Study: Agencies' performance reports well-written, but missing data
Federal agencies generally published clear, accessible performance reports for fiscal 2002, according to a new study. But more than half of the agency reports recently surveyed by accounting firm KPMG LLP failed to integrate certain performance and financial data.
In their fiscal 2002 performance and accountability reports, agencies detailed performance goals, steps taken to meet the goals and progress made, according to the KPMG study. Agencies often provided detailed reasons for failing to meet certain goals and presented strategies for getting back on track.
But only 13 of 27 agency reports studied by KPMG listed the amount of money spent on working toward specific performance goals. Such information would help agencies evaluate whether results achieved are "worth the expenditures," the study said. Some agencies lacked accounting systems capable of calculating the costs of individual programs, according to KPMG.
The 2000 Reports Consolidation Act allows agencies to combine financial data and performance data into one report. Eight agencies consolidated such information in fiscal 2000, and 10 agencies submitted combined reports in fiscal 2001. In October 2002, the Office of Management and Budget instructed all agencies covered under the 1990 Chief Financial Officers Act to submit combined performance and accountability reports.
Consolidated reports for fiscal 2003 are due Jan. 30, 2004. The time frame is shorter for fiscal 2004 reports, with agencies required to publish their reports by Nov. 15, 2004-about six weeks after the fiscal year ends.
Consolidated reports for fiscal 2002 averaged more than 100 pages, and were posted on agency Web sites. Cabinet department reports averaged 325 pages, while those for independent agencies averaged 231 pages.
Seven agencies included links to their 2002 performance and accountability reports on their Web home pages, but for 19 other agency sites, Web users were required to search to find the reports.
Agencies took steps to make their fiscal 2002 reports more readable and lively, KPMG noted. For instance, some agencies included photos with captions that are "attention-grabbing and clearly convey the relationship of the picture to the surrounding text." Others used sidebars and graphics to provide more detail and to break up long sections of text. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, part of the Health and Human Services Department, included a glossary and list of acronyms in its report, to aid readers.
In the fiscal 2002 consolidated reports, agencies did a better job of providing information on weaknesses in financial management systems, according to the KPMG study. Of the 27 agencies surveyed, 22 included summaries of weaknesses and plans for addressing the problems in 2002 accountability reports. Only 14 agencies provided such information in fiscal 2001.
In late April, researchers at the Mercatus Center, a Fairfax, Va.-based policy institute run by George Mason University, also praised agencies for generally improving their performance and accountability reports in fiscal 2002. The Labor, Transportation and Veterans Affairs departments and the Small Business Administration made particularly noteworthy enhancements, according to Mercatus. In early September, the Association of Government Accountants honored seven agencies for exceptional performance reports.
KPMG's survey of fiscal 2002 reports is currently only available in print. An online version will be posted on KPMG's Web site by the end of October.