STIMULUS FUNDING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
– by Anthony H. Rainey, February 9, 2009
The Stimulus funding being worked out between the House and Senate Conference Committees focuses on infrastructure and not only the traditional categories of roads, highways, harbors, and airports. It also includes stimulus spending on broadband, school buildings, and computers for school children, modern technologies, research, and development, converter boxes for the transition to digital TV, phone service to rural areas, sewage treatment plants, computerized medical records and other health expenditures, and many other activities as well. The following are some recommendations for monitoring and reporting upon the impact and effect of these funds.
1. Require Recipients of Stimulus Package Monies to Use the Same Performance Reporting Model. A modified version of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) “Service Efforts and Accomplishments” (SEA) indicators should be required by all programs and projects that receive Stimulus funding. The modified version would include:
1.1 Goal(s) of Program or Projects. The goals should be related to the stimulus of economic activity.
1.2 Objective(s) of Program(s) or Project(s). The recipients of Stimulus funding should be required to develop, monitor, and report measurable objectives for each project and/or program to include the following:
1.2.1 Economic Sectors – Each objective should specify what North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes that the project(s) and/or program(s) that the Stimulus monies are targeted. State, county, city, or other governmental entity receiving the Stimulus money should be required to identify the organizations within their business licensing system along with their tax and revenue systems (e.g., accounts payable and accounts receivable systems).
1.2.2 Jobs Created or Retained – Each objective should identify the number of jobs by the respective NAICS code that is to be retained or created. These jobs should be identified by the EEO-1 Categories:
1. Officials and managers
2. Professionals
3. Technicians
4. Sales.
5. Office and clerical
6. Craft Workers (skilled)
7. Operatives (semiskilled)
8. Laborers (unskilled)
9. Service workers.
The State and Municipal Departments of Employment Security should be involved in the collection and reporting of this information so that the cycle is synchronized.
1.2.3 Performance Measures for Each Objective. Although it will be a challenge, now is the time for the recipients of the Stimulus funding to report, on a monthly basis, their results by:
- Inputs – The amount of Stimulus funding received.
- Programs or Projects – The names of each program or project receiving Stimulus funding
- Output – The number of new jobs created or retained jobs; measurements of economic affect upon the state, county, city, or other organization (taxes, fees or other revenue).
2. Automate the Reporting and Monitoring with Eco-STAT. With an “Eco-Stats” system, federal, state, or municipal department heads and representatives would meet regularly with executive officials to discuss Stimulus funding performance data and develop strategies to improve or sustain the performance of each program or project that received funding. Performance data would be portrayed on a Geographical Information System (GIS) to portray “areas affected” in terms of employment, revenue, or even private sector sales and permit requests to show geographic impact. Unemployment would be portrayed on a virtual map to assess whether programs or projects are having an effect or impact.
Eco-Stat meetings would enable federal, state, and municipal department heads, staff, and executive officials to review and analyze measurements of the Stimulus funding’s performance and efficiency. The Eco-Stat system would be based on the idea of holding program and project directors responsible for results through a regular review of performance data. If any programs or projects are not performing as expected, strategies are then developed to quickly correct any problems. Because this Eco-Stat system would rely on real-time access to operational level data, and resources to develop strategies to quickly correct problems, it would require an investment in technology and commitment from executives at the federal, state, and local government levels.
An Eco-Stat system would at times be viewed as confrontational as program and project directors would be “put on the spot” for poor performance. This however, is not the intent. The purpose of an Eco-Stat would be to focus decision maker’s attention on operational level data to identify and correct unwanted trends affecting the Stimulus funding before they became big problems. The Eco-Stat system would be most effective when operational reviews were connected with achievement of defined goals and objectives. Perhaps the U.S. Office of Management and Budget could target a portion of the E-Gov system to incorporate Eco-Stat. State and local governments would develop their Eco-Stat systems to include the performance of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects that received Stimulus funding. In addition, State and local governments would monitor their goals, objectives, performance measures, NAICS data, and EEO-1 data in terms of its impact on revenue, commerce, jobs, and economic development. Web-based reporting would provide accountability in “real-time.”
3. Require Stimulus Package Recipients to Utilize “Improper Payment Reporting.” The Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) of 2002, as implemented by the OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, “Requirements for Effective Measurement and Remediation of Improper Payments,” requires federal agencies to review all programs and activities annually and identify those that may be susceptible to significant erroneous payments. The Stimulus package implementation should include more resources for Federal Agency Inspector General Officers who would: a) Monitor improper payments reports of federal agencies with more frequency; b) Train State, County, land local government auditors how to monitor and assess improper payments by the recipients of the Stimulus Package.
4. Shovel-Ready Capital Projects. Producing project status reporting in an automated fashion will help officials make informed decisions regarding scheduling and cost. In establishing report content and frequency, it is important for to keep in mind that high profile projects often require more extensive reporting of activity compared more routine capital projects. Meaningful reports should provide straightforward project information for executive leadership and internal staff as well as citizens and at minimum provides a comparison of actual results to the project plan, including:
- Percent of project completed
- Percent of project budget expended
- Progress on key project milestones
- Contract status information
- Revenue and expenditure activity
- Cash flow and investment maturities
- Funding commitments
- Available appropriation
- Comparison of results in relation to established performance measures
- Highlight significant changes to project scope or costs.
- Impact upon an entity’s fixed asset valuation.
In March of 2010, I expect a lot of people to be asking questions about the progress of the Economic Stimulus funding. I believe that following the four recommendations outlined above will enable everyone to be able to measure, track, and assess the progress of programs and projects. These four recommendations, however, must be implemented by June 2009 in order to work.
