management of data and
interoperability of federal
information systems
Submit a study and report to Director of OMB, in consultation December 17,
2005
Congress on the progress with agencies
toward integrating federal
information systems across
agencies
Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.
OMB has actions under way to address the requirements of this section. In
March 2004, OMB announced the launch of a task force to examine five
government lines of business: case management, federal health
architecture, grants management, human resource management, and financial
management. OMB officials stated that the lines of business initiatives
also serve as the pilot projects required under section 212. Similar to
the management of the 25 e-government initiatives, the lines of business
initiatives are to be led by agencies designated as managing partners. The
managing partners for all five initiatives are to submit business cases in
September 2004 for the fiscal year 2006 budget cycle.
OMB officials also reported that the study they are required to conduct
under section 212 is ongoing; the deadline for this report has not yet
passed. OMB officials stated that their study will address the lines of
business initiatives, as well as the Federal Enterprise Architecture.25
OMB officials said they plan to report on the results of the study via the
annual E-Government Act implementation report to Congress.
25According to OMB, the purpose of the Federal Enterprise Architecture,
among other things, is to provide a common frame of reference or taxonomy
for agencies' individual enterprise architecture efforts and their planned
and ongoing investment activities.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
Community Section 213 of the E-Government Act requires the Administrator
of the
Office of E-Government to ensure that a study is conducted to evaluate
theTechnology Centers: best practices of community technology centers,
which provide Internet Title II, Section 213 access to the public, and
submit a report to Congress on the findings of this
study by April 2005. In addition, this section requires the E-Government
Administrator, in consultation with other agencies, to develop an online
tutorial that explains how to access government information and services
on the Internet. Table 16 summarizes the actions required by this
provision.
Table 16: Actions Required under Section 213 of the E-Government Act
Action Responsibility Statutory deadline
Conduct a study and Administrator of the April 17,
submit a Office of 2005
report to Congress E-Government
evaluating
the best practices of
community
technology centers
Develop an online tutorial Administrator of the No deadline
that Office of given
explains how to access E-Government, in
consultation
government information and with the Department of
services on the Internet and Education and the
Institute of
provides a guide to available Museum and Library
Services
online resources
Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.
OMB and other agencies have actions under way to address the requirements
of this section of the act. According to a GSA official, OMB assigned the
responsibility for section 213 to a newly created E-Gov Act Access working
group established under the Interagency Committee on Government
Information. The E-Gov Act Access working group consists of a cross
section of agencies with an interest in access issues and includes
representation from agencies such as the Department of Education, the
Government Printing Office, and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. According to the working group's co-chair, the group plans to
meet the April 2005 statutory deadline for the required study evaluating
the best practices of community technology centers. Additionally, the
group plans to consider options for developing an online tutorial in
December 2004.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
Enhancing Crisis Management through Advanced Information Technology: Title
II, Section 214
Section 214 of the E-Government Act addresses the coordination and
availability of information across multiple access channels and improving
the use of IT in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. A study is
required to evaluate the use of IT for the enhancement of crisis
preparedness, response, and consequence management of natural and manmade
disasters. Also required is a report to Congress on the findings of the
study as well as recommendations. Finally, the Administrator of the Office
of E-Government is to initiate pilot projects in cooperation with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or report other activities to
Congress that involve maximizing the use of IT in disaster management.
Table 17 summarizes the actions required by this provision.
Table 17: Actions Required under Section 214 of the E-Government Act
Action Responsibility Statutory deadline
Conduct a study on the Administrator of the Office of March 17, 2003
enhancement of crisis E-Government in
response consultation with FEMA
Submit a report on the study Administrator of the Office of 2 years after
contract including findings and E-Government entered into for the study
recommendations
Initiate pilot projects or Administrator of the Office of No deadline
given
report to Congress on other E-Government in
activities consultation with FEMA
Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.
OMB and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have not yet taken
actions that are fully responsive to the requirements of this section of
the act. A study provided by DHS officials to address enhancement of
crisis and response did not contain the required contents as stipulated in
section 214. The study was conducted by the MITRE Corporation for Project
SAFECOM26 in December 2002 and completed in March 2003. DHS officials
stated that the study addresses the section 214 requirement to conduct a
study on enhancement of crisis response. However, our analysis indicates
that the study in general did not address the use of IT to enhance crisis
preparedness, response, and consequence management of natural and
26For additional information, refer to GAO, Project SAFECOM: Key
Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort Requires Stronger
Collaboration, GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2004).
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
man-made disasters, as required by section 214. Specifically, the study
did not include a research and implementation strategy for effective use
of IT in crisis response and consequence management. The act states that
this strategy should include the more effective use of technologies;
management of IT research initiatives; and incorporation of research
advances into the information communication systems of FEMA and other
federal, state, and local agencies responsible for crisis preparedness,
response, and consequence management. Furthermore, the study did not
discuss opportunities for research and development on enhanced
technologies for potential improvement as determined during the course of
the study. OMB officials agreed that the study conducted by Project
SAFECOM did not address the requirements of the act. OMB officials stated
that a new study would be conducted to meet these requirements. Until the
required elements of the study are addressed, OMB may not be able to make
a fully informed response to the act's requirement that it report on
findings and recommendations for improving the use of IT in coordinating
and facilitating information on disaster preparedness, response, and
recovery.
According to OMB officials, pilot projects expected to enhance the goal of
maximizing the use of IT are not planned. Instead, the focus of OMB's
efforts has been on other activities, such as the Disaster Management27
and SAFECOM programs, which work with industry communities to improve the
requirements and develop standards for information sharing and
coordination of responsiveness. OMB officials stated that they would
determine at a future time whether initiation of pilot projects is
necessary.
Disparities in Access to the Internet: Title II, Section 215
Section 215 of the E-Government Act requires the GSA Administrator to
contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study on
disparities in Internet access for online government services. GSA is to
submit a report to Congress on the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the study by December 2004. The report is required to
address (1) how disparities in Internet access influence the effectiveness
of online government services, (2) how the increase in online government
services is influencing the disparities in Internet access and how
technology development or diffusion trends may offset such adverse
27Disaster Management is a program managed by the Department of Homeland
Security that provides federal, state, and local emergency managers with
online access to disaster management-related information, as well as
planning and response tools.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
influences, and (3) related societal effects arising from the interplay of
disparities in Internet access and the increase in online government
services. Table 18 summarizes the actions required by this provision.
Table 18: Actions Required under Section 215 of the E-Government Act
Action Responsibility Statutory deadline
Conduct a study with NAS via GSA Administrator March 17, 2003
the
National Research Council on
disparities in Internet
access for
online government services
Report to Congress on the study GSA Administrator December 17, 2004
setting forth the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations
of the National Research Council
Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.
GSA has not fully addressed the requirements of this section, because it
has not yet commissioned the required NAS study on disparities in Internet
access for online government services. Although the act authorizes
$950,000 to be spent on the study and report, a GSA official stated that
no money had yet been appropriated. GSA officials reported that they were
unable to request funds as part of the fiscal year 2003 or 2004 budget
cycles because the act passed in December 2002, after fiscal year 2003 had
begun and the deadline for fiscal year 2004 agency budget submissions
(August 2002) had passed. Although GSA officials did not provide any
information regarding their actions for fiscal year 2005, they reported
that the agency had requested the funds authorized in the act for the
fiscal year 2006 budget cycle. Pending appropriation of the requested
funds, GSA plans to enter into a contract with NAS for the study, but
notes that the report on the study will not be completed within the
statutory deadline of December 2004.
In keeping with the purpose of this section, GSA officials and the
Interagency Committee on Government Information's E-Gov Act Access working
group are working on compiling an interim study based on existing research
on disparities in access to the Internet. The existing research includes,
for example, Hart-Teeter poll results and Pew Internet and American Life
Project studies. This compilation report is expected to be completed by
December 2004 and submitted to Congress in OMB's annual report to Congress
on the implementation status of the act.
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
Common Protocols for The purpose of section 216 of the E-Government Act is
to reduce redundant
data collection and information and promote collaboration and use
ofGeographic standards for government geographic information (see table
19). An Information Systems: interagency group is to establish common
protocols that maximize the Title II, Section 216 degree to which
unclassified geographic information from various sources
can be made electronically compatible and accessible, as well as promote
the development of interoperable geographic information systems
technologies.
Table 19: Action Required under Section 216 of the E-Government Act
Action Responsibility Statutory
deadline
Administrator of the No deadline
Facilitate the development of Office of given
common protocols for the E-Government, in
consultation
development, acquisition, with the Secretary of the
maintenance, distribution, Interior, and working
and with the
application of geographic Director of OMB through
an
information interagency group
Source: GAO analysis of the E-Gov Act.
A variety of actions are under way to address the requirements of this
section of the act. According to OMB, the interagency group referred to in
the act is the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), which was
organized in 1990 under OMB Circular A-16. The FGDC is intended to promote
the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data on a
national basis. The FGDC is chaired by the Secretary of the Department of
Interior, with the Deputy Director for Management at OMB serving as
Vice-Chair, and is made up of representatives from 19 cabinetlevel and
independent federal agencies.28
OMB also established the Geospatial One-Stop29 initiative in 2002 to
facilitate the development of common protocols for geographic information
systems by bringing together various stakeholders to
28The E-Government Act requires that NIST have representation within the
interagency group. However, NIST is not directly involved in the
interagency group, but representatives are able to participate via the
Department of Commerce, which houses NIST.
29For more information regarding Geospatial One-Stop, refer to GAO,
Geospatial Information: Better Coordination and Oversight Could Help
Reduce Duplicative Investments, GAO-04-824T (Washington, D.C.: June 23,
2004).
Appendix III
Implementation Status of Major Provisions
from Titles I and II of the E-Government Act
of 2002
coordinate effective and efficient ways to align geographic information.
In addition, the purpose of the Geospatial One-Stop is to make it faster,
easier, and less expensive for all levels of government to obtain
necessary geospatial data in order to make programmatic decisions.
Actions taken by FGDC to promote collaboration include creating a
standards working group made up of federal and state agencies, academia,
and the private sector. The working group has developed, and FGDC has
endorsed, a number of different geospatial standards, including metadata
standards, and it is currently developing additional standards. The
committee's working group also coordinates with national and international
standards bodies to ensure that potential users support its work.
GAO's Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Relations Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***