Grants Management: Attention Needed to Address Undisbursed	 
Balances in Expired Grant Accounts (29-AUG-08, GAO-08-432).	 
                                                                 
In 2006, the subcommittee concluded there was a need for	 
increased accountability and transparency for unspent funds in	 
federal programs and agencies, and requested GAO review the	 
status of balances not drawn down by grantees by the time the	 
grants' period of availability had ended. GAO was asked to answer
these questions: (1) to what extent are there undisbursed grant  
balances in expired grant accounts and do they share any program 
characteristics?; and (2) do these expired grants share grant	 
management challenges and how have federal agencies improved	 
grant closeout and diminished undisbursed balances? To do this,  
GAO analyzed grant balance data from the largest federal grant	 
payment system; reviewed grant management problems and corrective
actions from more than 150 audit reports; and reviewed guidance  
from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Code of	 
Federal Regulations.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-432 					        
    ACCNO:   A83912						        
  TITLE:     Grants Management: Attention Needed to Address	      
Undisbursed Balances in Expired Grant Accounts			 
     DATE:   08/29/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Audit reports					 
	     Data collection					 
	     Federal grants					 
	     Federal regulations				 
	     Financial management				 
	     Financial management systems			 
	     Financial regulation				 
	     Funds management					 
	     Government grants					 
	     Grant administration				 
	     Grant monitoring					 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Program management 				 
	     Regulatory agencies				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Corrective action					 
	     Transparency					 
	     HHS Payment Management System			 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-432

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

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. 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. 

Report to the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government 
Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

August 2008: 

Grants Management: 

Attention Needed to Address Undisbursed Balances in Expired Grant 
Accounts: 

GAO-08-432: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-432, a report to the Subcommittee on Federal 
Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and 
International Security, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In 2006, the subcommittee concluded there was a need for increased 
accountability and transparency for unspent funds in federal programs 
and agencies, and requested GAO review the status of balances not drawn 
down by grantees by the time the grantsï¿½ period of availability had 
ended. GAO was asked to answer these questions: (1) to what extent are 
there undisbursed grant balances in expired grant accounts and do they 
share any program characteristics?; and (2) do these expired grants 
share grant management challenges and how have federal agencies 
improved grant closeout and diminished undisbursed balances? To do 
this, GAO analyzed grant balance data from the largest federal grant 
payment system; reviewed grant management problems and corrective 
actions from more than 150 audit reports; and reviewed guidance from 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Code of Federal 
Regulations. 

What GAO Found: 

During calendar year 2006, about $1 billion in undisbursed funding 
remained in expired grant accounts in the largest civilian payment 
system for grantsï¿½the Payment Management System (PMS). PMS is 
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services and makes 
payments for about 70 percent of grants and for 12 federal entities. 
Undisbursed funding is funding the federal government has obligated 
through a grant agreement, but which the grantee has not entirely 
spent. Among all of the expired grant accounts in PMS that remained 
open, these undisbursed funds typically represented about 1 percent of 
the total funds originally made available for these grantsï¿½meaning 
grantees had spent most of their available funds. However, when expired 
grant accounts with no funds remaining were excluded and the focus was 
narrowed to just expired grant accounts with undisbursed balances, GAO 
found the amount of undisbursed funding represented, on average, about 
26 percent of the original funding made available. The expired but 
still open grant accounts were associated with thousands of grantees 
and over 325 different federal programs. GAO also found that expired 
grant accounts with the largest undisbursed balances in PMS for 
calendar years 2003 through 2006 shared a few common program 
characteristics. However, the results could not be compared to program 
characteristics for all closed federal grants or all closed grants 
using PMS, during this period, due to the burden of collecting 
comparable data for all closed federal grants from eight other federal 
civilian payments systems or for all closed grants from PMS. 

Past audits of federal agencies by GAO and Inspectors General and 
annual performance reports by at least 8 federal agencies in 2006 and 
2007 suggested that grant management challenges including grant 
closeouts and undisbursed balances are a long-standing problem. 
Closeout procedures ensure grantees have met all financial 
requirements, provided final reports, and that unused funds are 
deobligated. The audits generally attributed the problems to 
inadequacies in awarding agenciesï¿½ grant management processes, 
including closeouts as a low management priority, inconsistent closeout 
procedures, poorly timed communications with grantees, or insufficient 
compliance or enforcement. However, when federal agencies, such as the 
Departments of Health and Human Services and Justice, and the 
Environmental Protection Agency, took corrective actions, there were 
improvements in grant closeouts and resolution of undisbursed funding. 
The actions taken by these three agencies generally focused on making 
grant closeouts a higher agency management priority, as noted in their 
recent performance reports, and on improving overall closeout 
processing. Using federal payment systems to track undisbursed funding 
in expired grant accounts and including the status of grant closeouts 
in annual performance reports could raise the visibility of the problem 
both within the agency and governmentwide, and lead to improvements in 
grant closeouts and minimize undisbursed balances. OMB circulars do not 
currently require federal agencies to track and report on undisbursed 
funding in expired grant accounts. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends OMB instruct all executive departments and independent 
agencies to track undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts and 
report on the resolution of this funding in their annual performance 
plan and Performance and Accountability Reports. OMB said it supported 
the intent of our recommendations but did not specify whether it would 
implement them. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-432]. For more 
information, contact Stanley L. Czerwinski at (202) 512-6806 or 
[email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Undisbursed Balances in Expired Grant Accounts in PMS Were about $1 
Billion during 2006: 

Grant Closeout Problems Attributed to Several Causes but Can Be 
Mitigated: 

Conclusion: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, Methodology, and Additional Information 
on Program Characteristics: 

Appendix II: Federal Agencies Using PMS: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Abbreviations: 

AHRQ: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Department of Health 
and Human Services: 

CFDA: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance: 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations: 

CMIA: Cash Management Improvement Act: 

CNS: Corporation for National and Community Service: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

DOI: Department of the Interior: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

DOL: Department of Labor: 

DOS: Department of State: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

DPM: Division of Payment Management, Department of Health and Human 
Services: 

EOP: Executive Office of the President: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

GAN: Grant Adjustment Notice: 

GMS: Grants Management System: 

GOALS: Government On-Line Accounting Link System: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Service: 

HRSA: Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of 
Health and Human Service: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

IG: Inspector General: 

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

NASACT: National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and 
Treasurers: 

NGMA: National Grants Management Association: 

NIH: National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human 
Service: 

OIG: Office of the Inspector General: 

OJP: Office of Justice Program, Department of Justice: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the 
President: 

ONDCP: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the 
President: 

PAR: Performance and Accountability Report: 

PMS: Payment Management System: 

SSA: Social Security Administration: 

TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: 

USAID: The United States Agency for International Development, 
Department of State: 

U.S.C.: United States Code: 

USDA: Department of Agriculture: 

VA: Department of Veterans Affairs: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

August 29, 2008: 

The Honorable Tom Carper: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Tom Coburn, M.D. 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, 
Federal Services, and International Security: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The federal government's reliance on grants to achieve national 
objectives and respond to significant trends, such as an aging 
population and changing threats to national security, has grown 
significantly. According to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
estimates, from 2000 through 2006, federal grant awards to nonfederal 
entities, such as states and nonprofit organizations, increased from 
$300 billion to over $450 billion.[Footnote 1] Grants now represent 
about one-sixth of the federal budget. If even a small fraction of 
total grant funding is not spent in a prudent and timely fashion, it 
can create potential problems for the federal government. The existence 
of unspent funds can hinder the achievement of national objectives in 
various ways, such as leaving projects incomplete, preventing the 
reallocation of scarce resources to address other needs, or making 
federal funds more susceptible to improper spending or accounting as 
monitoring diminishes over time. In times of constrained resources, it 
is vital for federal agencies to maximize the performance of their 
programs in order to meet long-term goals. 

In the spring of 2006, your subcommittee concluded there was a need for 
increased accountability and transparency for unspent funds in federal 
programs and agencies. You requested that we review the status of grant 
funds that grantees had not drawn down by the time the grants' period 
of availability had ended (i.e., "expired"). To respond to your 
request, we identified and analyzed data from the largest federal 
civilian grant payment management system--accounting for about 70 
percent of federal disbursements to grantees in 2006--to focus on 
agency-level grant accounts that remained open after their expiration 
date (hereafter, referred to as "expired grant accounts") and had 
unspent funds in the form of undisbursed balances. Undisbursed balances 
are funds that the federal government has obligated by entering into a 
grant agreement, but the grantee has not drawn down ("disbursed"). 
These funds were obligated from the federal perspective. However, once 
the grant's period of availability to the grantee has expired, the 
grant could be closed out and the funds deobligated by the awarding 
agency. Grant closeout procedures ensure that grantees have met all 
financial requirements, provided their final reports, and returned any 
undisbursed balances. 

Based on your request, this report answers these questions: (1) to what 
extent are there undisbursed grant balances in expired grant accounts 
and do they share any program characteristics?; and (2) do these 
expired grants share grant management challenges and what actions have 
federal agencies taken to improve grant closeout and diminish 
undisbursed balances? 

To address our objectives, we analyzed data on undisbursed balances in 
expired agency grant accounts and reviewed federal regulations, audit 
reports, and annual performance reports relating to grant closeouts. To 
identify the status of undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts, 
we collected and analyzed 4 calendar years (from 2003 through 2006) of 
quarterly payment data for grants with defined spending periods that 
executed payments through the Department of Health and Human Services' 
(HHS) Payment Management System (PMS). PMS is the largest of the nine 
civilian federal payment systems. In 2006, it handled about 70 percent 
of all federal grant disbursements. As of August 2007, PMS provided 
payment services to nine federal departments, an independent agency, a 
government corporation, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
(ONDCP) within the Executive Office of the President. [Footnote 2]We 
used program information from the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance (CFDA) to identify key program characteristics that were 
associated with the expired grant accounts in PMS. We analyzed payment 
data for expired grant accounts in PMS, from 2003 through 2006, as a 
complete set of current PMS customers, rather than analyzing specific 
federal agencies or grant programs. To identify federal guidelines on 
grant closeouts, we reviewed related OMB circulars and agency 
regulations. To identify federal guidelines on performance reporting we 
reviewed related OMB circulars. To identify what other auditors found 
and recommended as strategies to diminish unspent funds in expired 
grant accounts, we conducted a Web-based literature search for related 
audit reports and reviewed over 150 reports that we and various federal 
Inspectors General (IG) issued from 2000 through 2007, and contacted 
officials from several federal IG offices. [Footnote 3]In addition, we 
reviewed the 2006 and 2007 Performance and Accountability Reports (PAR) 
for 15 cabinet-level executive departments and the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA). [Footnote 4] 

Appendix I provides more information on our methodology and on PMS and 
CFDA. We conducted this performance audit from October 2006 to June 
2008, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

During calendar year 2006, about $1 billion in undisbursed funding 
remained in expired grant accounts in the largest of the nine federal 
civilian payment systems--HHS's Payment Management System (PMS), which 
serves offices from 12 federal departments and agencies and accounts 
for about 70 percent of all federal grant disbursements. [Footnote 5] 
While this was a significant amount of undisbursed funding, it did not 
mean grantees using PMS were not spending most of their grant funding. 
This balance represented about 1 percent of the total funds made 
available for all expired grant accounts in PMS during 2006. When we 
excluded the expired grant accounts with no funds remaining from our 
data analysis and narrowed our focus just to those accounts with 
remaining undisbursed balances, we found that, in 2006, the amount of 
undisbursed funding represented, on average, about 26 percent of the 
original funding made available.[Footnote 6] Expired grant accounts 
with undisbursed funds were not confined to a few federal awarding 
agencies, grant programs, or grantees. Rather these accounts were 
associated with thousands of grantees in over 325 different federal 
grant programs. We also found that expired grant accounts with the 
largest undisbursed balances in PMS for calendar years 2003 through 
2006 shared a few common program characteristics. However, the results 
could not be compared to program characteristics for all closed federal 
grants or all closed grants using PMS, during this period, due to the 
burden of collecting comparable data for all closed federal grants from 
eight other federal civilian payments systems or for all closed grants 
from PMS. 

Taken together, dozens of past audit reports we reviewed from multiple 
agencies[Footnote 7] and the 2006 and 2007 Performance and 
Accountability Reports for at least three federal agencies--EPA, HHS, 
and DOJ--suggested that undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts 
were a long-standing challenge and that these grants shared common 
grants management problems. The audits generally attributed the 
problems to inadequacies in the awarding agencies' grant management 
processes, including closeouts as a low management priority, 
inconsistent closeout procedures, poorly timed communications with 
grantees, or insufficient compliance or enforcement. Yet when agencies 
such as HHS, DOJ, and EPA made concerted efforts to address the 
problem, IGs and auditors reported the agencies were able to improve 
the timeliness of grant closeouts and decrease the amount of 
undisbursed funding in expired grant accounts. The approaches taken by 
the agencies administering the grants generally focused on elevating 
timely grant closeouts to a higher agency management priority and on 
improving overall closeout processing. 

Recognizing the potential effect on performance in the area of 
financial management, several federal agencies have elevated this issue 
as a management challenge in their annual performance plans and PARs. 
Current OMB circulars do not instruct federal departments and agencies 
to track and report on expired grants and undisbursed grant funding. 

Given the federal government's constrained fiscal position, it seems 
appropriate to minimize the amount of undisbursed funding remaining in 
expired grant accounts. Our analysis of the PMS data showed that a 
federal payment data system can track undisbursed funding and the 
amounts of undisbursed funding can be substantial. In addition, our 
analysis of audit reports and agency PARs showed that when agencies 
paid attention to grant closeouts, improvements were made and 
undisbursed balances were reduced. All federal civilian departments and 
agencies could annually track and report this information, if OMB 
provided governmentwide instructions. Therefore, we recommend that the 
Director, OMB, instruct all executive departments and independent 
agencies to take the following two actions: (1) annually track the 
amount of undisbursed grant funding remaining in expired grant 
accounts; and (2) report on the status and resolution of the 
undisbursed funding in their annual performance plan and in their 
annual PAR. 

In commenting on our draft report, OMB said it supported the intent of 
our recommendations but did not commit to implementing them through its 
grants management guidance. OMB did not favor requiring agencies to 
report these balances in their PARs. Given that such reporting has 
raised the internal and external visibility of the issue of undisbursed 
balances in expired grant accounts and agencies have improved their 
performance, we continue to believe that the PARs would be appropriate 
vehicles to address the issue on a governmentwide basis. 

Background: 

The federal government uses grants, along with other policy tools, such 
as direct services and loans, to achieve national priorities through 
nonfederal parties, including state and local governments, educational 
institutions, and nonprofit organizations. The federal government uses 
grants[Footnote 8] to implement over 1,200 different programs through 
over 28 federal departments and agencies. These programs awarded 
funding to over 60,000 grantees. The Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance (CFDA) provides descriptions of these grant programs, as 
well as other domestic assistance programs.[Footnote 9] 

The design and implementation of federal grants varies. For example, 
grant programs generally use one of three ways to award funding to 
grantees. Formula grants award funds based on distribution formulas 
prescribed by legislation or regulation. Project grants generally award 
funding for specific periods or specific projects, products, or 
services. As a third method, some grant programs award funds using a 
hybrid of formula and project-based awarding methods. In addition, 
federal agencies use a variety of organizational approaches to 
implement grant programs. Some agencies administer many grants through 
multiple, decentralized components, while other agencies have small, 
centralized grant-making offices that administer only a few grant 
programs. 

Federal grants are typically subject to a wide range of requirements 
derived from a combination of program statutes, agency regulations, and 
other guidance. They are also subject to many crosscutting requirements 
that apply to most federal assistance programs, including statutory 
provisions applicable to recipients of federal funds and administrative 
requirements such as audit and record keeping and the allowability of 
costs. 

As a general rule, grant programs are governed by detailed legislation 
as well as implementing regulations issued by the responsible agency. 
Prior to 1988, each agency issued regulations to govern its grant 
management, and OMB Circular No. A-102, Grants and Cooperative 
Agreements With State and Local Governments, also provided some 
governmentwide guidance for grants to state and local governments. OMB 
Circular No. A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and 
Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other 
Non-Profit Organizations, provided some guidance for grants to other 
types of grantees like hospitals and other nonprofit institutions. In 
1987, a memorandum from the President directed OMB to revise Circular 
No. A-102 to specify uniform, governmentwide terms and conditions for 
grants to state and local governments, and directed executive branch 
departments and agencies to propose and issue common regulations 
adopting these terms and conditions verbatim, modified where necessary 
to reflect inconsistent statutory requirements. Pursuant to this 
direction, the first iteration of what has come to be known as the 
"common rule" system was published on June 9, 1987. 

There are currently a number of OMB circulars on grants, which provide 
guidance only to federal (grantor) agencies; they do not apply directly 
to grantees. Therefore, each federal agency has issued largely 
identical sets of regulations that prescribe requirements that are 
binding on their grantees. These regulations are referred to as the 
"common rules." Each agency's common rule regulations are codified in 
the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Grant programs also share a common life cycle for administering the 
grants: announcement of grant opportunity, application, award, 
postaward, and closeout. During the award stage, the federal awarding 
agency enters into an agreement with the grantee. The grant agreement 
stipulates the terms and conditions for the use of grant funds such as 
the period of time funds are available for the grantee's use, as noted 
by a start and end date. In addition, the awarding agency establishes 
an account in a federal payment system to execute payments to the 
grantee.[Footnote 10] 

During the postaward stage, the grantee carries out the requirements of 
the agreement and requests payments, while the awarding agency approves 
payments and oversees the grantee. The Payment Management System (PMS), 
operated by HHS, went online in 1984 and, as of 2006, was the largest 
of the nine civilian federal payment systems. The system, which handled 
about 70 percent of all federal grant disbursements in 2006, serves 
nine federal departments, an independent agency, a government 
corporation, and ONDCP. Appendix I provides a description of PMS and 
appendix II provides a recent list of department-and agency-level PMS 
customers. According to HHS, PMS is a full-service centralized grants 
payment and cash management system. The system is fully automated to 
receive payment requests, edit them for accuracy and content, transmit 
the payment to either the Federal Reserve Bank or the U.S. Treasury for 
deposit into the grantee's bank account, and record the payment 
transactions and corresponding disbursements to the appropriate 
accounts. Federal agencies pay HHS a service fee for maintaining 
accounts and executing payments through PMS. PMS continues to charge 
agency customers a servicing fee until an account is closed. 

When the grantee has completed all the work associated with a grant 
agreement or the end date for the grant has arrived, or both, the 
awarding agency and grantee close out the grant. Closeout procedures 
ensure that grantees have met all financial requirements, provided 
their final reports, and returned any unexpended balances. To close out 
a grant, federal regulations generally require that the: 

* awarding agency ensures the grantee has completed all work and 
administrative requirements; 

* grantee settles (liquidates) all obligations 90 days after grant end 
date; 

* grantee submits all final financial, performance, and other reports 
within 90 days of grant end date; and: 

* grantee requests an extension of the reporting deadline from the 
awarding agency, if required. 

These requirements apply when the awarding agency has specified a 
funding period for the grant (a start and end date) and has prohibited 
the grantee from having carryover balances. In this report, we refer to 
grants that were not closed after their end date as "expired" grants 
and PMS grant accounts that remained open after the grant's end date as 
"expired grant accounts." 

PMS issues a quarterly report to its customers, referred to as the 
"closeout report," listing expired grant accounts that remain open, and 
for each account includes data on the funds made available and the 
amount of funds disbursed (i.e., "drawn down" or"charged"). GAO 
recommended HHS develop and distribute this type of report in 1987. 
[Footnote 11] HHS lists an account on a quarterly PMS closeout report 
if the end date for the account was 3 months old and there was no 
disbursement in the preceding 9 months. 

The closeout is an important grant management procedure because it is 
the final point of accountability for grantees. An undisbursed balance 
in an expired grant account can be an indication of a potential grant 
management problem. Grantees that do not expend their funding may not 
be meeting the program objectives for the intended beneficiaries. These 
balances may also suggest that awarding agencies or grantees, or both, 
may not be managing the funding efficiently or effectively. Effective 
grants management, including the completion of grant closeout, 
increases the likelihood that awarded grants contribute to agency 
goals. 

An agency or grant program office can track its performance in closing 
grants and other grant management procedures using a variety of 
measures. In this report, we use the amount of undisbursed funding to 
assess one aspect of the performance of the expired grants--their 
financial status. Other types of measures track other aspects of 
performance, such as the grants' service quality and customer 
satisfaction. The amount of undisbursed funding measures the amount of 
funds remaining potentially available for deobligation. 

Agencies report to the President and Congress regarding their strategic 
plans and actual program performance, including, among other things, 
progress on improving grants management and other management 
initiatives under the auspices of the Government Performance and 
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). GPRA is part of a statutory framework that 
seeks to create a more focused, results-oriented management and 
decision-making process within both Congress and the executive branch. 
The act requires federal agencies to develop strategic plans with long- 
term strategic goals, annual goals linked to achieving the long-term 
goals, and annual reports on the results achieved. An agency's annual 
performance plan contains the annual performance goals and associated 
measures for its programs, as well as mission-critical management 
problems identified by the administration, the agency's financial 
audit, and other agency assessments. An agency's annual performance 
report compares its performance against its goals, summarizes the 
findings of program evaluations completed during the year, and 
describes the actions needed to address any unmet goals. OMB is 
responsible for providing guidelines to agencies on preparing their 
plans and reports, and for receiving and reviewing agencies' strategic 
plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. 
Currently, most agencies report on their annual performance in their 
PAR. OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission and Execution of 
the Budget, provides guidelines on the content of the performance 
accountability portion of the PAR, while Circular No. A-136, Financial 
Reporting Requirements, provides guidance on the content of the 
financial accountability portion of the PAR. 

Undisbursed Balances in Expired Grant Accounts in PMS Were about $1 
Billion during 2006: 

In our review of the closeout data for expired grants that executed 
payments through HHS's PMS, we found the quarterly amount of 
undisbursed funding reported as remaining in expired grant accounts 
increased from about $600 million in 2003 to about $1 billion during 
2006.[Footnote 12] These balances typically represented about 1 percent 
of the total funds made available for all expired grants in PMS during 
this period. This proportion included expired grant accounts with a 
zero undisbursed balance (no undisbursed funding) and expired grant 
accounts with a positive undisbursed balance (undisbursed funds 
remaining). Once we excluded expired grant accounts with a zero balance 
from the calculation and narrowed our focus solely to expired grant 
accounts with undisbursed balances, the proportion of undisbursed 
funding relative to total funds made available increased substantially. 
Among this smaller set of expired grant accounts, we found the 
undisbursed funding ranged between an average of 14 and 26 percent of 
the total funds made available for these grants. We found that, among 
PMS customers, numerous federal agencies and grant programs had expired 
grant accounts containing undisbursed funds. 

Expired Grant Accounts with Undisbursed Balances Had Not Spent between 
an Average of 14 and 26 Percent of Funds Made Available: 

When we analyzed the quarterly PMS closeout data for 2003 through 2006, 
we identified two sets of expired grants accounts. One set consisted of 
expired grant accounts for which all of the funds made available had 
been disbursed, but still had not been closed. As stated earlier, grant 
accounts remain open in PMS, and HHS continues to charge service fees 
to the awarding agencies for maintaining accounts and executing 
payments, until the awarding agencies indicate to HHS that the account 
can be closed. Thus, even though all grant funds have been disbursed, 
these grant accounts are continuing to cost the awarding agency through 
accumulated PMS service fees.[Footnote 13] Moreover, the presence of 
expired grant accounts at the awarding agency suggests more than a 
minor administrative oversight. It suggests that the final point of 
accountability for these grants, which includes such important tasks as 
the submission of financial and performance reports, was not completed. 

We identified a second set of accounts that included those expired 
accounts reported as still having an undisbursed balance.[Footnote 14] 
On the basis of our review of expired grant accounts with undisbursed 
balances, we found that, from March 2003 through March 2005, the 
quarterly totals of undisbursed funding ranged between an average of 14 
and 16 percent of the funding made available for the grants. However, 
from June 2005 through December 2006, the quarterly balances of 
undisbursed funding for these expired grants was near $1 billion, 
ranging between an average of 24 and 26 percent of the funds made 
available. These results are for grant accounts with specific time 
limits and do not include grant accounts that do not have specific time 
limits, such as TANF or Medicaid, because without a specific time 
limit, the grants, once awarded, do not expire. The PMS closeout data 
results described in the remainder of this report only pertain to the 
set of expired grant accounts with undisbursed balances, unless 
otherwise noted. 

Numerous Grant Programs Had Expired Grant Accounts Containing 
Undisbursed Funds: 

As stated previously, in 2006 PMS was the largest of the nine federal 
payment systems, handled about 70 percent of federal grant 
disbursements, and served nine federal civilian departments, an 
independent agency, a government corporation, and ONDCP. In analyzing 
the expired grant accounts with undisbursed balances in the PMS 
closeout data from 2003 through 2006, we found these accounts were not 
confined to a few federal awarding agencies, grant programs, or 
grantees. Instead we found, in 15 of the 16 quarters, at least four of 
the federal departments using PMS had over 100 expired grant accounts 
with undisbursed funding. Lastly, we found that over 325 different 
programs administered the expired grant accounts with undisbursed 
funding and that thousands of grantees were associated with these 
grants.[Footnote 15] 

We analyzed the quarterly balances of undisbursed funding over 4 
calendar years, from 2003 through 2006, according to four program 
characteristics: size of the funding originally made available to the 
grantee; whether program funding was awarded based on a formula or on a 
project basis; the grantee organization (entity) receiving the grant; 
and whether the program required the grantee to make a contribution to 
support the grant activity. We selected these four characteristics 
because they are fundamental elements of grant design that could be 
readily analyzed using the information from the PMS and the CFDA data 
sets. 

When we compared the undisbursed balances among the types within each 
of the four program characteristic categories, we found, for the first 
three characteristics, certain types of grants consistently had the 
largest quarterly balances. We found the largest quarterly balances of 
undisbursed funding to be consistently among expired grant accounts 
that had neither the smallest nor the largest funding awards, but 
rather in the mid-range of funding awards--that is, with funding awards 
from over $100,000 to $100 million. We found accounts with program 
funding awarded on a project basis had the largest undisbursed balances 
compared to those awarded on a formula basis. Lastly, we also found 
accounts with grants awarded to a state organization consistently had 
the largest undisbursed balances compared to other types of grantees. 
However, these results cannot be compared to the program 
characteristics of all closed federal grants or closed grants with 
payments processed through PMS from 2003 through 2006, due to the 
burden of collecting comparable data from eight other federal civilian 
payments systems or for all closed grants in PMS. Without comparative 
data, we cannot know whether the program characteristics for these 
expired grant accounts represented a disproportionate share, compared 
to all closed federal grants or all closed grants in PMS. Appendix I 
provides further information on our methodology and program 
characteristics findings. 

Grant Closeout Problems Attributed to Several Causes but Can Be 
Mitigated: 

In our review of past audit reports, we observed that the reports 
generally focused on expired grants in specific agencies or grant 
programs. We also found that, when taken together, they suggested the 
presence of undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts was a long- 
standing problem. We and agency Inspectors General (IG) have reported 
for years that specific grant programs or awarding agencies have had 
expired grant accounts with undisbursed funding. Moreover, by 
synthesizing the observations from these reports, we found that these 
grants shared common grants management problems. In recent years, three 
federal agencies, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Justice 
Programs (OJP), HHS's National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have made concerted efforts to 
improve their grant closeout processes. In 2006 and 2007, several 
auditors highlighted grants management problems as mission critical in 
their agency's Performance Accountability Report (PAR). In 2006, EPA 
went further and reported a financial performance measure to track the 
agency's progress in closing grants. 

Several Grant Management Issues Contribute to Closeout Problems: 

We have reported that the timely closeout of expired grants was a 
problem at various agencies over the past three decades.[Footnote 16] 
In two recent examples, we reported that the State Department's (DOS) 
United States Agency for International Development (a PMS customer) did 
not routinely follow prescribed closeout processes to identify and 
recover inappropriate expenditures or undisbursed funds[Footnote 17] 
and that EPA (an agency that does not use PMS) closed out only 37 
percent of grants in fiscal year 2005 within 180 days after the grant 
project ended as required by its own policy.[Footnote 18] IG reports 
identified a variety of awarding agencies or programs with closeout 
problems dating back to 2000. Maintaining undisbursed balances in 
expired grant accounts may prevent the deobligation of funding or 
expose the funding to improper spending or accounting. For example, the 
DOJ Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported in 2006 that $172 
million in undisbursed funding could have been deobligated and that 
several million dollars in funding used from expired grant accounts was 
either unallowable or unsupportable. 

Audit reports identified several awarding agencies or programs with 
closeout problems. They generally attributed the problems to 
inadequacies in awarding agencies' grant management processes, 
including closeouts as a low management priority, inconsistent closeout 
procedures, poorly timed communications with grantees, or insufficient 
compliance or enforcement. While we reviewed several audit reports 
examining closeout problems, this section summarizes examples from an 
HHS OIG and DOJ OIG report, and a GAO report on EPA--all issued within 
the last 3 years. 

Auditors indicated that grant closeouts were a low priority, at either 
the grantee organization or federal agency, which contributed to delays 
in grant closeouts. The audit reports described closeouts as a low 
priority in the context of staff-related issues. NIH and EPA reported 
that grantee staff resources were limited, staff were overburdened with 
other responsibilities, and staff considered grant closeout a low 
priority. NIH, DOJ, and EPA officials reported similar problems among 
agency grant staff. Staff turnover, at either the agency or the grantee 
organization, also led to lapses in the supervision of grants and the 
transfer of grant-specific information to new staff. Agency staff also 
reported that delaying grant closeout added to staff workload. For 
instance, NIH and EPA reported that as time elapsed it became more 
burdensome for staff to close out an expired account. 

Auditors noted that grant offices did not always have consistent grant 
closeout procedures, such as due dates for closeout completion. For 
example, we reported that EPA used closeouts to ensure that grant 
recipients had met all financial requirements and had provided final 
reports, and that any unexpended balances were returned to the agency. 
EPA's policy stated that closeouts should occur within 180 days after 
the grant's project end date. However, agency officials did not always 
comply with this policy--in fiscal year 2005 EPA closed out only 37 
percent of the grants within 180 days. In its 2006 report, the DOJ OIG 
reported that two of the three DOJ grant offices had a deadline for 
closing out grants, while the third office did not; that each of the 
three DOJ grant offices conducted the closeouts process differently; 
and that each office had undefined and undocumented "workarounds" that 
had evolved over time. 

Auditors reported that agency communication with grantees, either the 
content or the timing of the communication, also delayed grant 
closeouts. The communication of inconsistent policies and procedures 
contributed to grantee confusion, especially for grantees who work with 
multiple federal programs of offices. For instance, DOJ reported OJP 
grantees, especially those who dealt with multiple offices, were 
confused by the variation in language, time frames, requirements, and 
communications. Auditors found the mistiming of the agency closeout 
reminders, or the lack of such reminders, also contributed to delays in 
report submissions. For example, NIH reminded its grantees about their 
closeout reporting a year ahead of time, too far ahead to serve as a 
timely reminder. 

Lastly, auditors also noted awarding agencies were not enforcing their 
closeout requirements through the application of controls, corrective 
actions, or penalties. For example, EPA grant officials told GAO they 
had no realistic options for taking strong action against grantees, 
usually state governments, for submitting late reports because the 
states had continuing grants for environmental programs. The HHS OIG 
found NIH program guidelines provided few specifics about what type of 
corrective actions were appropriate and when the grant office should 
apply the actions. The OIG noted that NIH grant offices could impose 
special award conditions on the grantees, such as additional monitoring 
or withhold future funding. However, the OIG found that grant officials 
rarely resorted to withholding future funding from a grantee due to 
late closeout because agency officials thought this penalty too severe 
and would slow down future project development. 

Three Agencies Took Action to Improve Grant Closeouts: 

In response to auditors' concerns, three federal agencies, DOJ's OJP, 
HHS's NIH, and EPA, undertook actions to improve their grant closeout 
processes. To varying degrees, the agencies' actions included elevating 
grant closeouts to a higher agency priority in order to improve 
monitoring, standardization of procedures, communications with 
grantees, compliance, or enforcement, or a combination of the above. 
Auditors reported that when federal grant managers took these actions, 
agencies generally improved the timeliness of grant closeouts, reduced 
grant closeout backlogs, or improved their ability to identify and 
deobligate unspent funds from expired grants, or a combination of the 
above. 

In 2000, DOJ's OJP initiated a pilot project called "Operation 
Closeout" to deal with grant closeout backlogs. The agency reported 
that this initiative accelerated the grant closeout process through 
revised closeout guidelines and elevated the importance of the closeout 
function as a required procedure in the administration of grants. Over 
a period of 6 months, "Operation Closeout" closed 4,136 grants, 
resulting in over $30 million in deobligated funds.[Footnote 19] In 
2006, the DOJ OIG reported that since 2002 grant closeout was a higher 
priority within DOJ and that its awarding agencies made improvements in 
the timeliness of grant closeouts.[Footnote 20] For example, from 2001 
to 2005, OJP reduced its backlog of expired grants from 11,356 to 
6,237. The report also indicated that OJP was recommending, among 
several recommendations, establishing a performance measure to monitor 
efficiency and compliance with its closeout process. In 2006, the DOJ 
OIG also reported that OJP updated the grant monitoring requirements in 
its Grant Manager's Manual, automated its Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN) 
process, shortened its timeline for closeouts from 180 days to 120 
days, and addressed the backlog of grants overdue for closure. By 
automating the GAN process, auditors reported that OJP reduced the time 
to respond to grant adjustment requests by 10 days and planned to 
notify grantees of decisions regarding grant adjustment requests 
through the Grants Management System (GMS). OJP required that its grant 
staff conduct and document all its programmatic monitoring efforts in 
GMS.[Footnote 21] 

To address its grant closeout problems, NIH undertook several 
corrective actions in 2002 and 2003. The agency stated that it 
continued to emphasize to grantees that the submission of final 
closeout reports was an agency priority and improve agency monitoring. 
To address its backlog of expired accounts and reduce the burden on 
monitoring staff, NIH management assigned dedicated staff to resolving 
the backlog of accounts. Corrective actions included creating a 
database to track receipt of final reports, which allowed NIH to send 
individualized reminders to grantees of outstanding reports. Another 
planned action was to provide technical assistance to grantees through 
general outreach efforts or through targeted follow-up with individual 
grantees. NIH also established a workgroup and a reminder system to 
improve grantee compliance with its closeout guidelines.[Footnote 22] 

Between 1995 and 2005, EPA efforts led to substantial progress in 
resolving its backlog of expired grants. By 2005, the agency nearly 
eliminated its backlog of over 23,000 expired grants accumulated 
between 1999 and 2003. To continue its efforts and to hold program 
managers more accountable for grants management, EPA developed a 
corrective action plan. EPA planned to require all managers and 
supervisors to complete online grants management training; require 
baseline monitoring for all grants documented in the agency's 
Integrated Grants Management System; and integrate grants with 
financial data and eliminate duplicate data entry. This plan also 
included incorporating grants management performance measures into the 
performance standards of project officers, supervisors, and managers 
with grants management responsibilities.[Footnote 23] 

Agencies' Performance and Accountability Reports Address Grant 
Closeouts: 

In 2006 and 2007, eight agencies highlighted grants management problems 
as a management challenge or concern in their agency's PAR to the 
President and Congress.[Footnote 24] Moreover, DOJ, HHS, and EPA 
reported to the President and Congress that timely grant closeout was a 
long-standing grants management challenge.[Footnote 25] In the 2006 DOJ 
and HHS PARs, both the IG and the independent auditor[Footnote 26] 
specifically addressed grant closeout problems and agency progress in 
addressing the problems. In each case, the IG listed grant closeouts as 
contributing to the department's difficulties with grants management at 
several of its agencies. In response, the departments described both 
agency-level and departmentwide initiatives to address the problems. In 
HHS's 2006 PAR, the independent auditors reported the department had 
more than 64,000 grants, with a remaining balance of $1.6 billion, 
eligible for closeout, and that 75 percent of these grants had been 
expired for more than 2 years. In the HHS 2007 Agency Financial Report, 
[Footnote 27] the HHS Inspector General continued to cite grant 
management, and specifically grant closeouts, as a management 
challenge. In DOJ's 2006 and 2007 PAR, the independent auditors 
highlighted the IGs findings and explained that the closeout delays 
contributed to misstatements in the department's financial statements. 
In its 2007 PAR, DOJ cited grant management process improvements by 
several of its program offices but also stated that grant management 
and closeout continued to be a major challenge. 

In our review of the 2006 EPA PAR, we found that EPA had a financial 
performance measure--the percentage of eligible grants closed out-- 
specifically to track the agency's progress in closing grants. The EPA 
assessed its performance by calculating the percent of grants closed 
out in the current year that had a "project end date" in the previous 
year. In 2005, EPA had goal of 90 percent grant closure, and it 
reported in its 2006 PAR achieving a 95 percent grant closure rate. In 
2006, we concluded that, while EPA's performance measure did not assess 
compliance since it did not reflect the 180-day closeout standard, the 
measure was a valuable tool for determining if grants were ultimately 
closed.[Footnote 28] As indicated earlier, EPA also planned to 
incorporate its grant performance measures into performance standards 
for its grants professionals. 

EPA's 2007 PAR reported that the agency had successfully put into place 
grant management process improvements to correct long-standing problems 
identified by GAO and the OIG. EPA is also developing a new Grants 
Management Plan that will go into effect in 2008 to replace and update 
the plan established in 2003. Also in 2007, the EPA OIG removed the 
agency's use of assistance agreements, including grants, from its list 
of EPA's management challenges. The OIG attributed the removal of these 
agreements from its list of management challenges to the substantial 
actions EPA had taken to improve its management of these agreements. 
The OIG noted that EPA planned to evaluate implementation of its new 
policies and the OIG would continue to monitor the agency's corrective 
actions in this management area. 

As previously discussed, OMB Circulars No. A-102 and No. A-110 
establish standards for consistency and uniformity among federal 
agencies in the administration of grants through the preaward, 
postaward, and closeout phases of the grant life cycle, and Circulars 
No. A-11 and No. A-136 provide agencies with guidance on preparing and 
submitting their PARs in terms of performance and financial 
accountability. However, in our review of these circulars as well as 
selected agency regulations,[Footnote 29] we found no explicit 
instruction to agencies to track or report on undisbursed balances 
remaining in expired grant accounts. 

Although not explicitly directed to do so by the OMB circulars, we 
found that the inclusion of undisbursed balances in expired grant 
accounts in a department or agency's GPRA documents--as has been done 
by DOJ, HHS, and EPA--has the potential to raise the internal and 
external visibility of the problem. As we reported in 2004, developing 
strategic plans and reporting on progress toward performance goals can 
lead to cultural changes within an agency.[Footnote 30] The focus on 
results can also stimulate internal problem solving and discussions 
about performance. Externally, OMB and Congress use GPRA documents, 
like the PAR, in discussions of agency performance and resource 
allocation. 

Conclusion: 

The existence of undisbursed grant balances in expired grant accounts 
may hinder the achievement of program objectives, limit deobligating 
funding for other uses, and expose the funding to improper spending or 
accounting. Our analysis showed that, taken together, quarterly 
undisbursed balances for expired grant accounts in HHS's Payment 
Management System--which in 2006 handled about 70 percent of all 
federal grant disbursements--can be significant. Audit reports from 
agencies not participating in PMS indicate they also have expired 
grants with undisbursed balances. Data analysis of grant accounts in 
other federal payment systems may reveal additional expired grants with 
undisbursed balances. 

In reviewing audit reports for three agencies, we found that grant 
closeouts processes can improve when given a high priority and the 
agency addresses the multiple causes in a concerted fashion. The 
financial status of long-expired grant accounts is one aspect of agency 
performance that has implications for broader program and agency-level 
performance. By elevating this issue as a management priority in their 
annual performance plans and PARs, the three agencies made grant 
closeouts a priority for improving program and agency-wide performance. 
However, OMB circulars relating to grants management and performance 
reporting do not currently instruct federal agencies to track and 
annually report on undisbursed funding in expired grant accounts. Given 
the federal government's constrained fiscal position, the executive 
branch could minimize undisbursed funding in expired grant accounts if 
OMB instructed federal awarding agencies to use its federal financial 
information systems and GPRA's performance-reporting infrastructure to 
track and annually report this information. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Director, OMB, instruct all executive departments 
and independent agencies to take the following two actions: (1) 
annually track the amount of undisbursed grant funding remaining in 
expired grant accounts; and (2) report on the status and resolution of 
the undisbursed funding in their annual performance plan and report in 
their annual PAR on: 

* the amount of undisbursed grant funding in expired grant accounts, 

* why these funds were undisbursed, 

* the actions taken to resolve the undisbursed funding and close the 
expired grants and related accounts, and: 

* outcomes associated with these actions. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to OMB and HHS for review and 
comment. HHS replied via e-mail and had no substantive comments. OMB 
responded with written comments, which we have reprinted in appendix 
III. 

OMB said it supported the intent of our recommendations to strengthen 
grants management by explicitly requiring federal agencies to track and 
report the amount of undisbursed grant funding remaining in expired 
grant accounts and that it believes agencies should design processes 
with strong internal controls to promote effective funds management for 
all types of obligations. OMB's comments did not indicate a commitment 
to implement our recommendations. OMB stated that, during its regular 
review, it would consider revising its grants management guidance, 
Circulars A-102, Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local 
Government, and A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants 
and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, 
and Other Nonprofit Organizations, to include instructions for agency 
grant managers to track and report this information. OMB added that it 
does not favor having agencies report on these balances in their PARs 
and so would not offer instructions under its performance reporting 
guidance, Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements. 

We agree that OMB should have discretion in instructing departments and 
agencies on how to track and report undisbursed balances in expired 
grant accounts. Our draft report recommended OMB instruct agencies to 
annually track and report in their PARs the amount of undisbursed 
expired grant balances. As we reported, some federal agencies such as 
EPA, HHS, and DOJ have already voluntarily included in their annual 
PARs their actions to track and reduce undisbursed balances in expired 
grant accounts. We found that such reporting had raised the internal 
and external visibility of the challenge and that these agencies had 
improved their performance. Accordingly, we continue to believe that 
the PARs would be appropriate vehicles to address on a governmentwide 
basis the issue of undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts. Such 
reporting may not be necessary for every department or agency, every 
year. Should it choose, OMB could always attenuate its requirements by 
setting a threshold as part of its instructions for reporting these 
balances in the PARs. 

We will send copies of this report to the congressional committees with 
jurisdiction over HHS and its activities, the Secretary of HHS, and the 
Director of OMB. We will also make copies available to others upon 
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the 
GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 
512-6806 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 
appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

Stanley J. Czerwinski: 
Director, Strategic Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, Methodology, and Additional Information 
on Program Characteristics: 

Our objectives were to address the following: (1) to what extent are 
there undisbursed grant balances in expired grant accounts and do they 
share any program characteristics?; and (2) do these expired grants 
share grant management challenges and what actions have federal 
agencies taken to improve grant closeout and diminish undisbursed 
balances? In the course of our work, we did not evaluate the 
implementation of closeout procedures for any specific grant program or 
awarding agency. The following describes the various procedures we 
undertook to answer these objectives. 

Review of Relevant OMB Circulars and Federal Regulations: 

We began our study by reviewing the key federal guidelines on grant 
closeouts: Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars No. A-102, 
Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments, and 
No. A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other 
Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other 
Non-Profit Organizations. Since the President directed executive branch 
departments to adopt these OMB circulars in their regulations, we also 
reviewed applicable regulations for eight executive departments (the 
Departments of Agriculture [USDA], Education (Education), Energy 
[DOE]), Health and Human Services [HHS], Housing and Urban Development 
[HUD], Justice [DOJ], Labor [DOL], and State [DOS]), the Social 
Security Administration (SSA), and the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) to identify any differences in grant closeout guidelines between 
the OMB circulars and the agency regulations. We selected these agency 
regulations for review because a recent audit had indicated that either 
a grantee or program had problems with grant closeouts. To identify 
federal governmentwide guidance relating to federal agency performance 
reporting, we reviewed OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission 
and Execution of the Budget and Circular No. A-136, Financial Reporting 
Requirements. 

Collection and Review of Related Audit Reports and PARs: 

To identify what other auditors found and recommended as strategies to 
diminish unspent funds in expired grant accounts, we interviewed 
various grant program experts from GAO and federal Offices of 
Inspectors General (OIG),[Footnote 31] as well as experts from the 
National Grants Management Association (NGMA), and the National 
Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers (NASACT). We 
also conducted a Web-based literature search for related audit reports 
and reviewed over 150 reports issued by GAO and various federal OIGs 
and independent agencies from 2000 to 2006 to identify some common 
grants management problems related to closing expired grants. During 
the 2000 to 2006 period, auditors issued reports to the following 
departments or independent agencies regarding either a grantee or 
program with grant management problems relating to closing expired 
grants: USDA, Education, DOE, HHS, HUD, DOJ, DOL, DOS, SSA, and EPA. We 
reviewed the 2006 and 2007 Performance and Accountability Reports (PAR) 
from EPA and the 15 cabinet-level executive departments[Footnote 32] to 
determine whether grant management, specifically timely grant closeouts 
and undisbursed balances from expired grants, were identified as a 
problem, and strategies agencies were employing to address the problem. 

Analysis of Expired Grant Account Data from PMS: 

To identify the amount of undisbursed funding remaining in expired 
grants, we collected and analyzed data from HHS's Payment Management 
System (PMS) and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Catalog 
of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). This section describes these two 
data systems, our collection of selected data from each system, our 
analysis of the data collected, and the results for the program 
characteristics analysis. 

Description of Payment Management System: 

PMS is a centralized grants payment and cash management system, 
operated by HHS's Program Support Center (PSC) in the Division of 
Payment Management (DPM). According to DPM, the main purpose of PMS is 
to serve as the fiscal intermediary between awarding agencies and the 
recipients of grants and contracts. Its main objectives are to expedite 
the flow of cash between the federal government and recipients; 
transmit recipient disbursement data back to the awarding agencies; and 
manage cash flow advances to grant recipients. 

PMS is the largest of the nine civilian federal payment systems and 
executes payments for nine federal departments, one independent agency, 
a government corporation and the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
(ONDCP), which, in 2006, represented about 70 percent of all federal 
grant disbursements. According to HHS, PMS is a full-service 
centralized grants payment and cash management system. The system is 
fully automated to receive payment requests, edit them for accuracy and 
content, transmit the payment to either the Federal Reserve Bank or the 
U.S. Treasury for deposit into the grantee's bank account, and record 
the payment transactions and corresponding disbursements to the 
appropriate account(s). 

Appendix II lists the current PMS customers. A few statistics help to 
illustrate the volume of PMS's payment processing. In 2006, PMS 
processed over $320 billion in payments to grant recipients. As of June 
2007, according to an HHS official, PMS contained over 200,000 open 
grants. Cumulatively, the grants executing payments through PMS 
represent a significant amount of funding--open grants in PMS, as of 
May 2007, represented over $1.3 trillion in total funding. Over the 
years, PMS has executed payments for tens of thousands of grantees. 

The DPM described its role, in operating the PMS, as an intermediary 
between awarding agencies and grant recipients. DPM personnel operate 
PMS, making payments to grant recipients, maintaining user/recipient 
liaison, and reporting disbursement data to awarding agencies. Awarding 
agencies' responsibilities include PMS registration of grant recipients 
(DPM personnel perform this function for cross-serviced agencies), 
entry of authorization data into PMS, programs and grants monitoring, 
grant closeout, and reconciliation of their accounting records to the 
PMS information. Awarding agencies pay HHS a service fee for 
maintaining accounts and executing payments through PMS. PMS continues 
to charge agency customers a servicing fee until an account is closed. 

Several federal agencies collaborate with HHS in executing grant 
payments including the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve Bank. 
According to DPM, the U.S. Department of the Treasury is responsible 
for establishing cash management policies, operating the Government On- 
Line Accounting Link System and the electronic system for processing of 
payments, check payments, and certain transactions. The Federal Reserve 
Bank's responsibilities include direct deposit payments to payees'/ 
recipients' bank accounts. 

HHS documentation indicated that other public and private organizations 
also have roles in executing payments, including the grant recipients 
and their financial institutions. Grantee responsibilities include 
executing grants, reporting cash disbursements to PMS, and maintaining 
their own accounting records. The grantee's financial institutions are 
responsible for receiving payments for credit to recipient accounts, 
and maintaining recipient bank accounts. 

An independent auditor assessed PMS in 2006. The auditor reported that 
DPM's internal controls were suitably designed and tested to provide 
reasonable assurance that control objectives, including proper payments 
and remittances, and accurate reporting, were met.[Footnote 33] 

Collection and Reliability Testing of PMS Closeout Data: 

To identify the status of undisbursed balances in expired grant 
accounts, we narrowed our focus to grants executing their payments 
through PMS. The awarding agencies provide the descriptive information 
for each grant account to PMS. The data set for each grant account 
contains over 900 unique data fields. One of the required data fields 
in each PMS account record is the CFDA number for the assistance 
program that is associated with each account. 

Each quarter, PMS distributes to its customers a "closeout" report 
listing the expired grant accounts that, according to the data system, 
have not completed all of their closeout procedures. HHS listed an 
account on a quarterly PMS closeout report if both the latest end date 
for the account was 3 months old and the latest date of disbursement 
was 9 months old. PMS does not close a grant account until instructed 
to do so by the awarding agency. For each grant account, the report 
includes such information as the identification number, the amount of 
funding authorized for the grant, the amount charged, and the beginning 
and end dates for the grant. 

We initially requested that HHS provide PMS quarterly closeout reports 
for the period 2000 through 2006, then narrowed our focus to the 2003 
through 2006 period. As part of the data request, we requested that HHS 
append to the closeout data additional information available in PMS for 
each grant account: the CFDA numbers and the type of grantee 
organization. Having the associated CFDA number for each grant account 
enabled us to link the grant account information in the closeout report 
with the associated program information as listed in the catalog. 

To test the reliability of PMS closeout data, we (1) reviewed existing 
documentation related to PMS, including the most recent system audit by 
the independent auditor, (2) interviewed officials responsible for 
administration of the database on data entry and editing procedures and 
the production of closeout reports, and (3) conducted electronic 
testing for obvious errors in completeness and accuracy. We worked 
closely with HHS officials responsible for the administration of the 
database and the production of the closeout reports. When we found 
discrepancies, we brought them to the attention of the agency officials 
and worked with them to make corrections before the analyses began. For 
example, our testing revealed that there were accounts in the PMS 
closeout data sets that: had CFDA numbers that did not match existing 
CFDA numbers; were for nongrant programs that were not intended to be 
entered into the grant payment system; and were for grants that did not 
have a defined expiration date. We excluded these extraneous entries 
from our analysis. After conducting these assessment steps, we found 
that the closeout data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 
this report. 

Description of Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance: 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) is the single 
authoritative, governmentwide compendium and source document for 
descriptions of federal programs that provide assistance or benefits to 
the American public. According to GSA, the catalog does not include 
solicited contracts; foreign activities that do not benefit the 
domestic economy; personnel recruitment programs; benefits or 
assistance only available for federal employees; new programs that do 
not have enacted appropriations; or inactive programs with expired 
authorization or appropriation. 

OMB created the catalog pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act 
[Footnote 34] to ensure that comprehensive information on federal 
assistance programs was readily available to the public and interested 
parties. Later amended in November 1983,[Footnote 35] revised 
guidelines transferred the responsibilities of the Federal Program 
Information Act from OMB to GSA. OMB serves as an intermediary agent 
between federal agencies and GSA, with oversight responsibility for the 
necessary collection of program data. 

OMB Circular No. A-89 provides the federal guidelines for the 
collection and dissemination of the program information. GSA is 
responsible for maintaining and distributing CFDA information. By law, 
federal agencies submit program data to OMB for review. OMB reviews the 
information and provides any comments to and obtains updates and 
clarifications from the agency. OMB then submits each program 
description to GSA, which incorporates these submissions into the CFDA. 
According to a GSA official, GSA does not verify the accuracy of the 
information that the federal agencies provide for the program 
description. Each federal agency is responsible for assuring, among 
other things, the adequacy and timeliness of program information 
submitted to OMB. 

The law authorizing CFDA required that GSA establish and maintain a 
computerized retrieval system capable of identifying all existing 
federal domestic assistance programs. GSA now maintains the 
comprehensive database information on all federal domestic assistance 
programs. Information about these programs is made available to the 
public through periodic update and annual issuance of the catalog. 
Until 2006, GSA distributed printed copies of the CFDA for free. GSA's 
free CFDA Web site [hyperlink, http://www.cfda.gov] is now the 
principal means of distributing the catalog. This Web site enables 
users to download an electronic file of the catalog or search its 
contents online. CFDA program description contains a wealth of 
financial and nonfinancial information, including program objectives, 
type of programs assistance provided, applicant eligibility 
requirements, and guidance on how to apply for assistance. 

Collection and Reliability Testing of CFDA Data: 

To identify expired grants in PMS and two of the four program 
characteristics analyzed--funding award method and the contribution 
requirement--we obtained the October 2006 CFDA as an electronic data 
file from the GSA. We were able to crosswalk the CFDA program data to 
the PMS data using the CFDA number. The CFDA number is a five-digit 
number assigned to each assistance program listed in the catalog. In 
creating a grant account in PMS, HHS requires the awarding agencies to 
enter the CFDA number for the assistance program that is funding the 
grant. At our request, HHS appended the CFDA number to each of the 
accounts listed in the quarterly PMS closeout data given to GAO. We 
used information from the catalog to identify those grants that had 
specific time limits, and thus, that we could consider "expired" once 
the period of availability had ended. We also used CFDA program 
information to identify the type of funding award method (project or 
formula-based), and whether a grantee was required to contribute 
resources, such as matching funds, to the grant project. 

According to a GSA official, GSA does not verify the accuracy of the 
program description information submitted by the awarding agency for 
the catalog. To test the reliability of CFDA data, we selected a random 
sample of 25 CFDA program descriptions and compared selected 
information from the CFDA program description to the same program 
information from other federal sources. Specifically, we checked the 
reliability of six data fields: the CFDA number, awarding agency, 
program name, funding award method, contribution requirement and the 
period of availability of the grant. As we found only one discrepancy 
for one of six data fields, we can be 95 percent confident that fewer 
than 17.6 percent of cases in the catalog contain discrepancies between 
the electronic catalog and information available from other federal 
sources for these fields. We thus determined the selected CFDA data 
used in our analyses were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 
this report. 

Expired Grant Accounts Included in and Excluded from Analyses: 

Prior to conducting the analysis of the 2003 through 2006 expired 
grants in PMS, we excluded extraneous accounts that appeared in the 
closeout data. The purpose of these exclusions was to avoid including 
accounts that might unduly distort the results on undisbursed funds in 
expired PMS grant accounts. 

We included accounts that were associated with grants or cooperative 
agreements. We excluded accounts if we could not associate them with a 
grant program. For instance, we found some PMS accounts were for 
nongrants. We also decided to exclude accounts that lacked a CFDA 
number, since without this number we could not verify that the account 
was for a grant or obtain other information used in our analyses. 

We included grant accounts that had a time limit for spending the funds 
made available and a zero or positive undisbursed balance. As described 
by HHS staff, the purpose of the PMS closeout report is to alert 
awarding agencies of accounts in PMS that remain open after their 
posted end date. If a grant does not have a defined end date, such as 
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), then HHS staff 
consider the PMS closeout report merely as a reminder to the awarding 
agency of the open account and that PMS continues to charge fees on 
this open account. We identified "expired" grants, grants that had 
defined end dates, by conducting a content analysis of their associated 
CFDA program descriptions. Through the content analysis we identified 
26 grant programs (HHS and non-HHS), and associated PMS grant accounts, 
where the CFDA program description indicated no time limit on the 
availability of grant funding, and excluded these grant accounts from 
our analysis. 

We included grant accounts that met the previous criteria and also had 
a readily identifiable CFDA number. We found well over 100 CFDA numbers 
listed for grant accounts in PMS that did not have a program 
description in the October 2006 edition of the CFDA. We searched the 
1999 to 2005 editions of the CFDA and the catalog's historical index to 
find the program descriptions for these CFDA numbers. We excluded an 
account if we could not find any information on the CFDA number either 
in the CFDA or in the CFDA Historical Index, or if the CFDA number and 
program description had been deleted from the catalog before the 1999 
edition of the CFDA. We excluded these grant accounts associated with 
very old CFDA numbers because pre-1999 catalogs are not readily 
available, making it unduly burdensome to obtain program information. 
We also excluded accounts in the 2003 through 2004 PMS closeout data if 
their associated CFDA numbers (1) were not in the 1999 through 2006 
CFDAs, and (2) the accounts associated with the CFDA number did not 
have a cumulative undisbursed balance of greater than $100,000 for two 
consecutive quarters. We felt that, where the cumulative amounts of 
undisbursed funding for the accounts associated with these CFDA numbers 
were less than 0.1 percent of the quarterly totals and, by 2005, were 
at or near zero, it was unduly burdensome to collect the CFDA program 
information that was more than 7 years out of date. 

We also excluded expired accounts for several block grants in keeping 
with the 2006 independent audit of PMS which stated that (1) the funds 
for these block grants continued to be available to the grantees until 
the obligation/expenditure period expired, and (2) traditional 
financial reporting requirements do not apply to these programs. We 
excluded expired grant accounts associated with the following HHS block 
grant programs from our analysis based on this audit: Community Mental 
Health Services Block Grant, Preventive Health and Health Services 
Block Grant, Substance Abuse and Preventive Treatment Block Grant, 
Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant, Social Services Block 
Grant, Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Block Grant, and Community 
Services Block Grant. 

To summarize, our reported results describe accounts listed in PMS's 
quarterly closeout reports from 2003 through 2006, that: 

* were grants or cooperative agreements; 

* had a time limit for spending; 

* had a zero or positive undisbursed balance; 

* had a readily identifiable CFDA number; 

* had a program description in the 1999 through 2006 CFDAs; and: 

* did not have special financial reporting procedures. 

Analysis of the PMS and CFDA Data to Quantify Undisbursed Funding in 
Expired Grant Accounts and Related Program Characteristics: 

Having excluded the extraneous accounts, we analyzed the 2003 through 
2006 payment closeout data as a complete set of current PMS customers, 
rather than analyzing specific federal agencies or grant programs. When 
we analyzed the quarterly PMS closeout data for the 2003 through 2006 
period, we identified two sets of expired grants accounts. One set 
consisted of expired accounts for which all of the funds made available 
had been disbursed, but still had not been closed. We identified a 
second set of accounts that included those expired accounts reported 
with a positive undisbursed balance. Most of our analysis focused on 
those expired accounts with undisbursed balances. For each quarter we 
totaled the amount of undisbursed funding in the expired grant 
accounts, without adjusting the amounts for inflation. 

To identify common program characteristics of the expired grants with 
undisbursed balances, we conducted further analysis by linking data 
from the PMS closeout reports to selected program information from the 
CFDA. We identified four program characteristics for analysis: size of 
the funding award originally made available to the grantee; whether 
program funding was awarded based on a formula or on a competitive, 
project-by-project basis; the grantee organization (entity) receiving 
the grant; and whether the program required the grantee to make a 
contribution to support the grant activity. We selected these four 
characteristics because they are fundamental elements of grant design 
that could be readily analyzed using the information from the PMS and 
the CFDA data sets. While grant programs have other fundamental design 
characteristics such as the purpose of the program (e.g., grant funds 
are to be used for construction or providing services), they could not 
be as readily analyzed. PMS grant closeout data provided the data on 
grant funding size and grantee organization. The CFDA data provided 
information for the funding award method and the contribution 
requirement. 

We began our analyses by sorting the expired grants with undisbursed 
balances into 13 ranges of funding award size. These ranges were used 
because the average percentage of funds undisbursed were similar from 
quarter to quarter and minimally overlapped with the average percent 
for an adjacent range, reflecting natural breaks in the data analysis. 
The ranges varied from relatively small grants of under $25,000 to very 
large grants of up to $1 billion. For each funding range, we identified 
the quarterly balances of undisbursed funds for each of the 16 quarters 
from 2003 through 2006. 

We next sorted the expired grants with undisbursed balances according 
to the method used to award the funds to grantees. As described 
earlier, federal awarding agencies typically award their grant funding 
using a formula or on a project basis, or by using a hybrid of both 
methods. Our guideline in sorting by funding award method was that if a 
program description had more than one allocation method, we sorted the 
grant according to the first allocation method listed in the CFDA 
program description. Using this information, we found that of 328 
unique grant programs in the 2003 through 2006 PMS closeout data with 
positive undisbursed balances, 54 were awarded on a formula basis and 
274 were awarded on a project basis. 

Next, we analyzed the expired grants with undisbursed balances 
according to the type of grantee organization receiving the grant. For 
the grant organization characteristic, we collapsed the organization 
types used in PMS into six types (state, county, city, domestic 
nonprofit, domestic for-profit, and other). 

Lastly, we compared the quarterly undisbursed funding balances for 
those expired grants that required some form of grantee contribution to 
those that did not. As described in the CFDA, grant program regulations 
can require grantees to contribute some form of resources to support 
grant-related activities, such as requiring the grantee to provide 
matching funds, share in the costs, or provide in-kind contributions. 
We sorted grants as having required contribution if the CFDA program 
description indicated grantees were required to contribute some form of 
resources to support grant-related activities, such as requiring the 
grantee to provide matching funds, share in the costs, or provide in- 
kind contributions. 

For each program characteristic, we totaled the undisbursed funding 
according to the various types within each characteristic category. For 
example, for the method of funding award characteristic there were two 
types, project or formula-based. All of the program characteristic 
results are in comparison to other types of grants in the same 
characteristic category, such as sizes of grant authorizations or type 
of funding award method. 

Expired Grant Accounts with Largest Undisbursed Balances Share Program 
Characteristics: 

When we compared the undisbursed balances among the types within each 
of the four program characteristic categories, we found certain types 
of grants consistently had the largest quarterly balances. Among the 13 
funding award ranges, we found the largest quarterly balances of 
undisbursed funds in midsize grants, that had original funding awards 
ranging from over $100,000 to $100 million (in nominal dollars) for 
expired grants from 2003 through 2006. We also found that, between the 
two funding awards methods, grants awarded on a project basis 
consistently had the largest quarterly balances of undisbursed funding 
and that, among the six types of grantees, state grantees had the 
largest quarterly amounts of undisbursed funding, followed distantly by 
nonprofit organizations. When comparing grants requiring a grantee 
contribution and those grants that did not have this requirement--the 
fourth characteristic examined--we found that neither type had 
consistently larger quarterly amounts of undisbursed funding. 

Our analysis has several limitations. First, each analysis of the 
quarterly undisbursed funding by program characteristic was an 
independent assessment of the variation in undisbursed funding among 
expired grant accounts. Consequently, the results for each program 
characteristic cannot be combined into a general statement about the 
four characteristics. Second, the results are limited to the expired 
grant accounts with undisbursed grants balances listed in the PMS 
closeout report from 2003 through 2006. We were not able to compare 
these results to all closed federal grants or all closed grants in PMS 
due to the burden of collecting comparable data for all closed federal 
grants from the eight other federal civilian payments systems or for 
all closed grants from PMS. Lastly, we did not interview policy experts 
or agency grant managers to explore why expired grants with different 
program characteristics might have larger undisbursed balances. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Federal Agencies Using PMS: 

The following is a list of the nine federal departments, one office 
within the Executive Office of the President, the independent agency, 
and the government corporation served by the Department of Health and 
Human Services' (HHS) Division of Payment Management, Payment 
Management System (PMS), as of August 2007: 

Department of Health and Human Services: 

* Administration for Children and Families: 

* Administration on Aging: 

* Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: 

* Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 

* Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, legacy Health Care 
Financing Administration: 

* Food and Drug Administration: 

* Health Resources and Services Administration: 

* Indian Health Service: 

* National Institutes of Health: 

* Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: 

Department of Agriculture: 

* Agricultural Research Service: 

* Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service: 

* Food Safety and Inspection Service: 

* Forest Service: 

Department of Energy: 

* Schenectady Naval Reactors Office: 

Department of Homeland Security: 

* Customs and Border Protection, legacy Customs: 

* Emergency Preparedness and Response, legacy Federal Emergency 
Management Agency: 

* Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

Department of the Interior: 

* National Park Service: 

* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 

* U.S. Geological Survey: 

Department of Labor: 

* Bureau of Labor Statistics: 

* Employment and Training Administration: 

* Mine Safety and Health Administration: 

* Occupational Safety and Health Administration: 

* Veterans' Employment and Training Service: 

Department of State: 

* Bureau of Administration, Office of Overseas Schools): 

* Bureau of African Affairs: 

* Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor: 

* Bureau of Diplomatic Security: 

* Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs: 

* Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs: 

* Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Fulbright Commission, 
Europe: 

* Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Fulbright Commission, 
Western Hemisphere: 

* Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Fulbright Commission, 
East Asia: 

* Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Fulbright Commission, 
Near East/South Asia: 

* Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, legacy U.S. Information 
Agency: 

* Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs: 

* Bureau of Human Resources: 

* Bureau of Intelligence and Research: 

* Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs: 

* Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs: 

* Bureau of Nonproliferation: 

* Bureau of Nonproliferation, Office of Export Control Cooperation: 

* Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental Scientific Affairs: 

* Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Humanitarian Demining 
Programs: 

* Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration: 

* Bureau of South Asian Affairs: 

* The United States Agency for International Development: 

Department of the Treasury: 

* Community Development Financial Institution Fund: 

* Internal Revenue Service: 

* Office of Financial Institutions: 

Department of Veterans Affairs: 

* Health Care for Homeless Veterans: 

* National Cemetery Administration: 

* Veterans Health Administration: 

Executive Office of the President: 

* Office of National Drug Control Policy: 

Independent federal agencies: 

* National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

* Ames Research Center: 

* Dryden Flight Research Center: 

* Goddard Space Flight Center: 

* Johnson Space Center: 

* Kennedy Space Center: 

* Langley Research Center: 

* Marshall Space Flight Center: 

* Stennis Space Center: 

Government corporations: 

* Corporation for National and Community Service: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget: 

Executive Office Of The President: 
Office Of Management And Budget: 
Washington, D.C. 20503: 

August 8, 2008: 

Mr. Thomas M. James: 
Assistant Director, Strategic Issues: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 
Dear Mr. James: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review, and provide you with the 
comments of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding, the 
draft GAO report entitled, Attention Needed to Address Undisbursed 
Balances In Expired Grant Accounts. We appreciate GAO's focus on this 
issue. 

OMB supports the intent of GAO's recommendation to strengthen grants 
management by explicitly requiring Federal agencies to track and report 
the amount of undisbursed grant funding that remains in expired grant 
accounts. In the draft report, GAO recommends that OMB include such 
instructions for agency grant managers in OMB Grant Circulars A-110 (2 
CFR Part 115), Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other 
Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other 
Non-Profit Organizations, and A-102, Grants and Cooperative Agreements 
With State and Local Government. OMB will take this recommendation into 
consideration during our regular review of these circulars. 

The draft report also recommends that OMB revise Circular A-136, 
Financial Reporting Requirements, to mandate on the agencies 
prescriptive reporting requirements that would capture undisbursed 
grants obligation amounts in an agency's Performance and Accountability 
Report (PAR). We do not believe that such prescriptive reporting is the 
optimal way to achieve the desired results. Instead, we believe that 
agencies should design processes with strong internal controls to 
promote effective funds management for all types of obligations. 

Given its government-wide application, Circular A-136 is designed to 
address all aspects of financial management for a multitude of agencies 
with very diverse missions and practices. For this reason, rather than 
providing agencies with prescriptive, rule-based guidance, the Circular 
sets forth principle-based guidance that gives each agency the 
necessary flexibility to tailor its implementation of these principles 
so as to meet the agency's unique situations. If, by contrast, OMB 
required all agencies to follow prescriptive guidance that addresses 
issues that are of relevance only for certain agencies, the Federal 
Government would have a financial reporting environment that is overly 
complex and that would impose additional burdens and costs on agencies 
that would not be justified in terms of benefits from improved 
financial reporting. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review the draft report and 
provide you with our comments. If you have any additional questions or 
comments, please feel free to contact Ms. Carrie Hug, Chief, Financial 
Standards and Grants Branch, Office of Federal Financial Management at 
202-395-3993. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Danny Werfel: 
Deputy Controller: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Stanley J. Czerwinski, (202) 512-6806: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Thomas James, Assistant 
Director; Patricia Farrell Donahue, Analyst-in-Charge; Carlos Diz; 
Wesley Dunn; Sharon Hogan; Elizabeth Hosler; Susan Mak; Anna Maria 
Ortiz; Neill Martin-Rolsky; Minette Richardson; Jay Smale; and William 
Trancucci made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Office of Management and Budget, 2000 Federal Financial Management 
Report (Washington, D.C., 2000); 2007 Federal Financial Management 
Report (Washington, D.C., 2007). 

[2] As of August 2007, PMS served grant-administering offices from the 
Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS); Agriculture (USDA); 
Energy (DOE); Homeland Security (DHS); the Interior (DOI); Labor (DOL); 
State (State); the Treasury (Treasury); and Veterans Affairs (VA). PMS 
also served the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) within 
the Executive Office of the President, the Corporation on National 
Community Service, and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. See app. II for further detail. 

[3] The Offices of Inspector General we contacted for this review 
included HHS; the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ); DOI; USDA; DOE; and 
DOL. 

[4] We reviewed the 2006 and 2007 PARs for USDA, the Department of 
Commerce (DOC), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of 
Education (Education), DOE, HHS, DHS, the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD), DOI, DOJ, DOL, the Department of State (DOS), 
the Department of Transportation, Treasury, and VA. 

[5] All dollar figures throughout the report are in nominal ï¿½then-yearï¿½ 
dollars and were not adjusted for inflation. 

[6] These results exclude PMS accounts associated with grant programs 
for which the duration of the grant is not limited to a specified time 
period, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and 
Medicaid grants to states (see app. I). Some grant-authorizing statutes 
limit the duration of grants, once awarded, to a specific time period 
(e.g., grants may be made for a period not to exceed 5 years). In some 
grant programs, agency implementing regulations restrict the duration 
of grants. Other grant programs do not limit the duration of a grant. 
For example, TANF grants have no specified duration, once awarded. 

[7] We reviewed audit reports from the following agencies covering the 
period from 2000 through 2006: DOE, DOJ, DOL, Education, EPA, HHS, HUD, 
the Social Security Administration (SSA), DOS, and USDA. 

[8] Federal grants and cooperative agreements are forms of assistance 
authorized by statute in which a federal agency transfers something of 
value, such as money, to a party for a purpose, undertaking, or 
activity of the grantee that the government has chosen to assist. The 
distinction between these two forms of assistance is that substantial 
involvement is expected between the executive agency and the state, 
local government, or other recipient when carrying out the activity 
contemplated in a cooperative agreement, whereas such involvement is 
not expected in carrying out a grant agreement (see 31 U.S.C. 6304 and 
31 U.S.C. 6305). Given the similarity between these two forms of 
assistance, we refer to grants and cooperative agreements as grants in 
the remainder of this report. 

[9] For more information about the CFDA, see app. I. 

[10] Grant payments to states are generally made in accordance with the 
Cash Management Improvement Act (CMIA) of 1990 (P.L. 101-453), as 
amended. CMIA is intended to ensure greater efficiency, effectiveness, 
and equity in the exchange of funds between the federal government and 
the states. The CMIA requires, among other things, that federal 
agencies and the states minimize the time that elapses between 
transfers of funds to the states and payments for federal grant program 
purposes. 

[11] See GAO, Accounting Systems: HHS Grant Payment Operation Has 
Improved and Additional Corrective Actions Are Underway, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AFMD-88-18] (Washington, D.C.: 
Dec. 30, 1987), 11. 

[12] All dollar figures throughout the report are in nominal ï¿½then-
yearï¿½ dollars (not adjusted for inflation) because funds made available 
for federal grants are not indexed to inflation. Therefore, over the 
performance period of the grant, and into the postexpiration period, 
there are no increases in funding to account for the effects of 
inflation. 

[13] Because of the data processing required to identify the expired 
grant accounts in PMS, as described in app. I, we could not readily 
calculate the fees PMS charged its client agencies for continuing to 
service these expired accounts. 

[14] To be included in these analyses, each expired grant account had 
to have a positive balance of undisbursed funding (see app. I for 
details). 

[15] As of June 2007, there were over 45,000 grantees in PMS with 
grants posted to their organization. This count includes all grantees 
that had a grant posted in PMS, at some time. The grantee may or may 
not have had an active account, as of that date. 

[16] See GAO, HEW Must Improve Control Over Billions in Cash Advances, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?FGMSD-80-6] (Washington, 
D.C.: Dec. 28, 1979); Accounting Systems: HHS Grant Payment Operation 
Has Improved and Additional Corrective Actions Are Underway, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AFMD-88-18] 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 30, 1987); and Environmental Protection: EPAï¿½s 
Progress in Closing Completed Grants and Contracts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-99-27] (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 20, 1998). 

[17] See GAO, Foreign Assistance: U.S. Democracy Assistance for Cuba 
Needs Better Management and Oversight, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-147] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 
15, 2006). 

[18] See GAO, Grants Management: EPA Has Made Progress in Grant Reforms 
but Needs to Address Weaknesses in Implementation and Accountability, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-625] (Washington, 
D.C.: May 12, 2006). 

[19] GAO, Office of Justice Programs: Problems with Grant Monitoring 
and Concerns about Evaluation Studies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-507T] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 
7, 2002). 

[20] Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, The 
Department of Justiceï¿½s Grant Closeout Process, Audit Report 07-05 
(Washington, D.C., December 2006). 

[21] Department of Justice, FY 2006 Performance and Accountability 
Report (Washington, D.C., 2006). 

[22] Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector 
General, NIH Grants Management: Late Closeouts Audit Report, OEI-01-03-
00021 (Washington, D.C., 2004). 

[23] Environmental Protection Agency, FY 2006 Performance and 
Accountability Report (Washington, D.C., 2006). 

[24] In 2006, PARs from the following departments or agencies listed 
grants management as a management challenge or concern: USDA, DOI, DOC, 
Education, EPA, HHS, DHS, and DOJ. In 2007, PARs from the following 
departments or agencies listed grants management as a management 
challenge or concern: DOI, DOC, Education, EPA, HHS, DHS, DOJ, and DOL. 

[25] Department of Health and Human Services, FY 2006 Performance and 
Accountability Report (Washington, D.C., 2006). Department of Justice, 
FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report (Washington, D.C., 2006). 
Environmental Protection Agency, FY 2006 Performance and Accountability 
Report (Washington, D.C., 2006). Department of Health and Human 
Services, FY 2007 Agency Financial Report (Washington, D.C., 2007). 
Department of Justice, FY 2007 Performance and Accountability Report 
(Washington, D.C., 2007). EPA, FY 2007 Performance and Accountability 
Report (Washington, D.C., 2007). 

[26] Independent auditors are independent accounting experts who 
conduct impartial audits of the financial statements of public and 
private organizations to ensure there are no misstatements and assess 
whether the organizationï¿½s systems to detect and prevent fraud 
(internal controls) are effective. 

[27] In fiscal year 2007 OMB initiated a pilot alternative to the 
annual PAR. The goal of the pilot is to allow agencies different 
formats to present financial and performance information that is more 
meaningful and transparent to the public. The pilot includes three 
components: (1) the Agency Financial Report (AFR); (2) the Annual 
Performance Report (APR); and (3) Highlights. The pilot requires the 
AFR to be published by November 15, 2007, and the other two reports by 
February 2008. HHS is one of the agencies participating in this pilot. 

[28] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-625]. 

[29] We reviewed the applicable regulations for eight executive 
departments (USDA, Education, DOE, HHS, HUD, DOJ, DOL, and DOS), SSA, 
and EPA to identify any differences in grant closeout guidelines 
between the OMB circulars and the agency regulations. 

[30] See GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid 
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 
10, 2004). 

[31] The OIGs we contacted for this review included those of HHS; DOJ; 
DOI; USDA; DOE; and DOL. 

[32] USDA, the departments of Commerce and Defense, Education, DOE, 
HHS, the Department of Homeland Security, HUD, the Department of the 
Interior, DOJ, DOL, DOS, and the Departments of Transportation, the 
Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. 

[33] Department of Health & Human Services, Division of Payment 
Management, Report of Independent Auditor on Controls Placed in 
Operation and Tests of Operating Effectiveness for the Payment 
Management System (PMS), for the Period October 1, 2005 to June 30, 
2006 (Washington, D.C., August 2006). 

[34] Pub. L. No. 95-220. 

[35] Pub. L. No. 98-169. 

[End of section] 

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 GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail 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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***