This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-495T entitled 'Electronic Government: Success of the Office of Management and Budget's 25 Initiatives Depends on Effective Management and Oversight' which was released on March 13, 2003. This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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 Webmaster@gao.gov. Testimony: Before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives: United States General Accounting Office: GAO: For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST: Thursday, March 13, 2003: Electronic Government: Success of the Office of Management and Budget’s 25 Initiatives Depends on Effective Management and Oversight: Statement of Joel C. Willemssen, Managing Director, Information Technology Issues: GAO-03-495T: GAO Highlights: Highlights of GAO-03-495T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives Why GAO Did This Study: A key element of the President’s Management Agenda is the expansion of electronic government (e-government) to enhance access to information and services, particularly through the Internet. In response, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established a task force that selected a strategic set of initiatives to lead this expansion. GAO previously reviewed the completeness of the information used for choosing and overseeing these initiatives, including business cases and funding plans. What GAO Found: E-government offers many opportunities to better serve the public, make government more efficient and effective, and reduce costs. To achieve these goals, the 25 e-government initiatives selected by OMB’s Quicksilver task force focus on a wide variety of services, aiming to simplify and unify agency work processes and information flows, provide one-stop services to citizens, and enable information to be collected on line once and reused, rather than being collected many times. For example, Recreation One-Stop is a Web portal for a single point of access to information about parks and other federal, state, and local recreation areas. Other initiatives are being pursued that do not necessarily rely on the Internet, such as the e-Payroll initiative to consolidate federal payroll systems. GAO’s review of the initial planning documents for the initiatives highlights the critical importance of management and oversight to their success. Important aspects—such as collaboration and customer focus—had not been addressed in early program plans for many of the projects, and major uncertainties in funding and milestones were not uncommon. As shown by GAO’s comparison of the content of the initiatives’ business cases with best practices, all the business cases included key information, but many elements were missing (see figure). In particular, fewer than half addressed collaboration and customer focus, despite the importance of these topics to e-government strategy and goals. Similarly, the accuracy of estimated costs in the funding plans was questionable: between May and September 2002, these estimates for 12 of the initiatives changed significantly—by more than 30 percent. Accurate cost, schedule, and performance information is essential to ensure that projects are on schedule and achieve their goals. What GAO Recommends: GAO is not making new recommendations in this testimony, but a recent report, on which this testimony is based, recommended that the OMB Director ensure that the managers of the e-government initiatives solicit input from the public and conduct user needs assessments, work with partner agencies to develop and document effective collaboration strategies, and provide OMB with adequate cost, schedule, and performance information. www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-495T To view the full testimony, click on the link above. For more information, contact Joel Willemssen at (202) 512-6222 or willemssenj@gao.gov. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Subcommittee’s hearing on e-government progress. Now that the Internet has become such a ubiquitous element of our lives, it is more important than ever that we take full advantage of information technology (IT) to vastly improve the way our government serves its citizens--and to do so much more efficiently and economically. Generally speaking, electronic government refers to the use of IT, particularly Web-based Internet applications, to enhance the access to and delivery of government information and service to citizens, to business partners, to employees, and among agencies at all levels of government. A variety of actions have been taken in recent years to enhance the government’s ability to realize the potential of e- government, culminating in the recent enactment of the E-Government Act of 2002,[Footnote 1] which includes provisions addressing everything from funding of e-government initiatives to measures for ensuring security and privacy. The President has embraced e-government as one of five priorities delineated in his management agenda for making the federal government more focused on citizens and results. Under the leadership of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a team known as the Quicksilver task force identified a set of high-profile initiatives to lead the federal government’s drive toward e-government transformation. These initiatives--now numbering 25[Footnote 2]--have ambitious goals, including eliminating redundant, nonintegrated business operations and systems; achieving this result, according to OMB, could produce several billions of dollars in savings from improved operational efficiency. To obtain such savings--and significantly improve service to citizens--it will be critically important that these initiatives are well managed as the government undertakes the challenging task of turning good ideas into real-world results. As requested, in my remarks today, I will summarize the results of a review we recently conducted to assess OMB’s process for selecting the e-government initiatives and monitoring their initial progress.[Footnote 3] I will focus on some of the key aspects of initiatives that must be closely monitored to ensure that they meet their goals. Specifically, after reviewing the overall scope and objectives of the initiatives, I will discuss issues concerning the completeness of the planning documents prepared for them, including initial business cases as well as work and funding plans developed last spring. To provide additional information, I have included an attachment that details the partner agencies and proposed performance metrics for each project. I have also included, as a second attachment, a list of other pertinent GAO publications on e-government issues.[Footnote 4] Background: Government agencies at all levels have already implemented a broad array of e-government applications: through the Internet, government agencies collect and disseminate information and forms; government and businesses order and pay for goods and services; and businesses and the public apply for licenses, grants, and benefits, and submit bids and proposals. Despite this substantial progress, the federal government has not yet taken full advantage of the potential that electronic government offers. As we have previously testified,[Footnote 5] the government faces significant challenges in this area, including sustaining executive leadership, protecting personal privacy, implementing appropriate security controls, using enterprise architectures[Footnote 6] effectively, and managing IT human capital. Recognizing the magnitude of challenges facing the federal government, the Congress has enacted important legislation to guide the development of e-government. In 1998, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) was enacted,[Footnote 7] establishing a requirement that by October 21, 2003, federal agencies provide the public, when practicable, the option of submitting, maintaining, and disclosing required information electronically. More recently, the Congress passed the E-Government Act of 2002, which includes provisions to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide government services electronically; strengthen agency information security; and define how to manage the federal government’s growing IT human capital needs. In addition, this act established an Office of Electronic Government within OMB to provide strong central leadership and full-time commitment to promoting and implementing e-government. The executive branch has also acted to enhance and accelerate the development of electronic government. The President made e-government expansion one of five top priorities in his fiscal year 2002 management agenda, which outlines a number of specific electronic government projects. For example, the FirstGov Web portal--which is intended to serve as a single consolidated source for government services to citizens--was targeted for expansion and improvement to offer services better organized according to citizens’ needs. Also targeted for enhancement was the FedBizOpps portal, designed to be a single point of entry for information about federal government procurement opportunities. Further, the agenda endorsed the establishment of a federal public key infrastructure to ensure that electronic transactions with and within the federal government would be private and secure.[Footnote 8] A major element of the President’s management agenda was establishment of the Quicksilver Task Force, which was charged with identifying (1) systematic barriers that had blocked the deployment of e-government advances and (2) electronic government projects that could deliver significant productivity and performance gains across government. Together, the federal government’s e-government initiatives are expected to: * provide high-quality customer services regardless of whether the citizen contacts the agency by phone, in person, or on the Web; * reduce the expense and difficulty of doing business with the government; * cut government operating costs; * provide citizens with readier access to government services; * increase access for persons with disabilities to agency Web sites and E-government applications; and * make government more transparent and accountable. The 25 E-Government Initiatives Address a Broad Range of Electronic Services: In its e-government strategy, released in 2002, OMB stated that the 25 e-government initiatives were selected on the basis of (1) value to citizens, (2) potential improvement in agency efficiency, and (3) likelihood of deploying within 18 to 24 months. The selected initiatives would achieve their results by simplifying and unifying agency work processes and information flows, providing one-stop services to citizens, and enabling information to be collected on line once and reused, rather than being collected many times. The initiatives are aimed at providing a wide variety of services. For example, some are focused on setting up Web sites or portals that channel information more effectively to citizens, businesses, or other government entities. Recreation One-Stop is one such example, a Web portal for a single point of access to information about parks and other recreation venues at the federal, state, and local levels. One- Stop Business Compliance provides an analogous service to businesses, giving them a single Web site to consult regarding the multitude of government regulations that may affect their activities. Other initiatives strive for more ambitious services that may not necessarily rely on the Internet for delivery. SAFECOM, for example, seeks to impose order and standards on wireless communications among emergency responders across all levels of government. The e-Payroll initiative is intended to consolidate the federal government’s many incompatible payroll systems into just two that would service all government employees. As shown in figure 1, OMB has divided these efforts into five broad categories that reflect the different customer groups targeted by each of the initiatives: 1. government to individual citizens, 2. government to business, 3. government to government, 4. internal efficiency and effectiveness, and: 5. cross cutting. Figure 1: E-government Initiatives by Category: [See PDF for image] Note: GAO analysis of information provided by OMB. [End of figure] * Government to individual citizens. One of the major benefits of on- line and Internet-based services is that they provide opportunities for greater citizen access to and interaction with the federal government. An example is GovBenefits.gov, a Web site designed to assist users in locating and determining potential eligibility for government benefits and services. Other initiatives in this category aim to improve customer service. USA Services, for example, is intended to deploy tools, such as call centers and coordinated E-mail systems linked to the FirstGov Web site, that will enable citizens to ask questions and receive responses from the federal government without having to know in advance which specific departments or bureaus have responsibilities related to their areas of interest. * Government to business. Initiatives in this category seek to reduce the reporting burden on businesses by adopting processes that eliminate redundant data collection, provide one-stop access to information, and enable communication using electronic business standards, such as the Extensible Markup Language.[Footnote 9] The Expanding Electronic Tax Products for Businesses initiative, for example, seeks to reduce the number of tax-related forms businesses must file. The Federal Asset Sales initiative aims to create a single electronic interface for businesses to find and buy government assets. * Government to government. The primary goal of these initiatives is to enable federal, state, and local governments to more easily work together to better serve citizens within key lines of business. For example, Geospatial One-Stop seeks to provide a single portal for accessing standardized and coordinated federal, state, and local geospatial data. The Disaster Management initiative seeks to provide federal, state, and local emergency managers on-line access to disaster management information, planning, and response tools. * Internal efficiency and effectiveness. The initiatives in this category seek to improve the performance and reduce the costs of federal government administration by using e-business best practices. For example, the Integrated Acquisition Environment initiative seeks to consolidate business processes and information to facilitate cost- effective acquisition of goods and services across the federal government. Lastly, e-Travel is planned to streamline the administration of government travel by creating a governmentwide Web- based travel management process. * Cross-cutting initiative. The e-Authentication initiative is to develop common interoperable authentication techniques to support all the other initiatives. Authentication refers to the critical process of confirming the identity of the participants in an electronic transaction. Without a means to satisfactorily establish identities, e- government transactions are too risky, and the potential of e- government to transform citizen services remains severely constrained. The initiative plans to provide authentication services through an electronic “gateway,” which will offer different assurance levels to meet the varying needs of the other projects. Management Issues Highlight the Need for Oversight: While several of the projects have already achieved tangible results, not all of them are making the same degree of progress. For example, some have had major management changes--management of the SAFECOM initiative, for example, was transferred from Treasury to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Major management changes such as this have led to delays in project milestones and changes in objectives. We believe that fluctuations such as these indicate a need for oversight to ensure that the larger goal--to realize the full potential of e-government--is not jeopardized. When we reviewed project-planning documentation collected by OMB from each of the initiatives, we found indications that important aspects of some of the initiatives had not been addressed and that, for many of them, funding strategies and milestones were in a state of flux. These findings add urgency to our concern that the initiatives be carefully monitored to ensure that implementation challenges are identified and addressed as quickly as possible. I would like to go through some of the specific results of our analysis now. Many Initial Business Cases Omitted Critical Elements: As part of OMB’s selection process, the Quicksilver task force screened over 350 project ideas during the summer of 2001 and selected 34 potential project proposals for more in-depth consideration. In September 2001, task force members developed brief (or “mini”) business cases for each of the 34 proposals. According to OMB officials, these mini business cases were to include all the information necessary to enable sound selection decisions. The task force reviewed the mini business cases and the final selections were made in October. We analyzed the mini business cases, which were prepared for 23 of the 25 initiatives,[Footnote 10] to determine whether they were complete. To conduct our analysis, we first identified e-government business case “best practices” as cited by federal agencies, private sector and academic researchers, and state and local governments. From these sources, we compiled the most frequently cited elements of a complete business case, such as a description of the proposed concept for improved future processes and a discussion of the benefits of implementing it. We also included elements identified by OMB as important to e-government business cases--whether an initiative is driven by identified customer needs and whether it contains a strategy for successful collaboration. As shown in figure 2, our analysis of the mini business cases showed that although they addressed some of the required elements, the majority of them did not include some key elements identified by OMB and best practice guidance. Figure 2: Completeness of 23 Initial Business Cases: [See PDF for image] Note: GAO analysis of information provided by OMB. At the time of the review, Integrated HR and e-Clearance were considered a single initiative, and a business case was not prepared for e-Payroll. [End of figure] All the business cases we reviewed included a discussion of the expected benefits of the proposed initiative, and all but one included a discussion of the initiatives’ objectives and planned future conditions. However, only 9 of the 23 initiatives’ business cases discussed how customer needs were to be identified and addressed, and only 8 addressed collaboration among agencies and other government entities, even though OMB considered these elements fundamental to its e-government strategy. Mr. Chairman, addressing how a proposed project links to the needs of its potential customers is key to the success of that project, and should be discussed in the project’s business case. Without a plan to assess users’ needs, there is a greater risk that the project will focus too heavily on issues that customers do not consider important or disrupt processes that are already working well and accepted by users. In the case of the e-government initiatives, the result could be that the Internet sites and services created might not be useful to those customers they are intended to serve. Collaboration across agencies and other organizations is likewise a key component of most of the initiatives, and therefore a discussion of strategies for collaboration is essential to a complete e-government business case. As the government attempts to integrate services across organizations--particularly in cases where federal agencies overlap in providing similar services to customers--the issue of how agencies collaborate can determine an initiative’s success or failure. To help mitigate the risk of failure, the business case needs to provide a convincing argument that collaboration can be accomplished and a plan for how collaboration will be carried out. Let me point out that the initial “mini” business cases that we reviewed are not the latest ones in existence for the 25 initiatives. More extensive business cases were developed for each of the projects in fall 2002, in conjunction with the fiscal year 2004 budget process. We have not yet had an opportunity to review these documents. Spring 2002 Project Plans Revealed Cost and Schedule Uncertainties: OMB required the managing partners of the e-government initiatives to prepare and submit work plans and funding plans in May 2002. We assessed the completeness of these plans, which provided the most up- to-date cost and schedule information available at the time of our review.[Footnote 11] To conduct our analysis, we identified best practices from GAO and OMB guidance[Footnote 12] for the effective oversight and implementation of IT projects and compared those best practice elements to the information contained in the May 2002 plans. In addition, several months later, we obtained updated status information from 23 of the initiatives’ project managers. According to the guidance we reviewed, project implementation documents should include components such as cost estimates, a schedule with milestones, identification of project deliverables, and an overall strategy for obtaining needed funding and staff resources. As shown in figure 3, four of the five best practice elements we identified were included in a majority of the project plans. Plans for all but two of the initiatives contained a schedule with milestones, and all the plans identified project deliverables. However, other best practice elements were not included in some of the plans. For example, only 9 identified a strategy for obtaining needed funds, and only 16 contained information about how staffing commitments would be obtained. Figure 3: Completeness of Work and Funding Plans: [See PDF for image] Note: GAO analysis of information provided by OMB. [End of figure] In addition to the findings shown in figure 3, our analysis of the plans showed uncertainties about milestones for many of the initiatives. Ten of the 24 did not identify a final completion date for the initiatives, resulting in inadequate information to determine whether they were moving forward in a timely manner. Further, 6 of the initiatives were not planned to be completed within the 18 to 24 month time frame originally established by OMB as a criterion for inclusion in its e-government effort. Accurate cost information was also generally lacking. The updated information we obtained from project managers in September 2002 on estimated costs revealed significant changes--changes of more than 30 percent--for about half of the initiatives. These changes, occurring within such a short period of time, rendered the funding plans outdated soon after they were developed. This uncertainty about how much the initiatives would cost, combined with the fact that only 9 of the 24 plans identified a strategy for obtaining these needed funds, led us to conclude that OMB was not receiving adequate information to properly oversee the e-government projects and ensure that they would have the resources to meet their objectives efficiently and economically. Given the challenges we’ve identified, OMB’s oversight role takes on critical importance. Each of the e-government initiatives needs a well- thought-out strategy for directly addressing its biggest challenges, such as getting relevant government agencies to effectively collaborate. And each also needs detailed and stable project plans, so that they can be held accountable for achieving realistic results within budget and according to schedule. Accordingly, in our report, we recommended that OMB take steps as overseer of the e-government initiatives to reduce the risk that the projects would not meet their objectives. Specifically, we recommended that OMB ensure that the managing partners for all the initiatives: * focus on customers by soliciting input from the public and conducting user needs assessments, * work with partner agencies to develop and document effective collaboration strategies, and * provide OMB with adequate information to monitor the cost, schedule, and performance of the e-government initiatives. In following up on our recommendations, we requested from OMB updated business cases that were submitted as part of the fiscal year 2004 budget process. These updated business cases should provide not only indications of whether key topics such as collaboration and customer focus are now being addressed, but also updated cost and schedule information. As noted in our report, OMB agreed to provide us this information once it was updated after release of the 2004 budget.[Footnote 13] However, we have not yet received this information. OMB officials (from the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) stated earlier this week that the business cases still needed to be reviewed before they could be released to us. In summary, e-government offers many opportunities to better serve the public, make government more efficient and effective, and reduce costs. Legislation such as GPEA and the E-Government Act of 2002 have laid a strong foundation for building on these opportunities, and the federal government continues to make strides in taking advantage of them. Overall, few can argue that the 25 e-government projects are not worthy initiatives with commendable objectives. Nevertheless, many critical details remain to be fully addressed before the promise of e-government is fully realized. Because the 25 projects represent such a broad range of activities, it is difficult to gauge their progress collectively. Some of their objectives may be much easier to attain than others. However, our review of the initial planning documents associated with the projects led us to conclude that important aspects--such as collaboration and customer focus--had not been thought out for all the projects, and major uncertainties in funding and milestones were not uncommon. Priority should now be given to ensuring that the agencies managing these initiatives tackle these issues and gain cost and schedule stability so that they can ultimately succeed in achieving their potential. We believe that careful oversight--on the part of OMB as well as the Congress--is crucial to ensuring this success. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have at this time. Contact and Acknowledgements: If you should have any questions about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-6222 or via E-mail at willemssenj@gao.gov. Other major contributors to this testimony included Shannin Addison, Barbara Collier, Felipe Colón, Jr., John de Ferrari, Neha Harnal, and Elizabeth Roach. [End of section] Attachment I. E-Government Initiatives: Type: G2C; Initiative name: Recreation One-Stop www.recreation.gov www.volunteer.gov/ gov; Description: Provides citizens with a single point of access to a Web-based resource, offering information and access to government recreational sites in a user-friendly format.; Managing partner: Interior; Federal partners: Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Federal Highway Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Park Service, Smithsonian Institution, Tennessee Valley Authority, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Army Corps of Engineers, Geological Survey; OMB- reported performance metrics: * Number of partners sharing data via Recreation.gov (target: 35 partners added); * Number of facilities listed in Recreation.gov (target: 25% increase); * Number of on-line reservations; * Customer satisfaction. Type: G2C; Initiative name: GovBenefits.gov www.govbenefits.gov; Description: Provides a single point of access for citizens to locate and determine potential eligibility for government benefits and services.; Managing partner: Labor; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, State, and Veterans Affairs; Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation; Federal Emergency Management Agency, Railroad Retirement Board, Social Security Administration; OMB- reported performance metrics: * Hits to site per month (target: 350,000); * Number of referrals to partner benefit sites (target: 10% increase); * Average time to find benefits and determine eligibility (target: 20 minutes or less). Type: G2C; Initiative name: Online Access for Loans; Description: Creates a single point of access for citizens to locate loans.; Managing partner: Education; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs; Small Business Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Number of clicks to access relevant loan information; * Improved agency access to risk-mitigation data; * Customer satisfaction. Type: G2C; Initiative name: USA Services; Description: Develops and deploys governmentwide citizen customer service using industry best practices that provides citizens with timely, consistent responses about government information and services.; Managing partner: General Services Administration; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Veterans Affairs; Federal Emergency Management Agency, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Average time to respond to inquiries through Firstgov.gov and Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC) (target: 100% of inquiries responded to within 24 hours); * Average time to resolve inquiries through Firstgov.gov and FCIC; * Number of government-wide inquiries that call center and E-mail systems can handle (target: 3.3M calls per year and 150,000 emails peryear); * Customer satisfaction. Type: G2C; Initiative name: IRS Free Filing www.irs.gov; Description: Creates a single point of access to free on-line preparation and electronic tax filing services.; Managing partner: Internal Revenue Service; Federal partners: None; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Percentage of coverage of tax filing public (target: minimum of 60%); * Number of citizens filing electronically (target: 15% increase). Type: G2B; Initiative name: e-Rulemaking www.regulations.gov; Description: Allows citizens to access and participate in the rulemaking process through a cross-agency front-end Web application.; Managing partner: Environmental Protection Agency; Federal partners: Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Agriculture, and Transportation; Federal Communications Commission, General Services Administration, National Archives and Records Administration; OMB- reported performance metrics: * Number of electronic comments submitted through regulations.gov; * Number of on-line docket systems decommissioned with the associated cost savings and cost avoidance; * Number of downloads of rules and regulations; * Number of public participants in rulemaking process. Type: G2B; Initiative name: Expanding Electronic Tax Products for Businesses; Description: Reduces the number of tax-related forms that businesses must file, provides timely and accurate tax information to businesses, increases the availability of electronic tax filing, and models simplified federal and state tax employment laws.; Managing partner: Internal Revenue Service; Federal partners: None; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Burden reduction for corporations per return, application filed, or both; * Administrative cost to federal government per return filed; * Cycle time to grant Employer Identification Number (EIN)--interim EIN granted immediately; * Number of electronic tax- related transactions (all forms). Type: G2B; Initiative name: Federal Asset Sales www.firstgov.gov; Description: Creates a single, one-stop access point for businesses to find and buy government assets.; Managing partner: General Services Administration; Federal partners: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Department of Agriculture; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Cycle time reduction for asset disposition; * Dollar cost avoidance for personal property; * Return on assets (ROA). Type: G2B; Initiative name: International Trade Process Streamlining www.export.gov; Description: Makes it easy for small and medium enterprises (SME) to obtain the information and documents needed to conduct business abroad.; Managing partner: Commerce; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Commerce; Small Business Administration, Export-Import Bank, Trade Development Agency, Agency for International Development; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Time to fill out export forms and locate information (target: 10% annual reduction); * Number of unique visitors to Export.gov (target: 15% increase); * Number of trade leads accessed by SMEs through Export.gov (target: 10% increase); * Number of registered businesses on Export.gov. Type: G2B; Initiative name: One-Stop Business Compliance www.businesslaw.gov; Description: Reduces the burden on businesses by making it easy to find, understand, and comply with relevant laws and regulations at all levels of government.; Managing partner: Small Business Administration; Federal partners: Departments of Energy, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation; Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, General Services Administration, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Internal Revenue Service; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Time savings for business compliance and filing (target: 50% reduction); * Regulatory agency savings through transition to compliance from enforcement through automated processes (target: 25% increase); * Number of days reduced for issuing permits and licenses; * Cycle time to issue permits and licenses (target: within 24 hours); * Number of visitors per page views (target: 10-20% increase); * Reduction in redundant information technology investments. Type: G2G; Initiative name: Consolidated Health Informatics; Description: Adopts a portfolio of existing health information interoperability standards enabling all agencies in the federal health enterprise to communicate based on common enterprisewide business and information technology architectures.; Managing partner: Health and Human Services; Federal partners: Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs; General Services Administration, Social Security Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Number of federal agencies and systems using the standards to store and/or share health information; * Number of contracts requiring the standards; * Impact on patient service, public health, and research; * Increase in common data available to be shared by users. Type: G2G; Initiative name: Geospatial Information One-Stop; Description: Provides federal and state agencies with a single point of access to map-related data, enabling consolidation of redundant data.; Managing partner: Interior; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and Transportation; Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Number of data sets posted to portal; * Number of users; * Number of cost-sharing partnerships for data-collection activities; * Number of data-set hits. Type: G2G; Initiative name: e-Grants www.fedgrants.gov; Description: Creates a single, on-line portal for all federal grant customers to access and apply for grants.; Managing partner: Health and Human Services; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and Transportation; Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Science Foundation; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Number of grant-making agencies publishing grant opportunities in portal; * Number of grant programs available for electronic application; * Percentage of reusable information per grant application; * Number of applications received electronically. Type: G2G; Initiative name: Disaster Management www.disasterhelp.gov; Description: Provides federal, state, and local emergency managers on- line access to disaster management-related information and planning and response tools.; Managing partner: Federal Emergency Management Agency; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, the Interior, Labor, State, the Treasury, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs; Appalachian Regional Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Communications Commission, General Services Administration, Interstate Commerce Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S. Postal Service, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Small Business Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geological Survey; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Response recovery time (target: reduce by 15%); * Situational awareness planning capability (target: improve by 25%); * Number of first responders using disaster management information system tools (target: increase by 10%). Type: G2G; Initiative name: SAFECOM; Description: Provides interoperable wireless solutions for federal, state, and local public safety organizations and ensures they can communicate and share information as they respond to emergency incidents.; Managing partner: Federal Emergency Management Agency; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Defense, the Interior, and Justice; Coast Guard, National Guard, National Telecommunications and Information Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Number of agencies that can communicate with one another; * Response times for jurisdictions and disciplines to respond to an event; * Number of wireless grant programs that include SAFECOM-approved equipment; * Voice, data, and video convergence. Type: G2G; Initiative name: e-Vital; Description: Establishes common electronic processes for federal and state agencies to collect, process, analyze, verify and share birth and death record information. Also promotes automating how deaths are registered with the states.; Managing partner: Social Security Administration; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, State, and Veterans Affairs; Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of Personnel Management; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Time for state to report death to Social Security Administration (target: 15 days); * Number of verified death records; * Time to verify birth and death entitlement factors (target: 24 hours); * Number of false identity cases. Type: IEE; Initiative name: e-Training www.golearn.gov; Description: Provides a single point of on-line training and strategic human capital development solutions for all federal employees.; Managing partner: Office of Personnel Management; Federal partners: Departments of Defense, Labor, Transportation, and the Treasury; General Services Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Cost avoidance: total tuition/travel cost reductions for participating agencies (target: minimum of $50M in reductions); * Percentage of executive branch agencies receiving their e-training via golearn.gov; * E- Training is supplier of choice to fulfill human capital training at all cabinet-level agencies. Type: IEE; Initiative name: Recruitment One-Stop; www.usajobs.opm.gov; Description: Outsources delivery of USAJOBS Federal Employment Information System to deliver state-of-the-art on-line recruitment services to job seekers that include intuitive job searching, on-line resume submission, applicant data mining, and on-line feed-back on status and eligibility.; Managing partner: Office of Personnel Management; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, Transportation, and the Treasury; Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Social Security Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Cost per hire; * Time to fill vacancies; * Percentage of federal job applicants using Recruitment One-Stop (target: 80%); * Availability of applicant status (target: real time). Type: IEE; Initiative name: Enterprise HR Integration; Description: Streamlines and automates the exchange of federal employee human resources information. Replaces official paper employee records.; Managing partner: Office of Personnel Management; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, and the Treasury; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Cost/cycle time savings per transaction due to reduction in manual paper processing; * Time for interagency transfers; * Usage of analytics by all cabinet- level agencies in the human capital planning process. Type: IEE; Initiative name: e-Clearance; Description: Streamlines and improves the quality of the current security clearance process.; Managing partner: Office of Personnel Management; Federal partners: Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Justice, State, and the Treasury; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Cost per application; * Reciprocation between agencies; * Average time to process clearance forms; * Average time to complete clearance forms; * Time to locate and evaluate previous investigations and clearances. Type: IEE; Initiative name: e-Payroll; Description: Consolidates 22 federal payroll systems to simplify and standardize federal human resources/payroll policies and procedures to better integrate payroll, human resources, and finance functions.; Managing partner: Office of Personnel Management; Federal partners: All executive branch agencies; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Payroll cost per transaction per employee (target: in line with industry averages); * Accuracy of Treasury disbursements, post payroll interfaces, and periodic reporting. Type: IEE; Initiative name: e-Travel; Description: Provides a common governmentwide end-to-end travel service that rationalizes, automates, and consolidates the travel process in a self-service Web-centric environment, covering all aspects of travel planning, from authorization and reservations to expense reporting and reimbursement.; Managing partner: General Services Administration; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Administrative cost per trip (target: in line with industry averages); * Number of trips serviced through E-Travel; * Number of agencies and users using E-Travel services; * Percentage of use of E-Travel services within each agency; * Percentage improvement of time for traveler to get reimbursed. Type: IEE; Initiative name: Integrated Acquisition Environment; Description: Creates a secure business environment that will facilitate and support cost-effective acquisition of goods and services by agencies, while eliminating inefficiencies in the current acquisition environment.; Managing partner: General Services Administration; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, the Interior, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs; National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Small Business Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Percentage reduction in time for delivery of products and services; * Cost per spend; * Percentage of intragovernmental transactions going through the Integrated Acquisition Environment; * Percentage reduction in procurement transactions errors; * Percentage of vendors registered in central database. Type: IEE; Initiative name: e-Records Management; Description: Provides policy guidance to help agencies to better manage their electronic records, so that records information can be effectively used to support timely and informed decision making, enhance service delivery, and ensure accountability.; Managing partner: National Archives and Records Administration; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Navy, State, Transportation, and the Treasury; Environmental Protection Agency, Executive Office of the President, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Emergency Management Agency, General Accounting Office, General Services Administration, National Institutes of Health, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, National Science Foundation, Patent and Trademark Office, Geological Survey; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Percentage of eligible data items archived/preserved electronically; * Consolidation of information technology investments for correspondence systems; * Document search/retrieval burden; * Document recovery burden. Type: Cross-cutting; Initiative name: e-Authentication; Description: Minimizes the burden on businesses, public and government when obtaining services on line by providing a secure infrastructure for on- line transactions, eliminating the need for separate processes for the verification of identity and electronic signatures.; Managing partner: General Services Administration; Federal partners: Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and the Treasury, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Institutes of Health, Social Security Administration; OMB-reported performance metrics: * Cost savings from information technology expenditures on a coordinated and streamlined approach to E- Authentication; * Percentage of GPEA burden using transactions that authenticate using the E-Authentication gateway; * Number of credentials by customer segment needed to interact with the federal government; * Percentage of citizens trusting transactions with the government (from existing surveys); * Time to access e-government applications. [End of table] [End of section] Attachment II. Selected GAO Products Related to Electronic Commerce and Electronic Government: Electronic Commerce: Internet Gambling: An Overview of the Issues. GAO-03-89. Washington, D.C.: December 2, 2002. International Electronic Commerce: Definitions and Policy Implications. GAO-02-404. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2002. Electronic Commerce: Small Business Participation in Selected On-line Procurement Programs. GAO-02-1. Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2001. On-Line Trading: Investor Protections Have Improved but Continued Attention Is Needed. GAO-01-858. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2001. Internet Pharmacies: Adding Disclosure Requirements Would Aid State and Federal Oversight. GAO-01-69. Washington, D.C.: October 19, 2000. Sales Taxes: Electronic Commerce Growth Presents Challenges; Revenue Losses Are Uncertain. GGD/OCE-00-165. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2000. Commodity Exchange Act: Issues Related to the Regulation of Electronic Trading Systems. GGD-00-99. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2000. Trade with the European Union: Recent Trends and Electronic Commerce Issues. GAO/T-NSIAD-00-46. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 1999. Electronic Banking: Enhancing Federal Oversight of Internet Banking Activities. GAO/T-GGD-99-152. Washington, D.C.: August 3, 1999. Electronic Banking: Enhancing Federal Oversight of Internet Banking Activities. GAO/GGD-99-91. Washington, D.C.: July 6, 1999. Securities Fraud: The Internet Poses Challenges to Regulators and Investors. GAO/T-GGD-99-34. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 1999. Retail Payments Issues: Experience with Electronic Check Presentment. GAO/GGD-98-145. Washington, D.C.: July 14, 1998. Identity Fraud: Information on Prevalence, Cost, and Internet Impact is Limited. GAO/GGD-98-100BR. Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1998. Electronic Banking: Experiences Reported by Banks in Implementing On- line Banking. GAO/GGD-98-34. Washington, D.C.: January 15, 1998. Electronic Government--Agency-Specific Initiatives: IRS’s 2002 Tax Filing Season: Returns and Refunds Processed Smoothly; Quality of Assistance Improved. GAO-03-314. Washington, D.C.: December 20, 2002. Tax Administration: Electronic Filing’s Past and Future Impact on Processing Costs Dependent on Several Factors. GAO-02-205. Washington, D.C.: January 10, 2002. GSA On-Line Procurement Programs Lack Documentation and Reliability Testing. GAO-02-229R. Washington, D.C.: December 21, 2001. U.S. Postal Service: Update on E-Commerce Activities and Privacy Protections. GAO-02-79. Washington, D.C.: December 21, 2001. Computer-Based Patient Records: Better Planning and Oversight By VA, DOD, and IHS Would Enhance Health Data Sharing. GAO-01-459. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2001. USDA Electronic Filing: Progress Made, But Central Leadership and Comprehensive Implementation Plan Needed. GAO-01-324. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2001. Information Security: IRS Electronic Filing Systems. GAO-01-306. Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2001. U.S. Postal Service: Postal Activities and Laws Related to Electronic Commerce. GAO/GGD-00-188. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2000. U.S. Postal Service: Electronic Commerce Activities and Legal Matters. GAO/T-GGD-00-195. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2000. Defense Management: Electronic Commerce Implementation Strategy Can Be Improved. GAO/NSIAD-00-108. Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2000. Food Stamp Program: Better Use of Electronic Data Could Result in Disqualifying More Recipients Who Traffic Benefits. GAO/RCED-00-61. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2000. National Archives: The Challenge of Electronic Records Management. GAO/ T-GGD-00-24. Washington, D.C.: October 20, 1999. National Archives: Preserving Electronic Records in an Era of Rapidly Changing Technology. GAO/GGD-99-94. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 1999. Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure: Status of Labor’s Efforts to Develop Electronic Reporting and a Publicly Accessible Database. GAO/ HEHS-99-63R. Washington, D.C.: March 16, 1999. Acquisition Reform: NASA’s Internet Service Improves Access to Contracting Information. GAO/NSIAD-99-37. Washington, D.C.: February 9, 1999. Tax Administration: Increasing EFT Usage for Installment Agreements Could Benefit IRS. GAO/GGD-98-112. Washington, D.C.: June 10, 1998. Electronic Government--General: Electronic Government: Selection and Implementation of the Office of Management and Budget’s 24 Initiatives. GAO-03-229. Washington, D.C.: November 22, 2002. Electronic Government: Proposal Addresses Critical Challenges. GAO-02- 1083T. Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2002. Information Management: Update on Implementation of the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments. GAO-02-493. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2002. Information Technology: OMB Leadership Critical to Making Needed Enterprise Architecture and E-government Progress. GAO-02-389T. Washington, D.C.: March 21, 2002. Electronic Government: Challenges to Effective Adoption of the Extensible Markup Language. GAO-02-327. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002. Information Resources Management: Comprehensive Strategic Plan Needed to Address Mounting Challenges. GAO-02-292. Washington, D.C.: February 22, 2002. Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation. GAO-02-3. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001. Electronic Government: Better Information Needed on Agencies’ Implementation of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. GAO-01- 1100. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2001. Electronic Government: Challenges Must Be Addressed With Effective Leadership and Management. GAO-01-959T. Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2001. Electronic Government: Selected Agency Plans for Implementing the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. GAO-01-861T. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2001. Information Management: Electronic Dissemination of Government Publications. GAO-01-428. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2001. Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments. GAO-01-378. Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2001. Regulatory Management: Communication About Technology-Based Innovations Can Be Improved. GAO-01-232. Washington, D.C.: February 12, 2001. Electronic Government: Opportunities and Challenges Facing the FirstGov Web Gateway. GAO-01-87T. Washington, D.C.: October 2, 2000. Electronic Government: Government Paperwork Elimination Act Presents Challenges for Agencies. GAO/AIMD-00-282. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2000. Internet: Federal Web-based Complaint Handling. GAO/AIMD-00-238R. Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2000. Federal Rulemaking: Agencies’ Use of Information Technology to Facilitate Public Participation. GAO/GGD-00-135R. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2000. Electronic Government: Federal Initiatives Are Evolving Rapidly But They Face Significant Challenges. GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-00-179. Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2000. Information Technology: Comments on Proposed OMB Guidance for Implementing the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. GAO/AIMD-99- 228R. Washington, D.C.: July 2, 1999. Electronic Signatures: Bank Regulators’ Evaluation of Electronic Signature Systems. GAO-01- 129R. Washington, D.C.: November 8, 2000. Electronic Signature: Sanction of the Department of State’s System. GAO/AIMD-00-227R. Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2000. Internet: Internet Management: Limited Progress on Privatization Project Makes Outcome Uncertain. GAO-02-805T. Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2002. Telecommunications: Characteristics and Competitiveness of the Internet Backbone Market. GAO-02-16. Washington, D.C.: October 16, 2001. Telecommunications: Characteristics and Choices of Internet Users. GAO- 01-345. Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2001. Telecommunications: Technological and Regulatory Factors Affecting Consumer Choice of Internet Providers. GAO-01-93. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2000. Department of Commerce: Relationship with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. GAO/OGC-00-33R. Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2000. Privacy: Internet Privacy: Implementation of Federal Guidance for Agency Use of “Cookies.” GAO-01-424. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2001. Record Linkage and Privacy: Issues in Creating New Federal Research and Statistical Information. GAO-01-126SP. Washington, D.C.: April 2001. Internet Privacy: Federal Agency Use of Cookies. GAO-01-147R. Washington, D.C.: October 20, 2000. Internet Privacy: Comparison of Federal Agency Practices with FTC’s Fair Information Principles. GAO-01-113T, Washington, D.C.: October 11, 2000. Internet Privacy: Comparison of Federal Agency Practices with FTC’s Fair Information Principles. GAO/AIMD-00-296R. Washington, D.C.: September 11, 2000. Internet Privacy: Agencies’ Efforts to Implement OMB’s Privacy Policy. GAO/GGD-00-191. Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2000. Social Security Numbers: Subcommittee Questions Concerning the Use of the Number for Purposes Not Related to Social Security. GAO/HEHS/AIMD- 00-253R. Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2000. Security: Electronic Government: Progress in Promoting Adoption of Smart Card Technology. GAO-03-144. Washington, D.C.: January 3, 2003. Computer Security: Weaknesses Continue to Place Critical Federal Operations and Assets at Risk. GAO-01-600T. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2001. Information Security: Advances and Remaining Challenges to Adoption of Public Key Infrastructure Technology. GAO-01-277. Washington, D.C.: February 26, 2001. Information Security: Serious and Widespread Weaknesses Persist at Federal Agencies. GAO/AIMD-00-295. Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2000. Critical Infrastructure Protection: “ILOVEYOU” Computer Virus Highlights Need for Improved Alert and Coordination Capabilities. GAO/ T-AIMD-00-181. Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2000. Information Security: Subcommittee Questions Concerning the Melissa Computer Virus. GAO/AIMD-99-220R. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 1999. Information Security: The Melissa Computer Virus Demonstrates Urgent Need for Stronger Protection Over Systems and Sensitive Data. GAO/T- AIMD-99-146. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 1999. FOOTNOTES [1] P. L. No. 107-347. [2] Based on analysis by the Quicksilver task force, 23 initiatives were originally selected in September 2001. A 24th, e-Payroll, was then added by the President’s Management Council. In 2002, a decision was made to separate the e-Clearance initiative from the Integrated Human Resources initiative, resulting in the current count of 25 projects. [3] U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Selection and Implementation of the Office of Management and Budget’s 24 Initiatives, GAO-03-229 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002). [4] These publications can be obtained through GAO’s World Wide Web page at www.gao.gov. [5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Challenges Must Be Addressed With Effective Leadership and Management, GAO-01-959T (Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2001); U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: OMB Leadership Critical to Making Needed Enterprise Architecture and E-government Progress, GAO-02-389T (Washington D.C.: March 21, 2002). [6] Enterprise architectures are high-level blueprints for transforming how a given entity operates, whether it be a federal agency or a federal function that cuts across agencies. For more information see U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Enterprise Architecture Use Across the Federal Government Can Be Improved, GAO-02-6 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 19, 2002). [7] P.L. No. 105-277, Div. C, tit. XVII. [8] A public key infrastructure is a system of computers, software, policies, and people that relies on certain cryptographic techniques to provide a suite of information security assurances that are important in protecting sensitive communications and transactions. For more information, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Security: Advances and Remaining Challenges to Adoption of Public Key Infrastructure Technology, GAO-01-277 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 2001). [9] For additional information about Extensible Markup Language, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Challenges to Effective Adoption of the Extensible Markup Language, GAO-02-327 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 5, 2002). [10] At the time we conducted our review, there were only 24 Quicksilver initiatives, and an initial business case had not been prepared for the e-Payroll initiative. [11] At the time of our review, there were only 24 e-government initiatives; we reviewed the work and funding plans for each of them. [12] This guidance included Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity (exposure draft) (GAO/AIMD-00-10.1.23); Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Executive Decision-Making (GAO/AIMD-99-32); and OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources. [13] GAO-03-229, p. 33.