TOPICS
TOPICS
Report finds gaps in compliance with financial management law
Federal agencies have made incremental progress in improving their financial management systems, but most remain unable to routinely produce reliable, timely and useful financial information needed for day-to-day management, according to a new report by congressional auditors.
The Government Accountability Office found that 17 agencies failed to comply with at least one aspect of the 1996 Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. The law requires that the 24 agencies covered by the 1990 Chief Financial Officers Act implement and maintain financial management systems that comply with federal guidelines, applicable accounting standards and the U.S. Government Standard General Ledger.
"Addressing the problems with agencies' financial management systems remains a significant challenge to improved financial management in the federal government," the report (GAO-07-914) stated. "This problem is particularly severe at the Department of Defense. Many agencies are still a long way from accomplishing the goals of the CFO Act of 1990 and FFMIA."
Auditors identified six major recurring problems: financial management systems that are not integrated, inadequate reconciliation procedures, inaccurate and untimely recording of data, noncompliance with the general ledger, failure to adhere to federal accounting standards and poor security of information systems.
The deficiencies cited by auditors were nearly identical to those found in a similar report last year. That report found that 18 agencies were out of compliance with financial laws.
The new report said that the State Department's financial and accounting systems are inadequate, "preventing the department from routinely issuing timely financial statements and increasing the risk of materially misstating financial information." Meanwhile, auditors found that nearly all the information systems at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission lacked certification and accreditation, making them vulnerable to inadvertent or deliberate misuse.
Five of the 17 agencies that auditors said failed to conform to the law disputed the findings, claiming their systems were "substantially compliant" with requirements. The remaining 12 agencies have submitted remediation plans to correct the problems.
Auditors found that six agencies fulfilled the law's requirements. A seventh -- the U.S. Agency for International Development -- provided "positive assurance" (an opinion based on the nature and extent of the audit work performed) that its systems were operating within the boundaries of the law.
Nonetheless, GAO remained skeptical, arguing that the reporting guidelines set by the Office of Management and Budget are unnecessarily vague and can be interpreted incorrectly. GAO would prefer that all agencies submit a statement of positive assurance, but OMB said the President's Management Agenda already includes sufficient tools to help agencies identify and correct FFMIA shortcomings.
"As a result, we believe that requiring a statement of positive assurance would be costly and would not provide additional information that would be of benefit to the federal agency, OMB, or the taxpayer," OMB Controller Linda Combs wrote in a response to the report.
Rather than offering any new recommendations, GAO will host a forum later this year on the impediments federal managers face in bringing their agencies into compliance with the requirements of the law. Chief financial officers, members of the inspectors general community, top OMB officials, congressional staffers and financial management experts from the private sector are expected to attend.
COMMENTS
- I think the huge (and clearly false) assumption here is that Congress would ever use audited, accrual based financial statements to make any policy decisions whatsoever. And while current law may require them, it's my understanding (though I wasn't here at the time) that the idea for all this was "pressed" upon Congress by the head of the GAO at the time - which goes back to "taxpayer's" original point. Better, if we're going to do anything, to do audited funds accounting like all the other governments in the US. Michael Posted August 17, 2007 11:19 AM
- You are all making a huge assumption, that being that the accrual basis financial statements are being prepared solely for use in management decisions. There are many reasons for auditable, accrual based financial statements. One of these decisions is so that Congress can make decisions about policy. An accural based system reporting to Congress would have shown us back in the 1970s or 1980s that Social Security was not just another source of revenue for the government, but would end up costing the government money (because accrual accounting looks forward with entitlements to project how much current committments are costing the party making those committments, where as modified accrual does not worry about these amounts). As for the DOD, they waste $100 million dollars are far less valuable endeavors than auditable financial statements. The progress they have made, although probably not yet enough to return the cost of these system upgrades, is significant. Essentially, the government will continue to waste money and make bad decisions without effective accounting systems. The only way I see these effective systems being put in place is to create a product that can be evaluated, hence, financial statements. As for OMB stepping in, FFMIA, the CFO Act, and FMFIA are all laws, neither OMB nor GAO can take them away. Brad Posted August 14, 2007 6:54 PM
- I have been a CPA for more than 45 years and was amember of the Federal Audit Executives council when the GAO got yhe wild idea that federal agencies should use accrual accounting and issue "auditable" financial statements and things have gone downhill ever since. The U.S. government is not a "for-profit" organization and its "shareholders" do not need nor want audited financial statements prepared in accordance with a modified version of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. My agency alone has invested (more precisely wasted) approximately $250 million trying to comply with the GAO's idea of an acceptable accounting system. It's time to realize that the GAO has lost sight of what financial information a Federal Manager needs to accomplish his/her duties and what the congress actually needs to perform its oversight role. A. Dean Pratt, CPA Posted August 14, 2007 3:28 AM
PROMO RIGHT: GBC
Advancing the business of government through analysis, insight and the sharing of best practices.
SPONSORED RESEARCH
Achieving a Greener Federal Government IBM
Federal Cybersecurity: Securing the Nation's Information IBM
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: New Requirements for Tracking and Reporting Federal Workforce Data Kronos
Managing the Stimulus: A Candid Survey of Federal Program Managers Accenture and Microsoft
Improving Collaboration and Productivity in 21st Century Government: The Role of Communication for Government Executives Cisco









