The Washington Post reports today that a new survey shows citizens’ confidence is slipping in their belief that the Recovery Act will boost the economy.
Whoever was surveyed clearly has not been reading OMB guidance on expectations for how these monies will be tracked!
The complexity of implementing the Recovery Act is becoming clearer over time. In fact, this was the focus of the feature article in this month’s Government Executive magazine, “Untangling the Recovery.” In that article, author Robert Brodsky notes: “For the nation’s 2.7 million federal employees, the stimulus plan represents a more personal mission. It is a chance for redemption, to convince the rest of the world that the government still can operate as an efficient and effective management organization.”
Even the Washington Post notes: “Tracking Stimulus Spending May Not Be as Easy as Promised,” and cites how a private website, www.recovery.org, is reporting seemingly more complete information, faster. But this private site doesn’t have to develop guidance for, and document, how many jobs are being saved or created!
Government Executive’s Katherine Peters notes that tracking the number of jobs will be tricky and “documenting that number may take some fancy footwork.” Federal Times’ Gregg Carlstrom wrote a couple weeks ago that the Office of Management and Budget would be coming out with guidance last week. But it was delayed; when circulated to agencies for comment, OMB got more than 700 comments to resolve. So it was released late yesterday.
The new OMB guidance, dated June 22, finally clarifies the two streams of data (money going out vs. reporting back on dollars spent, project results, and jobs created or saved). It also creates a distinction between what it does vs. what the Recovery Board does by creating a new, separate website. The new website, federalreporting.gov/, is to be used by grant, contract, and loan recipients and sub-recipients to report back to the federal government. The new guidance explains how they are to report information on this new website. It also promises: “Additional guidance to Federal government contractors will be forthcoming. . . revised guidance on lobbyist communications is also forthcoming.”
The guidance also includes a supplement which, for the first time, lists all 306 federal programs that receive Recovery Act funds and are included in the reporting system. Some of these are listed here, along with their Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number, to provide some flavor of the diversity of this effort:
- 10.086 USDA, Aquaculture Assistance Grants (new)
- 11.559 Commerce, Low-Power Television and Translator Upgrade Programs
- 84.399 Education, Independent Living – Services for Older Blind Individuals
- 81.132 Energy, Geologic Sequestration Site Characterization
- 14.907 HUD, Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control in Privately-Owned Housing
- 15.523 Interior, Perkins County (SD) Rural Water System
- 16.803 Justice, Justice Assistance Grants to States
- (no number) NASA, Astronomy and Astrophysics Research
- 45.024 NEA, Promotion of the Arts – Grants to Organizations and Individuals
The variety suggests the complexity of reporting back data in a consistent manner. But the guidance also asks for help: “The general public and non-governmental entities interested in “good government” can help with data quality, as well, by highlight problems for correction.” They’ll be able to do this via a feedback mechanism on the soon-to-be re-designed Recovery.Gov website.
UPDATE: Robert Brodsky and Elizabeth Newell at Government Executive, wrote a good summary of the guidance in “Stimulus Guidance Calls for More Detailed Reporting.”
Tags: aquaculture assistance, ARRA speinding, Commerce, Education, Elizabeth Newell, Energy, Government Executive, HUD, Interior, Justice, NASA, NEA, OMB guidance, Recovery Act, recovery.gov, recovery.org, Robert Brodsky, stimulus funding, USDA, Washington Post