Fees, Fines, and Penalties: Better Reporting of Government-wide Data Would Increase Transparency and Facilitate Oversight

Congress has authorized federal agencies to collect hundreds of billions of dollars annually in fees, fines, and penalties. These collections can fund a variety of programs, including programs related to national security, and the protection of natural resources. Data on collections are important for congressional oversight and to provide transparency in agencies' use of federal resources.

GAO was asked to review the availability of government-wide data on fees, fines, and penalties. This report examines (1) the extent to which data on collections of fees, fines, and penalties are publically available and useful for the purpose of congressional oversight; and (2) the benefits and challenges to government-wide reporting of fees, fines, and penalties. GAO assessed government-wide fee, fine, and penalty data against criteria for availability and usefulness based on multiple sources, including prior GAO work and input from staff of selected congressional committees. GAO interviewed OMB staff, Treasury officials, and representatives of organizations with expertise in federal budget issues and reviewed prior GAO work to identify benefits and challenges of reporting these data.

There are no comprehensive, government-wide data at the level of detail that identifies specific fees, fines, or penalties. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) report data that include these collections at the budget account level, which generally covers a set of agency activities or programs. OMB and Treasury also report some summary data for budgeting and financial management purposes. In the Budget of the U.S. Government , for example, OMB data showed government-wide fees totaled just over $335 billion in fiscal year 2017. These reports, however, are not designed to inventory or analyze fee, fine, or penalty collections and have significant limitations for that purpose.

Although OMB collects more disaggregated data on fees, fines, and penalties, it does not make the data publicly available. OMB uses the disaggregated data in its OMB MAX database—such as the agency and account—to compile reported totals, such as the government-wide fees total in the Budget of the U.S. Government . Until OMB makes more disaggregated data publicly available, Congress has limited information on collections by agency to inform oversight and decision-making.

OMB's government-wide total of fees includes collections that are not fees and excludes some fee collections. The total includes all collections for accounts in which fees make up at least half of the account's collections and excludes all others. OMB does not direct agencies to regularly review and update the accounts included in the total. Therefore, if accounts' makeups change such that fee collections drop below, or rise above, the 50 percent threshold, accounts may have incorrect fee designations and the total may be inaccurate.

Further, OMB does not disclose the limitation that the total may exclude some fees and include other collections that are not fees. As a result, some users of the data are likely unaware of the potential for the total fees to be overestimated or underestimated.

Further, no source of government-wide data consistently reports data elements on fees, fines, and penalties that could help inform congressional oversight. Generally, congressional staff told us that additional data, such as amounts of specific penalties, would increase transparency and facilitate oversight. These data could help Congress identify trends in collections and significant changes that could be an indication of an agency's performance. While reporting government-wide fee, fine, and penalty data provides benefits, there are trade-offs in terms of the time and federal resources it would take to develop and implement a process for agencies to report these data. The level of federal investment would vary depending on factors, such as the number of data elements included and the level of detail reported. Developing a comprehensive and accessible data source would provide greater benefits, but would likely be resource intensive. Alternatively, incorporating a small number of data elements that Congress identifies as most useful for oversight into ongoing government-wide reporting efforts could incrementally improve transparency and information for oversight and decision-making, with fewer resources.

GAO is making four recommendations to enhance OMB reporting on fees, fines, and penalties, including making disaggregated data publically available, updating instructions to federal agencies to review accounts designated as containing fees, and disclosing limitations in data reported. OMB did not provide comments.

Congress has authorized federal agencies to collect hundreds of billions  of dollars annually in fees, fines, and penalties. These collections can  fund a wide variety of programs, including programs integral to our  nation’s security, to the security of our financial system, and to the  protection of our natural resources. Agencies are authorized to charge  more than 3,600 different user fees, such as for visiting national parks,  patent applications, and customs inspections. Agency authority to  assess and collect fines and penalties is a critical method for enforcing  policies and deterring violations of laws and regulations. For example, the  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has identified more than 50  different agencies as having civil monetary penalty authority. In fiscal  year 2017, these federal agencies assessed millions of dollars in civil  monetary penalties for violations of statutory requirements, such as  phone calls that violated federal telemarketing law.

Given the nation’s fiscal condition, it is critical Congress has full visibility  over all federal resources. Federal collections of fees, fines, and penalties  vary in the extent to which revenue collected is dedicated to the related  program or agency and the extent to which the agency has authority to  obligate and expend collections. Congress retains oversight over fees,  fines, and penalties, regardless of agencies’ authority to use these collections. As such, data that provide visibility on collections and how  they are used are important for Congress to oversee agencies and  programs, and provide transparency in agencies’ use of federal  resources.

OMB reports high-level, government-wide summary data on fee, fine, and  penalty collections in the Budget of the U.S. Government’s Analytical  Perspectives and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) reports data  on agency receipts in the Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and  Balances (Combined Statement). These reports are designed to serve  specific purposes and audiences, and provide information targeted to  meet those needs.

You asked us to review issues related to the availability of government- wide data on fees, fines, and penalties. This report examines: (1) the  extent to which government-wide data on collections of fees, fines, and  penalties are publicly available and useful for the purpose of  congressional oversight; and (2) the benefits and challenges to  government-wide reporting of specific fees, fines, and penalties including  data elements that facilitate congressional oversight.

To address these objectives, we developed criteria for the availability and  usefulness of data on collections of fees, fines, and penalties for the  purpose of congressional oversight based on: our Standards for Internal Control,   requirements found in the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act  of 2014 (DATA Act), government-wide instructions from OMB on public access to data and our prior work on user fees, fines, and penalties, and  input from staff of congressional committees on appropriations,  budget, and oversight (see table 1).

We shared the criteria with OMB staff and Treasury officials, and they  agreed the criteria are relevant and reasonable. See appendix I for more  information on the data elements that are useful for congressional  oversight.

To determine the extent and usefulness of publicly available data for our  first objective, we first identified government-wide sources containing data  on fees, fines, and penalties to include in our review. We reviewed our  prior work, conducted background research, including reviewing  Congressional Budget Office and Congressional Research Service  reports, and interviewed Treasury officials and OMB staff. As a result, we  identified the Budget of the U.S. Government—including Analytical  Perspectives, the Budget Appendix, and the Public Budget Database— produced by OMB, and the Combined Statement produced by Treasury.  We assessed these sources and related documents and processes using  the applicable criteria we developed on availability and usefulness of data  on fees, fines, and penalties for the purpose of congressional oversight  and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

We also analyzed OMB and Treasury data to identify and report  government-wide totals for fees, fines, and penalties to the extent that  they were reported. To assess the reliability of OMB’s MAX database  data related to the collections of fees, fines, and penalties, we reviewed  related documentation, interviewed knowledgeable OMB staff, and  conducted electronic data testing. To assess Treasury’s Bureau of the  Fiscal Service data related to the collections of fees, fines, and penalties,  we reviewed related documentation and interviewed knowledgeable  Treasury officials. In both cases, we found the data to be reliable for our  purposes. We did not examine whether agencies accurately report  collections as fees, fines, and penalties to OMB and Treasury.

To determine the benefits and challenges of government-wide reporting  of fees, fines, and penalties for our second objective, we interviewed staff  of congressional committees on appropriations, budget, and oversight,  OMB staff and Treasury officials, and external organizations on the  potential benefits and challenges of government-wide reporting of fees,  fines, and penalties. In addition, we reviewed our prior reports on the  DATA Act, federal program inventories, and federal fees to identify and  assess issues to consider in government-wide reporting. See appendix I  for additional details on our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to March  2019 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The federal government receives funds from numerous sources in  addition to tax revenues, including collections of user fees, fines, and  penalties. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, in fiscal year  2017, the U.S. government’s total receipts were $3.3 trillion and  collections of fees, fines, penalties, and forfeitures were more than $350  billion.

User fees (fees): Fees are charges assessed to users for goods or  services provided by the federal government, such as fees to enter a  national park, and charges assessed for regulatory services, such as  fees charged by the Food and Drug Administration for prescription  drug applications. Fees are an approach to financing federal  programs or activities that, in general, are related to some voluntary  transaction or request for government services above and beyond  what is normally available to the public. By requiring identifiable  beneficiaries to pay all or part of the cost of a good or service, fees  can promote both equity and economic efficiency.  Regularly  reviewing fees help ensure that agencies, Congress, and  stakeholders have complete information.

Fines and penalties: Criminal fines and penalty payments are  imposed by courts as punishment for criminal violations. Civil  monetary penalties are not a result of criminal proceedings but are  employed by courts and federal agencies to enforce federal laws and  regulations. For example, civil monetary penalty payments are  collected from financial institutions by certain financial regulators,  such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, from enforcement  actions assessed against financial institutions for violations related to  anti-money laundering requirements. Reviews and, as needed,  adjustments to fines and penalties could help ensure they provide a  meaningful incentive for compliance.

The design and structure of statutory authorities for fees, fines, and  penalties can vary widely. In prior work, we have identified key design  decisions related to how fee, fine, and penalty collections are used that  help Congress balance agency flexibility with congressional control and  oversight. Congress determines the availability of collections by defining  the extent to which an agency may obligate and expend them, including  the availability of the funds, the period of time the collections are available  for obligation, the purposes for which they may be obligated, and the  amount of the collections that are available to the agency. Fees, fines,  and penalties may be categorized as one of three types of collections  based on the structure of their statutory authority: offsetting collections,  offsetting receipts, or governmental receipts (see figure 1).

Offsetting collections can provide agencies with more flexibility because  they are generally available for agency obligation without an additional  annual appropriation. In contrast, offsetting receipts and governmental  receipts involve greater congressional opportunities for control and oversight because, generally, additional congressional action is needed  before the collections are available for agency obligation. For example,  Congress must appropriate collections from offsetting receipts before  agencies are authorized to obligate these funds.

The type of collection also determines how OMB and Treasury report the  collections. Offsetting collections and offsetting receipts result from  businesslike transactions and are recorded as offsets to spending.  Offsetting collections are authorized by law to be credited to appropriation  or fund expenditure accounts, while offsetting receipts are deposited in  receipt accounts. Because offsetting collections are offsets to spending,  an account will generally show the net amount that was collected and  spent at any point in time.

Congressional Actions to Make Government-wide Data Publicly Available

While there is no statutory requirement for government-wide reporting of  data of specific fees, fines and penalties, Congress has enacted  legislation to make other data on federal spending and federal programs  publicly available:

The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA  Act). The DATA Act built on previous transparency legislation by  expanding what federal agencies are required to report regarding their  spending. The act significantly increased the types of data that must  be reported, and required the use of government-wide data standards  and regular reviews of data quality to help improve the transparency  and accountability of federal spending data. These data are reported  on the USAspending.gov website.

The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA). GPRAMA, in  part, requires OMB to present a coherent picture of all federal  programs by making information available about each federal program  on a website, including related budget and performance information.  Programs have been defined as an organized set of activities directed  toward a common purpose or goal that an agency undertakes or  proposes to carry out its responsibilities. A federal program  inventory would consist of the individual programs identified by the  agencies and OMB and information collected about each of them.  OMB and agencies implemented the inventory once, in May 2013. In  October 2014, we found several issues limited the usefulness of that  inventory and made several recommendations to OMB to ensure the  effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements  and to make the inventories more useful.  Further, in September  2017, we found that OMB continued to delay implementation of the  program inventory. We recommended that OMB consider a  systematic approach to developing the program inventory and issue  instructions to provide time frames and milestones for its  implementation. Although OMB updated its instruction in June 2018,  it did not provide any time frames or milestones for implementing the  inventory. OMB has yet to develop a systematic approach for  resuming implementation of the inventory or specific time frames for  doing so.

OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Publicly Report Some Data on Fees, Fines, and Penalties, but the Data Have Significant Limitations

OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Report Broad Financial Information, but Not All Collections from Specific Fees, Fines, and Penalties

There is no source of data that lists all collections of specific fees, fines,  and penalties at a government-wide or agency level. Both OMB and  Treasury report government-wide budgetary and financial data, including  some information on collections of fees, fines, and penalties; however,  none of the reports identifies all specific fees, fines, and penalties, and  their associated collection amounts at a government-wide level. OMB  reports budgetary and financial data in various parts of the Budget of the  U.S. Government, including Analytical Perspectives, the Budget  Appendix, and the Public Budget Database.  Treasury reports financial  data in the Combined Statement. Each source provides information for a  broader purpose than reporting on collections of fees, fines, and  penalties. OMB and Treasury provide specific instructions for agency  submission of the underlying data, as described in table 2.

OMB’s reports include budgetary and financial information on federal  collections at different levels of detail—from aggregated government-wide  data to agency account-level data—depending on the source and its  purpose. Analytical Perspectives identifies collections as fees and as  fines, penalties, and forfeitures and reports government-wide summary  information on these collections. For example, in a table summarizing  government-wide governmental receipts in Analytical Perspectives, OMB  reported fines, penalties, and forfeitures in federal funds as $20.98 billion  and in trust funds as $1.17 billion for fiscal year 2017. These summary  data do not provide a government-wide total of all federal collections from  fines, penalties, and forfeitures because they do not include those that  are categorized as offsetting collections or offsetting receipts, according  to OMB staff. OMB staff said that OMB does not publish a government- wide total of fines, penalties, and forfeitures. OMB data on governmental  receipts include source codes—including a code that identifies fines,  penalties, and forfeitures—but data on offsetting collections and offsetting  receipts do not include a comparable source code. In the Budget  Appendix and the Public Budget Database, OMB reports account-level  information by agency, identified by types of collections, such as  offsetting collections, offsetting receipts, and governmental receipts. The  Budget Appendix and the Public Budget Database do not label collections  as fees, fines, or penalties and therefore, cannot be used to calculate  government-wide totals for fees, fines, or penalties.

To assemble Analytical Perspectives, the Budget Appendix, and the  Public Budget Database, OMB compiles data from federal agencies into  OMB MAX. OMB MAX,  which is not publicly available, contains  government-wide data at the account level and captures information such  as the type of collection and the type of fund to which collections are  deposited. While the data in OMB MAX help drive reporting in the Budget,  not all data compiled in OMB MAX appear in the Budget. For example,  OMB MAX  includes an indicator for accounts that contain fees, but that  information is not made available in the Budget of the U.S. Government.  According to congressional staff we spoke with, they do not have open  access to OMB MAX, but OMB provides excerpts of OMB MAX data to  staff upon request.

Treasury’s Combined Statement reports both government-wide totals and  agency account-level data for collections classified as receipts, by various  source categories—such as proprietary receipts from the public,  miscellaneous receipts, and fines, penalties, and forfeitures.

Fees. Fees may fall within several source categories. Therefore,  Treasury does not have a single government-wide total for fees. It  does present government-wide totals for various source categories,  including, Sale of Products and Fees for Permits and Regulatory and  Judicial Services, for example. Treasury also reports some fees under  non-fee categories, such as Miscellaneous Taxes and Excise Taxes.

Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures. Treasury reports a government- wide total of receipts of fines, penalties, and forfeitures, which in fiscal  year 2017 was $22.2 billion. Treasury’s Combined Statement  presents these data, disaggregated by account, in the tables Receipts  by Source Categories and Receipts by Department. For example, it  identifies total Internal Revenue Service receipts in the category  Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures of about $6.8 million in fiscal year  2017. Treasury also reports some fines, penalties, and forfeitures  receipts under other categories; these receipts are not included in its  total of fines, penalties, and forfeitures. For example, Department of  Homeland Security breached bond penalties are reported in two  categories labeled as fees: Miscellaneous Receipts – Fees for  Permits and Regulatory and Judicial Services and Offsetting  Governmental Receipts – Regulatory Fees (see figure 2).

In addition to the government-wide data sources, agencies report some  data on their collections of specific fees, fines, and penalties in their  annual financial reports, congressional budget justifications, and on  agency websites. These data are dispersed by agency, are not  comprehensive, and cannot be aggregated to create government-wide  data because they vary in format and in the level of detail presented. For  example:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an online,  searchable database of enforcement and compliance information that  includes data on individual fine and penalty assessments for violations  of certain, but not all, statutes.

The Department of Labor also makes selected enforcement data  accessible in an online database collected by the Employee Benefits  Security Administration, the Mine Safety and Health Administration,  the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Wage and  Hour Division without Department of Labor-wide data standards on  individual fine and penalty assessments.

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s 2019  Congressional Budget Justification, on the other hand, is a PDF  document that provides annual collection totals for Agriculture  Quarantine Inspection Fees, Import-Export User Fees, Phytosanitary  Certificate User Fees, Veterinary Diagnostics User Fees, and Other  User Fees, rather than disaggregated to individual fee assessments.

OMB Reports Government-wide Totals that Cannot Be Disaggregated and Does Not Disclose Limitations or Regularly Review Its Designation of Fees

OMB Reports Government- wide Data that Cannot Be Disaggregated

The government-wide totals for fees that OMB reports in Analytical  Perspectives are not presented at a more disaggregated level, such as by  agency or program, except for some major fee collections identified by  OMB. For example, in Analytical Perspectives for fiscal year 2017, OMB  reported $335.4 billion as a government-wide total of fee collections.   OMB also reported some disaggregated data for the subset of fees that  were offsetting collections and offsetting receipts. Specifically, it listed 11  fees totaling $258.4 billion collected by specific agencies and listed the  remaining $72.3 billion as “all other user charges” without identifying the  agency or program. As described in table 1 above, clear and accessible  data can be aggregated or disaggregated by the user. OMB has more  detailed data on collections in OMB MAX, including the agency, account,  type of collection, and fund type, which it uses to compile reported totals  of fees as well as fines, penalties, and forfeitures.

OMB does not publicly report these data disaggregated below the  government-wide level, such as at the agency level. OMB staff said that  they do not report the disaggregated data because the purpose of  Analytical Perspectives is to develop or support the President’s policies  and more detailed tables may not be included if they are not considered  necessary for that purpose. However, Analytical Perspectives also serves  to provide other significant data that place the President’s Budget in  context and assist the public and policymakers in better understanding  the budget proposals. For example, Analytical Perspectives includes a  chapter on aid to state and local governments that presents the  President’s budget proposals for grant programs along with crosscutting  information on federal grants to state and local governments, including  government-wide grant spending, by agency and program. Analytical  Perspectives also presents a summary of fee proposals but does not  provide comparable crosscutting information about current fees. For fines  and penalties, neither proposals nor crosscutting information is presented  by agency. Until OMB makes more disaggregated data on fees, fines,  and penalties maintained in its OMB MAX  database—such as collections  by agency—publicly available, Congress has limited information on such  collections to inform oversight and decision-making.

OMB Does Not Disclose Limitations or Regularly Review Its Designation of Fees

Analytical Perspectives’ government-wide totals of fees may include  inaccurately labeled collections—other collections that are not fees—and  may exclude some fee collections. Data that are clear and accessible are  presented with known limitations, as shown in table 1. OMB Circular No.  A-11 states that all accounts in which more than half of collections are  from fees will be designated as containing fees. OMB staff said that the  entire account is designated as containing fees because account-level  data are the most disaggregated data OMB collects from agencies. OMB  calculates its government-wide total for fees by adding collections in all  accounts designated in OMB MAX as containing user fees. However,  agency accounts can include multiple sources of budget authority. For  example, Treasury’s U.S. Mint’s account “United States Mint Public  Enterprise Fund” includes offsetting collections from Mint operations and  programs; these include the production and sale of commemorative coins  and medals, the production and sale of circulating coinage, the protection  of government assets, as well as gifts and bequests of property.  The  United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund is designated as containing  fees in OMB MAX.  Therefore, budget authority that is not derived from the  collection of fees but is still included in this account will be designated as  fees as well when calculating a government-wide total.

Conversely, accounts in which fees contribute to less than half of  collections are not designated as containing fees amounts, and those  fees will not be included in the government-wide total OMB calculates.  OMB Circular No. A-11 describes the designation of fee accounts, but the  data presented in Analytical Perspectives as totals for fees do not  disclose OMB’s designation criteria, including the limitations to the  accuracy of the data. OMB staff said they do not report this limitation  because they consider OMB Circular No. A-11 a more appropriate  document for providing technical information like the designation of  accounts containing user fees. However, the section on fees in Analytical  Perspectives does not direct the reader to OMB Circular No. A-11 for key  information related to the data presented on fees. For other topics,  including lease-purchase agreements, Analytical Perspectives directs the  reader to OMB Circular No. A-11 for further details. Furthermore, for other  topics, OMB provided explanatory information along with the data in  Analytical Perspectives. For example, OMB explained a recent change to  definitions in the research and development section of Analytical  Perspectives and the effect of the change on budget authority. Until OMB  provides a description of data limitations regarding the criteria used to  identify accounts with fees for compiling government-wide totals in  Analytical Perspectives, or directs users to the relevant section of OMB  Circular No. A-11, some users are likely to be unaware of the potential for  the total user fees to be overestimated or underestimated.

In addition, OMB does not regularly review and update implementation of  its criteria for designating fees. Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government state that agency management should use quality  information to achieve the objectives, such as processing data into quality  information that is current and accurate.  OMB Circular No. A-11 states  that the fee designation is applied at the time the account is established.  OMB staff told us that when establishing a new account, OMB  collaborates with Treasury to determine the legal attributes of the  account, including any fee authorities, and whether to designate the  account as containing fees. OMB staff further explained they review the  designation when new legislation is enacted that would change the  attributes of the account, or if an agency informs OMB that the makeup of  an account has changed because of programmatic changes. However,  OMB Circular No. A-11 does not instruct agencies to regularly review or  update this designation and report changes to OMB. Therefore, if the  makeup of collections in an account changes so that fees go from being  more than half of the collections to less than half, or vice versa, the  account’s fee designation may not be updated accordingly. Until OMB  instructs agencies to regularly review the fee designation in OMB MAX  and update the designation, as needed, OMB cannot provide reasonable  assurance that accounts are designated correctly, and that the  government-wide totals of fees reported in Analytical Perspectives are  accurate.

OMB and Treasury Sources Do Not Completely Identify Fees, Fines, and Penalties

Users Cannot Disaggregate the Agency Account-Level Data to Specific Fee, Fine, and Penalty Collections

While Analytical Perspectives reports government-wide data labeled as  fees, fines, and penalties, the other three sources we reviewed—the  Budget Appendix, the Public Budget Database, and the Combined  Statement—report account-level information by agency. Users cannot  further disaggregate the data presented to specific fee, fine, and penalty  collections. For example, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection  Service (APHIS) is funded in part by six fees: (1) Agricultural Quarantine  Inspection (AQI) fee, (2) Phytosanitary Export Certification fee, (3)  Veterinary Services Import Export fee, (4) Veterinary Diagnostics fee, (5)  Reimbursable Overtime, and (6) Trust Funds and Reimbursable Funds.   However, a user cannot identify collections from each of these APHIS  fees in the Budget Appendix. The Budget Appendix specifically identifies  AQI fee collections—$768 million in fiscal year 2017—because they are  receipts deposited to a trust fund. The other five fees are combined within  the total for offsetting collections—$152 million (see figure 3).

The Budget Appendix, the Public Budget Database, and the Combined  Statement report data at the account level because the purposes of these  reports are broader than fees, fines, and penalties, and OMB and  Treasury instruct agencies to report data at that level. Treasury’s  Financial Manual states that agencies post appropriations and spending  authorizations by Congress to accounts established by Treasury. OMB’s  Circular No. A-11 instructs agencies to report data at the budget account  level in OMB MAX, which supports the data in the Budget Appendix and  the Public Budget Database. Because OMB and Treasury do not collect  data that can be disaggregated to the level of fee, fine, or penalty, the  collections for specific fees, fines, and penalties within accounts are not  identifiable within account totals.

OMB Data Sources Label Data More Broadly than Fees, Fines, and Penalties

Both the Budget Appendix and Public Budget Database label and present  data within each account by collection type: offsetting collections,  offsetting receipts, and governmental receipts. These collection types  include fees, fines, and penalties, as well as other sources of collections,  as shown in the text box below.

Budgetary Collections as Labeled by the Budget of the U.S. Government Include  More than Fees, Fines, and Penalties

Offsetting Collections and Offsetting Receipts include user fees as w ell as  reimbursements  for damages,  intragovernmental  transactions, and voluntary gifts  and donations  to the government.

Governmental Receipts include collections that result from the government’s  exercise of its sovereign pow er to tax or otherw ise compel  payment,  and include  taxes, compulsory  user fees, regulatory fees, customs duties, court fines, certain  license fees, and deposits of earnings by the Federal  Reserve System.

As a result, the user cannot separate fees, fines, and penalties from other  collections. For example, offsetting collections may include fees,  reimbursements for damages, gifts or donations of money to the  government, and intragovernmental transactions with other government  accounts.

Analytical Perspectives explains that amounts collected by government  agencies are recorded in two ways that broadly affect the formulation of  the government-wide budget, but may not provide detail on specific  agency collections: (1) governmental receipts, which are compared to  total outlays in calculating the surplus or deficit; and (2) offsetting  collections or offsetting receipts, which are deducted from gross outlays  to calculate net outlay figures. These collections are presented together  for budgeting purposes, but cannot be separated to specific fees, fines, or  penalties. Therefore, it is not clear what percentage of the reported  collections are fees, fines, and penalties as opposed to other collections.

OMB Does Not Clearly Describe How the Public Budget Database Reports Certain Fee, Fine, and Penalty Collections

Treasury’s Combined Statement and OMB’s Public Budget Database do  not identify offsetting collections, including collections of fees, fines, and  penalties. Instead, the Combined Statement reports net outlays, which  include any offsetting collections as deductions from outlays. Similarly,  the Public Budget Database reports budget authority net of any offsetting  collections. Treasury clearly describes this presentation of the data in the  Combined Statement, but OMB does not in the Public Budget Database.  In the “Explanation of Transactions and Basis of Figures” section of the  Combined Statement, Treasury describes that outlays are stated net of  collections representing reimbursements as authorized by law, which  include offsetting collections. With the description provided in the  Combined Statement, the user can understand that fees, fines, and  penalties that are offsetting collections are not identifiable in the data.

OMB reports receipts and budget authority—which include collections  from fees, fines, and penalties—in separate spreadsheets of the Public  Budget Database. Similar to outlays reported in Treasury’s Combined  Statement, the Budget Authority spreadsheet reports the net budget  authority of accounts after agencies have credited offsetting collections  from fees, fines, penalties, or other collections. For example, the National  Park Service reported net budget authority of $2.425 billion for the  Operation of the National Park System account in fiscal year 2017 in both  the Budget Appendix and the Public Budget Database, both of which  present data compiled in OMB MAX. The Budget Appendix presents  additional information, reporting offsetting collections that are at least  partially derived from fees of $35 million, and gross budget authority of  $2.46 billion, as shown in figure 4. The Public Budget Database, on the  other hand, does not identify the amount of offsetting collections in the  account or gross budget authority.

OMB does not describe this presentation of the data in the Public Budget  Database User’s Guide. As shown in table 1, data that are clear and  accessible are presented with descriptions of the data. The User’s Guide  directs users who may not be familiar with federal budget concepts to  Analytical Perspectives and OMB Circular No. A-11. However, OMB does  not describe, either in the User’s Guide or in the Budget Authority  spreadsheet of the Public Budget Database, that this source reports  budget authority net of offsetting collections, such as collections of fees,  fines, and penalties. OMB staff said they do not describe the presentation  because it is explained in Analytical Perspectives. However, the Public  Budget Database is available for download separate from Analytical  Perspectives, and the User’s Guide specific to the Public Budget  Database includes other information describing the data in the  spreadsheets. Describing the presentation of the data in the User’s  Guide would help ensure that users of the Public Budget Database can  correctly interpret the information and not underestimate agencies’ fee,  fine, or penalty collections.

Government-wide Sources Do Not Consistently Report Data that Would Facilitate Oversight

No source of government-wide data consistently reports data elements  related to fees, fines, and penalties that could help inform congressional  oversight of agencies and programs, such as the amount collected  annually, account balances, and whether the collection is a fee, fine, or  penalty. See figure 5 for the extent to which data elements are included in  the Budget Appendix, Public Budget Database, and Combined  Statement. See appendix I for more detailed information on the data  elements that are useful for congressional oversight.

To a limited extent there are some cases where government-wide reports  included data elements useful for the purpose of congressional oversight  of fees, fines, and penalties. In some cases the Budget Appendix includes  information on the fund type receiving collections and the extent to which  the collections from fees may be appropriated to the agency collecting the  fee. The Budget Appendix, for example, reports that collections for the  Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) fee are recorded under “Special  and Trust Fund Receipts,” as shown previously in figure 3. The user can  also identify the appropriation of collections from the AQI fee under  “Program and Financing, Budgetary resources,” as shown below in figure  6. As discussed previously, the other five fees the Animal and Plant  Health Inspection Service(APHIS) collects are not individually identifiable  in the Budget Appendix, but fall under offsetting collections.

OMB and Treasury reports, and the systems that support them, are  designed for budget and financial information and not for an inventory of  fees, fines, and penalties that includes the data elements that Congress  may use in oversight. OMB staff said the agency does not have a  requirement to prioritize reporting fee, fine, and penalty data over more  detailed information on other types of funds. OMB staff said while they  generally agree that additional data elements would be useful for  oversight, there are trade-offs between transparency and the burden of  collecting and reporting additional information.

Better Reporting of Government-wide Data on Fees, Fines, and Penalties Would Increase Transparency and Data Available for Oversight, but Would Require an Investment of Federal Resources

Benefits Include Increased Transparency and Better Information for Oversight and Decision-Making

According to OMB staff and officials from Treasury, the Congressional  Research Service, and external organizations with expertise in federal  budget issues and data transparency, there are two primary benefits to  government-wide reporting of fee, fine, and penalty data: increased  transparency and better information for congressional oversight and  decision-making. Generally, all congressional staff we spoke with said  making additional government-wide data on fees, fines, and penalties,  such as those data elements described previously, without additional  outreach to agencies, would be useful and increase transparency. While  some congressional staff said such data elements are available through  direct outreach to agencies, other congressional staff told us they could  not always obtain the information they wanted. For example, staff from a  congressional committee said that one of the most critical data elements  for the purpose of congressional oversight is information on agency  reporting of obligations and expenditures because, in their view, currently  many agencies do not adequately report this information and some  agencies do not report this information at all. These data would provide  Congress a more complete picture of individual agencies’ activities and  any potential overlap or duplication in multiple agencies’ activities.  Congressional staff also said having government-wide data on collections  of fees could inform efforts that are crosscutting in nature. For example,  APHIS  and Customs and Border Protection jointly implement the AQI  program to help prevent the introduction of harmful agricultural pests and  diseases into the United States, and AQI fee collections are divided  between the two agencies.

Publicly available data on government-wide collections of fines and  penalties could inform the public on agency enforcement activities and  compliance of regulated parties, such as those related to health or safety.  Some officials from external organizations and congressional staff said  that it would be useful to have government-wide data on individual fines  and penalties levied by agencies. For example, the Environmental  Protection Agency publishes an online database on its compliance and  enforcement actions, Enforcement and Compliance History Online  (ECHO). According to the website, the data available on ECHO allows  the public to monitor environmental compliance in communities,  corporations to monitor compliance across facilities they own, and  investors to more easily factor environmental performance into decisions.  Further, an official from an external organization with expertise in data  transparency stated that, ideally, a user would be able to link fine and  penalty data to spending data on USAspending.gov to increase  transparency in instances where an organization receiving a federal grant  or contract has also had a fine or penalty levied against it.

Last, publicly available government-wide data on collections could inform  the public, specifically payers of fees, fines, and penalties, and facilitate  their participation in public comment opportunities. For example, OMB  staff said government-wide data could provide the public with clear,  transparent information across agencies on fee collections and allow the  public to analyze differences in fee programs among agencies. Payers of  fees may be able to make more informed comments on proposed  changes to a fee program if they had information on how it relates to  other fee programs across the federal government.

Government-wide fee, fine, and penalty data would provide more  information to facilitate congressional oversight. These data could help  Congress identify trends in collections and significant changes that could  be an indication of an agency’s performance. For example, staff of a  Congressional committee stated that fine and penalty data can be used to  examine enforcement actions on a particular issue or to identify potential  trends over time as an indicator of stronger or weaker enforcement  actions by an agency. Congress could also use these data to identify  variations in enforcement action among geographic regions or as an  indicator of the frequency of violations.

Additionally, data on review and reporting requirements can inform  congressional oversight of fees, fines, and penalties. We previously  reported that regular comprehensive reviews of fees provide opportunities  for agencies and Congress to make improvements to a fee’s design  which, if left unaddressed, could contribute to inefficient use of  government resources. For example, fee reviews could help ensure that  fees are properly set to cover the total costs of those activities which are  intended to be fully fee-funded. Fee reviews may also allow agencies and  Congress to identify where similar activities are funded differently; for  example, one by fees and one by appropriations. One such example is  the export control system, in which the State Department charges fees for  the export of items on the U.S. Munitions List, while the Commerce  Department does not charge fees for those items exported under its  jurisdiction.

Government-wide reporting of fee, fine, and penalty data could also  inform Congress’s funding decisions by providing a clearer picture of  agencies’ total resources. Congressional staff stated that knowing the  statutory authority to collect and obligate funding from fees, fines, and  penalties—along with any appropriation an agency may have received  from an annual appropriation act, which are currently available to  congressional staff—would provide a more complete picture of an  agency’s total annual funding, including the portion attributed to the  taxpayer and the portion attributed to payers of specific fees, fines, and  penalties. For example, staff from congressional committees we spoke  with said it would be useful to have data to show programs that receive  appropriations from both offsetting collections and appropriations not  derived from offsetting collections to inform decisions on how the program  is funded. Congressional staff also said this would provide more  opportunities to track the flow of money in and out of the government.  Overall funding decisions may be affected if an agency has an increase in  fee collections, for example. Congressional committee staff also said it  would be useful to have government-wide data on specific fees, fines,  and penalties that are offsetting collections because these collections are  available for obligation without going through the annual appropriations  process. Our prior work has shown that it is important to consider how the  agencies and entities with this authority facilitate oversight to ensure  effective management, transparency, and public accountability. Some  committee staff said they can request data directly from agencies when  they need more disaggregated information on fees, fines, and penalties,  and reported different levels of responsiveness from agencies. Publicly  available data could reduce potentially overlapping or duplicative requests  from staff to agencies.

Potential Challenges Exist for Standardizing Definitions of Fees, Fines, and Penalties

According to officials from agencies and external organizations, there are  potential challenges to defining the government-wide data standard or  definition of fee, fine, and penalty programs by which agencies could  report. Because there is no statutory requirement for government-wide  reporting of fee, fine, and penalty data, agencies collect and use these  data for their own purposes, and are not using government-wide data  elements and standards that are consistent and comparable between  agencies. First, an agency may define a fee program as a single fee or a  set of related fees. For example, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration  Services charges more than 40 immigration and naturalization fees to  applicants and petitioners that could be grouped together as related fees  or split into up to 40 different fee programs. Second, officials from  external organizations said there are also challenges in defining data  standards the level of detail to report.  For example, an official from an  external organization said, for large financial penalties, it may be useful  for oversight for the data to identify each instance of the penalty, including  the fined party. However, that level of detail could raise privacy  sensitivities. For example, reporting every individual that paid an entrance  fee at a national park could present privacy concerns. Finally, for  elements that are useful for congressional oversight, one challenge could  be the timing of when funds are collected compared to when they are  available for obligation. The amount of funds collected in a year does not  necessarily equal the amount available to the agency that year. For  example, collections of Harbor Maintenance Fees are deposited to the  Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and are not available for obligation  without appropriation. Funds collected in one year may not be necessarily  appropriated and obligated until a subsequent year.

Our prior work on the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014  (DATA Act) implementation underscores the importance of standardized  and clearly defined data elements. We found inconsistent and potentially  confusing instructions from OMB regarding the Primary Place of  Performance data elements that resulted in inconsistent reporting among  agencies. The standard established by OMB and Treasury defines  Primary Place of Performance as “where the predominant performance of  the award will be accomplished” while other instructions define it as “the  location of the principal plant or place of business where the items will be  produced, supplied from stock, or where the service will be performed.”  We found some agencies used the first definition and some used the  second. In one case, the Departments of Labor and Health and Human  Services issued contracts to the same company for similar office printers,  but one reported the primary place of performance as California, the  location of the office where the printers were delivered and used. The  other agency reported the primary place of performance as New Jersey,  the location of the company that supplied the printers. As a result, the  data were not comparable between agencies or across the federal  government, limiting the usefulness for congressional oversight. We  previously recommended that OMB and Treasury provide additional  instruction to agencies on how to report Primary Place of Performance to  ensure the definitions are clear and the data standards are implemented  consistently by agencies.

Staff from one congressional committee cautioned that attempts to  present information on budget authorities for fees, fines, and penalties in  a simple and accessible database create an unacceptable risk of  confusion and legislative error. The staff said an accurate description of  the nature of the spending–-including whether there is authority to  obligate without further appropriation–-would be labor intensive and  require significant legal analysis and research.

Government-wide Reporting Would Require an Investment of Federal Resources

Government-wide reporting of fees, fines, and penalties could increase  transparency and facilitate oversight and decision-making, but would  require time and resources to develop given that there is currently no  government-wide system or requirements for agencies to collect and  report detailed fee, fine, and penalty data. The level of federal investment  would vary depending on factors, such as the number of data elements  included and the level of detail reported. Developing a comprehensive  and accessible data source would provide greater benefits, but would  likely be resource intensive. We have reported on other federal  transparency efforts that could provide strategies for reporting  government-wide fee, fine, and penalty data. For example, to create a  clear and accessible government-wide data source that includes the data  elements we identified that would be useful for congressional oversight,  Treasury officials said the process would be similar to the implementation  of the DATA Act for spending data. To implement the DATA Act, OMB  and Treasury led an intensive effort starting in May 2014 through May  2017 when the first government-wide data were reported under the DATA  Act’s new standards.

Data Standards: OMB, in coordination with Treasury, established 57  standardized data element definitions and approximately 400  associated sub-elements for reporting federal spending information.  OMB and Treasury created opportunities for non-federal stakeholders  to provide input into the development of data standards, including  publishing a Federal Register notice seeking public comment on the  establishment of financial data standards; presenting periodic updates  on the status of DATA Act implementation to federal and non-federal  stakeholders at meetings and conferences; soliciting public comment  on data standards using an online collaboration space; and  collaborating with federal agencies on the development of data  standards and the technical schema through MAX.gov, an OMB- supported website.

Technical Process for Reporting: Treasury developed the initial  DATA Act Information Model Schema, which provided information on  how to standardize the way financial assistance awards, contracts,  and other financial and nonfinancial data would be collected and  reported under the DATA Act.

System to Collect and Validate Data: Treasury developed a system  that collects and validates agency data (the DATA Act Broker), which  operationalizes the reporting framework laid out in the schema. In  addition, Treasury employed online software development tools to  provide responses to stakeholder questions and comments related to  the development and revision of the broker.

Public Reporting: Treasury created and updated the new  USAspending.gov website to display certified agency data submitted  under the DATA Act.

Agencies also took steps to prepare to report spending data. They  reviewed data elements OMB identified, participated in standardizing the  definitions, performed an inventory of their existing data and associated  business processes, and updated their systems and processes to report  data to Treasury. OMB and Treasury issued policy directions to help  agencies meet their reporting requirements under the act. They also  conducted a series of meetings with participating agencies to obtain  information on any challenges that could impede effective implementation  and assess agencies’ readiness to report required spending data.

Although the steps to developing comprehensive, detailed reporting on  government-wide collections of fees, fines, and penalties might be similar  to the DATA Act efforts, the dollar amounts of collections would be  smaller than those of federal spending. In fiscal year 2017, federal  spending was $3.98 trillion compared to about $350 billion in collections  of fees, fines, penalties, and forfeitures reported by OMB.  On the other  hand, defining data elements and standards for fee, fine, and penalty data  could be more resource intensive than developing data standards for  DATA Act implementation because the DATA Act built on earlier reporting  requirements. The DATA Act amended the Federal Funding  Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), which required  OMB to establish the website USAspending.gov to report data on federal  awards, including contracts, grants, and loans. The DATA Act required  OMB and Treasury to standardize data required to be reported by  FFATA. For fee, fine, and penalty data, OMB and Treasury would be  starting without the benefit of some data elements already defined.  Further, we have previously reported that effective implementation of  provisions to make federal data publicly available, including the DATA Act  and GPRAMA’s program inventory, especially the ability to crosswalk  spending data to individual programs, could provide vital information to  assist federal decision makers in addressing significant challenges the  government faces.

Incorporating a small number of data elements that Congress identifies as  most useful for oversight into ongoing government-wide agency reporting  efforts could incrementally improve transparency and information for  oversight and decision-making, with fewer resources. For example,  Congress required agencies to add selected data elements to their  annual financial reports on civil monetary penalties. Specifically, the  Federal Civil Penalties Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015  requires agencies to include information about the civil monetary  penalties within the agencies’ jurisdiction, including catch-up inflation  adjustment of the civil monetary penalty amounts, in annual agency  financial reports or performance and accountability reports. As shown in  figure 7, to facilitate agencies’ reporting, OMB provided a table to define  the data elements required in the act in its annual instructions, OMB  Circular No. A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements.

Agencies started reporting these data in their agency financial reports in  fiscal year 2016. In July 2018, we reported that 40 of 45 required  agencies reported in their fiscal year 2017 agency financial report  information on civil monetary penalties as directed by the OMB  instructions. Similarly, if Congress sought additional fine and penalty  data elements, such as amounts collected and authority to spend  collections, OMB could expand this table in Circular No. A-136 to include  those data elements. Circular No. A-136 also outlines that agencies may  include the results of biennial reviews of fees and other collections in their  agency financial reports. OMB could also update this portion of the  circular to require agencies to report specific data elements that are  useful for oversight, such as review and reporting requirements. While  this information reported in agency financial reports would be  disaggregated in portable document format, or PDF, documents, it would  provide some transparency on agencies’ activities that Congress could  use to prioritize its oversight efforts.

In another example, if OMB implements the federal program inventory as  required by GPRAMA, it could include a data element on whether a  program has a fee, fine, or penalty. We previously reported that the  principles and practices of information architecture—a discipline focused  on organizing and structuring information—offer an approach for  developing such an inventory to support a variety of uses, including  increased transparency for federal programs. A program inventory  creates the potential to aggregate, disaggregate, sort, and filter  information across multiple program facets. For example, from a user’s  perspective, a program could be tagged to highlight whether it includes  activities to collect fees, fines, or penalties. Then, a user interested in this  data facet could select a tag (e.g., fees) that could generate a list of  programs that also have fees, fines, or penalties. While the program  inventory is broader than agency collections of fees, fines, and penalties  and would include programmatic descriptions, it would increase  transparency by enabling Congress and the public to identify and isolate  all programs that include, as a source of funding or a key data element, a  fee, fine, or penalty to inform oversight and target additional requests for  information to agencies.

Federal agencies are authorized to collect hundreds of billions of dollars  from fees, fines, and penalties each year that fund a wide variety of  programs, but Congress and the American public do not have  government-wide data on these collections that would provide increased  transparency and facilitate oversight. OMB’s MAX database contains  some disaggregated data labeled as fees, fines, and penalties, but OMB  does not make these data publicly available. Without more  disaggregated, government-wide, accessible data on collections of fees,  fines, and penalties, such as by agency, Congress and the public do not  have a complete and accurate picture of federal finances, the sources of  federal funds, and the resources available to fund federal programs.

In addition, improving the data OMB currently reports related to fees,  fines, and penalties could help the user better understand the data and  the potential limitations. First, until OMB describes how it identifies  accounts with fees including that the government-wide totals of fees it  reports in Analytical Perspectives may include collections that are not  fees and exclude some fee collections, some users will likely be unaware  that reported totals could be over- or under-estimates. Second, without  OMB instruction to agencies to regularly review and update  implementation of the criteria for designating accounts that contain fees,  accounts could be designated incorrectly if the makeup of the collections  changes. Therefore, OMB cannot provide reasonable assurance that the  total amount of fees it reports is accurate. Third, until OMB describes in  the User’s Guide that its Public Budget Database reports budget authority  net of offsetting collections, including collections of fees, fines, and  penalties, users could misinterpret the information and underestimate  collections in some cases.

OMB and Treasury do not collect many of the data elements on fees,  fines, and penalties that would be useful for congressional oversight, such  as review and reporting requirements. There are trade-offs between the  potential costs and the potential benefits. While reporting government- wide data on specific fees, fines, and penalties would improve  transparency and information for decision-making, more data elements  would require greater investment of resources from OMB, Treasury, and  agencies. Any new reporting of fee, fine, and penalty data would be most  useful if it is designed to be compatible with other transparency efforts— the DATA Act reporting and the federal program inventory. Regardless of  the approach taken, linkage of data on fees, fines, and penalties with  other government-wide data reporting, such as USASpending.gov, would  enhance transparency and facilitate congressional oversight.

We are making the following four recommendations to OMB:  The Director of OMB should make available more disaggregated data on  fees, fines, and penalties that it maintains in its OMB MAX  database. For  example, OMB could report data on fee collections by agency in  Analytical Perspectives. (Recommendation 1)

The Director of OMB should present, in Analytical Perspectives, the data  limitations related to the government-wide fee totals by describing the 50- percent criteria OMB uses to identify accounts with fees or by directing  users to the relevant sections of OMB Circular No. A-11.  (Recommendation 2)

The Director of OMB should instruct agencies to regularly review the  application of the user fee designation in the OMB MAX data and update  the designation, as needed, to meet the criteria in OMB Circular No. A-11.  (Recommendation 3)

The Director of OMB should describe in the Public Budget Database  User’s Guide that budget authority is reported net of any offsetting  collections, such as collections of fees, fines, and penalties.  (Recommendation 4)

We provided a draft of this report to Treasury and OMB for review and  comment on December 10, 2018. Treasury informed us that they had no  comments. As of March 4, 2019, OMB did not provide comments.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, and the  Director of the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, the report  is available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-6806 or nguyentt@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology

This report examines: (1) the extent to which government-wide data on  collections of fees, fines, and penalties are publicly available and useful  for the purpose of congressional oversight, and (2) the benefits and  challenges to government-wide reporting of specific fees, fines, and  penalties including data elements that facilitate congressional oversight.

To assess the extent and usefulness of publicly available data, we  developed criteria for the availability and usefulness for the purpose of  congressional oversight of data on collections of fees, fines, and penalties  reported in government-wide sources (see table 3).

The first three criteria—clear and accessible presentation, complete, and  accurate—address the availability of the data and the final criterion,  useful for the purpose of congressional oversight, addresses content of  the data specific to congressional oversight needs. These criteria are  based on:

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government related to

Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act) government-wide instruction from the Office of Management and  Budget (OMB) on public access to data and open government, our prior work on user fees, fines, and penalties, and  input from staff of congressional committees on appropriations,  budget, and oversight.

Using a standard list of semistructured interview questions, we  interviewed congressional staff that were available to meet with us on or  before November 1, 2018. We shared the criteria with OMB staff and  Department of the Treasury (Treasury) officials, and they agreed the  criteria are relevant and reasonable.

To identify publicly available government-wide sources of data with  information on collections of fees, fines, and penalties, we reviewed our  prior work on user fees, fines, penalties, and permanent funding  authorities, conducted general background research including reviewing  Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Congressional Research Service  (CRS) reports, and interviewed staff from OMB, and officials from  Treasury, CBO, and CRS. We identified the Budget of the U.S.  Government—including Analytical Perspectives, the Budget Appendix,  and the Public Budget Database—produced annually by OMB; the  Financial Report of the U.S. Government (Financial Report), the Daily  Treasury Statement, the Monthly Treasury Statement, the Combined  Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances, and USAspending.gov  produced by Treasury; and CBO products, such as its budget projections  and historical budget tables as containing government-wide federal  budget or financial data.

Of the sources we identified, we included Analytical Perspectives, the  Budget Appendix, the Public Budget Database, and the Combined  Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances in our study because they  contain government-wide information on collections of fees, fines, and  penalties. We excluded the Treasury’s Daily Treasury Statement, Monthly  Treasury Statement, Financial Report, and USAspending.gov from this  review because we determined that the information presented did not  differentiate between types of collections in a way that would allow us to  separately identify fees, fines, and penalties. For example, Treasury’s  Financial Report reports government-wide information in categories that are broader than fees, fines, and penalties. Specifically, it reports “earned  revenue,” which includes collections of interest payments for federal loan  programs. Such collections are not fees. The Financial Report also  reports fines and penalties combined with interest and other revenues.  We also reviewed and excluded CBO products because the data reported  are not designed to differentiate between types of collections.

We assessed Analytical Perspectives, the Budget Appendix, the Public  Budget Database, and the Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays,  and Balances using the criteria we developed for clear and accessible  presentation, accurate, and complete. We also assessed the Budget  Appendix, the Public Budget Database, and the Combined Statement of  Receipts, Outlays, and Balances using the criteria for useful for the  purpose of congressional oversight.  Further, we assessed relevant  portions of OMB and Treasury instructions using Standards for Internal  Control in the Federal Government.

We also used OMB and Treasury data to identify and report government- wide totals for fees, fines, and penalties to the extent that they were  reported. To assess the reliability of OMB’s MAX database data related to  the collections of fees, fines, and penalties, we reviewed related  documentation, interviewed knowledgeable agency officials, and  conducted electronic data testing. To assess Treasury’s Bureau of the  Fiscal Service data related to the collections of fees, fines, and penalties,  we reviewed related documentation and interviewed knowledgeable  agency officials. In both cases, we found the data to be reliable for our  purposes. We did not examine whether agencies accurately report  collections as fees, fines, and penalties to OMB and Treasury.

In addition, we identified and reviewed other sources of data on fees,  fines, and penalties that are specific to federal agencies, including annual  financial reports and agency websites. We did not apply the criteria we  developed for available and useful for the purpose of congressional  oversight to these sources because they contain data for an individual  agency rather than government-wide data.

To determine the benefits and challenges to government-wide reporting  of fees, fines, and penalties, we interviewed staff of congressional  committees on appropriations, budget, and oversight, OMB staff and  Treasury officials, staff of CBO, and external organizations, including the  Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Data Coalition, the  Data Foundation, the Project on Government Oversight, the Peter G.  Peterson Foundation, and the Sunlight Foundation, on the potential  benefits and challenges of government-wide reporting of fees, fines, and  penalties. In addition, we reviewed our prior work on the DATA Act,  federal program inventories, and federal fees, to identify and assess  issues to consider in government-wide reporting.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Susan E. Murphy (Assistant  Director), Barbara Lancaster (Analyst in Charge), Michael Bechetti,  Jacqueline Chapin, Colleen Corcoran, Ann Marie Cortez, Lorraine Ettaro,  John Mingus, and Rachel Stoiko made key contributions to this report.

Federal agencies collect hundreds of billions of dollars annually in fees, fines, and penalties, such as national park entry fees and penalties for violations of federal telemarketing law.

Government-wide data could help Congress identify trends in collections and significant changes that could be an indication of an agency’s performance. Currently, there is no comprehensive, government-wide report that identifies specific fees, fines, and penalties.

We made 4 recommendations to enhance the Office of Management and Budget's current reporting on these collections, such as making more specific data publically available.