Open Data: Treasury Could Better Align USAspending.gov with Key Practices and Search Requirements

Open data can foster accountability and public trust by providing citizens with information on government activities and their outcomes. It can also promote private sector innovation. The DATA Act requires that the federal government collect and present open data on roughly $4 trillion in annual federal spending. The DATA Act also includes a provision requiring GAO to review its implementation.

This report (1) identifies key practices for transparently reporting government data; and (2) evaluates the extent to which USAspending.gov is consistent with those key practices and other requirements. GAO developed the key practices by systematically evaluating and synthesizing information from literature on open data, as well as interviews with open data experts and good governance groups. GAO used these key practices as well as existing federal website standards and applicable laws to evaluate USAspending.gov.

GAO identified five key practices for transparently reporting government data, as well as actions to implement each practice. These key practices and actions can assist managers of open government data programs in the transparent presentation of their data. Open data are information that can be freely used, modified, or shared by anyone for any purpose.

USAspending.gov aligns with several key practices. However, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has not fully aligned the website with all of the key practices, the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance (see table.) FFATA, as amended by the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act), directed Treasury to develop and manage USAspending.gov to provide detailed information on federal spending.

GAO is making five recommendations including that Treasury (1) establish a process to ensure that additions to USAspending.gov meet security requirements, (2) provide structured metadata and licensing information on the website, and (3) ensure that users can search for awards by city and program source as required by law. Treasury agreed with GAO's recommendations.

The increasing availability of open government data—that is, government- produced information that can be freely used, modified, and shared by  anyone for any purpose—holds great potential to promote government  transparency and private sector innovation. In recent years, governments  around the world have increased the availability of open data by providing  information on a wide range of topics such as health, education,  transportation networks, budgets, and performance. Such data can foster  accountability and public trust by providing citizens with information on  government activities and their outcomes. In addition, according to a 2014  study by the Department of Commerce, U.S. government data have  helped private firms in data-intensive industries generate revenues of at  least $24 billion and upwards of $221 billion annually. However, for open  data to achieve their full potential, government websites must ensure that  their data are effectively presented to a wide range of users.

To provide more transparency for roughly $4 trillion in federal spending,  on March 2, 2018, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) released a  new version of its USAspending.gov website. The new  USAspending.gov displays data submitted by federal agencies to comply  with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006  (FFATA), as amended by the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act  of 2014 (DATA Act), and upon release became the official source of  spending data required to be published under the DATA Act. Because of  federal spending data’s broad appeal to users such as Congress, grant  recipients, journalists, and the general public, it is important that  USAspending.gov follow key practices for reporting this information as  transparently as possible.

The DATA Act includes a provision for us to review implementation of the  act. Over the past 4 years, we have issued 13 reports assessing various  aspects of DATA Act implementation. This report builds on our body of  work on the DATA Act and (1) identifies key practices for transparently  reporting government data on a centralized website, and (2) evaluates the  extent to which the new USAspending.gov is consistent with these key  practices, as well as existing standards for federal websites.

To identify key practices for transparently reporting open government  data on a centralized website, we conducted a literature search and  systematically reviewed articles on open government data programs and  practices. We evaluated and synthesized information from the literature  review to identify commonly-reported key practices for transparently  reporting open government data. We also interviewed experts on open  data and good governance. We first had open-ended conversations with  experts to obtain their views on what key practices exist for transparently  reporting open government data. After developing an initial list of key  practices, we then obtained experts’ feedback to finalize the list. We  shared a draft of the key practices with Treasury, the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB), and the General Services  Administration (GSA).

To obtain illustrative examples showing how those key practices can be  implemented, we selected open data practitioners from six state and local  governments:

We selected these practitioners because they have well-regarded open  data websites that include a general open data portal as well as budget or  spending data visualizations, and because they represent different  locations and levels of government, including cities, counties, and states.  We reviewed these practitioners’ open data websites and related  documentation, and interviewed cognizant state and local government  officials.

To assess the extent to which the new USAspending.gov is consistent  with key practices and existing standards for federal websites, we  compared the website to applicable laws and policies—such as FFATA  and OMB guidance—as well as the key practices in this report. We also  reviewed documentation related to the website, observed Treasury’s  participation in a hackathon, and interviewed Treasury officials. To clarify  policies and practices for federal websites, we interviewed GSA officials  and OMB staff.

To evaluate the extent to which specified federal award data elements on  USAspending.gov are searchable, as required by FFATA, as amended by  the DATA Act, we obtained and tested a nongeneralizable, random  sample of award data from USAspending.gov. Specifically, we  downloaded contract and financial assistance data from  USAspending.gov, generated a random sample of awards, and used the  website’s search tools to search for the required data elements from 15  contracts and 15 financial assistance awards.

For the purposes of this report, we focused on the presentation of data  and related contextual information on USAspending.gov. Our review did  not include data quality or data governance. We reported on the quality  of the data submitted under the DATA Act in November 2017. In 2019,  we will report an updated assessment of the quality of these data and,  separately, report on OMB and Treasury’s efforts to develop a  governance process for maintaining the integrity of the data standards  established under the DATA Act. Detailed information on our scope and  methodology is included in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2017 to December  2018 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.

Recognizing the federal government’s role as a major supplier of data,  the 2018 President’s Management Agenda announced the creation of a  Federal Data Strategy. According to the agenda, this strategy promises  to leverage data as a strategic asset to grow the economy, increase the  effectiveness of the federal government, facilitate oversight, and promote  transparency. It proposes improving data dissemination by making data  available more quickly and in more useful formats, maximizing  nonsensitive data shared with the public, and enabling external users to  access and use government data for commercial and other public  purposes.

The Federal Data Strategy builds on existing policy governing the federal  government’s websites and data. In 2016, OMB memorandum M-17-06,  Policies for Federal Agency Public Websites and Digital Services,  established policy for the federal government’s online information  resources, such as the need to ensure that information is searchable and  to inform users about information quality issues. In addition, in 2013,  OMB memorandum M-13-13, Open Data Policy—Managing Information  as an Asset, established an information management framework to  promote interoperability and openness at each stage of the information  life cycle.

These efforts are consistent with the international Open Government  Partnership, which aims to make governments more inclusive,  responsive, and accountable. Seventy-five countries have committed to  the Open Government Partnership by endorsing the Open Government  Declaration. In doing so, these countries have committed to increasing  the availability of information about government activities, supporting  public participation in government, and using new technologies for  openness and accountability, among other things.

Enacted in 2006, FFATA requires agencies to report information on  federal awards—such as contracts, grants, and loans. In 2014, the DATA  Act expanded on FFATA by establishing new requirements intended to  allow policymakers and the public to more effectively track federal  spending, including:

Reporting additional data. Agencies are required to report additional  financial data from different points in the spending life cycle.

Setting government-wide standards. OMB and Treasury are  responsible for establishing government-wide financial data standards  for any federal funds made available to or expended by federal  agencies. These standards define and describe the data elements  that agencies must report.

Reporting consistently. Agencies reporting financial information are  required to comply with the standards established by OMB and  Treasury so that information can be compared across the  government.

Improving data access. The data must be made available in  machine-readable and open formats, to be downloaded in bulk, and— to the extent practicable—for automated processing.

The DATA Act required agencies to begin reporting data in accordance  with the data standards issued by Treasury and OMB within three years  of its enactment, and required that those data be displayed on  USAspending.gov or a successor system. USAspending.gov has been  the platform to provide federal spending information to the public since  2007 (see figure 1). In May 2017, Treasury released a new website,  Beta.USAspending.gov, where it began to publish information submitted  under the DATA Act. In March 2018, this new website assumed the  USAspending.gov web address and Treasury retired the old version of  USAspending.gov.

Data on USAspending.gov come from a variety of sources, including files  that agencies began submitting quarterly for DATA Act reporting in May  2017. When agencies submit quarterly data, Treasury’s DATA Act Broker  ingests the data and validates certain information before the data are  published on the website. Agency Senior Accountable Officials certify  that the agency’s submission is valid and reliable. In addition to agencies’  quarterly DATA Act reporting files, USAspending.gov includes data from  government-wide systems. Government-wide procurement data on the  website are updated daily, while government-wide financial assistance  data are updated biweekly. The new USAspending.gov also includes  older award data that had been available on the prior version of the  website.

Our Prior Report Identified Data Quality and Website Issues

In November 2017, we issued our first report on data quality as required  by the DATA Act. We found issues with the completeness and accuracy  of the data that agencies submitted for the second quarter of fiscal year  2017 as well as the use of data elements. For example:

Of the 78 agencies that submitted data on time, 13 submitted the data  file intended to link budgetary and award information without providing  any data in the file.

Between 56 and 75 percent of the newly-required budgetary records  were fully consistent with agency sources, but only between 0 and 1  percent of award records (such as grants, contracts, and loans) were  fully consistent.

Agencies differed in how they interpreted and applied OMB’s  definitions for two data elements—Primary Place of Performance and  Award Description—raising concerns regarding data consistency and  comparability. These two award data elements are particularly  important to achieving the transparency goals envisioned by FFATA  because they provide the public with information on where the federal  government spends money and what it spends it on, respectively.

We also found issues with the presentation of the data on  Beta.USAspending.gov, including fragmented or incomplete search  results and insufficient disclosure of data limitations. Among other things,  we recommended that Treasury disclose known data quality issues and  limitations on the new USAspending.gov website. We provide an update on actions Treasury has taken to address this recommendation later in  this report.

Key Practices for Transparently Reporting Government Data

We identified five key practices that managers of open government data  programs can consider to help ensure the transparent presentation of  their data. We also identified key actions for implementing each key  practice. We identified these key practices and key actions by  systematically evaluating and synthesizing information from literature on  open data as well as interviews with open data experts and good  governance groups. These key practices and key actions are listed in  table 1.

These key practices and actions are intended to be used in tandem with  requirements for federal government websites and open data programs,  such as relevant laws and OMB guidance. They are not intended to  replace or supersede any applicable requirements. When considering an  individual open government data program, some key practices and  actions may be more relevant than others because the purpose and  characteristics of open government data programs may vary. In addition,  while this report focuses on the presentation of open government data,  open data practitioners should also consider other elements—including  data quality and data governance—to ensure that the public has access  to high-quality information.

To promote transparency, we found that open data should be freely and  equally available to users without restrictions. As such, we identified two  key actions for providing free and unrestricted data (see figure 2).

Make government data open by default, while protecting sensitive or  restricted information. Making government data open by default  ensures that the data are equally open to all types of users; in contrast,  when government information is available by request, it may favor citizens  with greater information about and access to government institutions. In  addition, some open data practitioners we spoke with said that providing  open data can minimize the burden of responding to information requests.  For example, according to Connecticut officials, before the state’s open  spending data website was launched, payroll data were the most  frequently requested information under the state’s Freedom of Information  Act (FOIA). Officials said that providing open payroll data on the website  significantly reduced FOIA requests, which allowed state officials to  spend time and resources on other activities.

However, not all government information is appropriate to publish. Some  datasets may contain sensitive information such as personally identifiable  information, information that is classified or similarly not subject to  disclosure, or intellectual property. Other legal restrictions may also  prohibit the disclosure of certain information. In some cases the  information in an individual dataset may not pose a risk of identifying  sensitive information, but may pose such a risk when combined with other  available information. For that reason, when considering whether or not  information may be disclosed, OMB M-13-13 requires agencies to  determine whether it may be combined with existing publically available  data to identify an individual or otherwise pose a security concern. In  such situations, agencies must conduct a risk-based privacy analysis to  determine whether the information can be made publicly available that  accounts for the nature of the information, the availability of other  information, and the technology in place that could facilitate the process  of identification.

As an example of how open data practitioners can balance these types of  considerations, Montgomery County, Maryland, applies safeguards such  as a review by internal departments. Additionally, if Department officials  request a secondary fact-specific review, the Office of the County  Attorney will review the information to further ensure that protected  information is not published. In some cases, sensitive information is  removed from a dataset prior to publication. For example, according to  county officials, the names of housing assistance recipients are removed  from spending data to protect resident privacy. Users can see  nonsensitive aspects of these data, such as the amount spent, with  identifying details removed.

Do not charge users for access to the data. Providing data for free can  help ensure equitable access to users independent of their ability to pay.  Lowering barriers, such as cost, increases the value of open data, as  more users are able to access it.

Open government data only create value to the extent that they are used.  With that in mind, we identified three key actions for engaging with users  (see figure 3).

Identify data users and their needs. By identifying who is using the data  and what content or features are important to them, data providers can  better prioritize their efforts to present information to data consumers.  Open data experts we spoke with emphasized that data providers should  engage with users both inside and outside of government, including  groups that may typically have less access to government institutions. For  example, to further New York City’s Open Data for All vision to provide  open data for people from all walks of life and all five of the city’s  boroughs, Columbia University students conducted user research on  behalf of the city to better understand the extent to which community  organizations use open data and what barriers they face, according to the  capstone report for this project. By surveying and interviewing these  organizations, the students learned that users found the city’s data portal  interface difficult to use. In response, the city worked with users to design  and test a new, more streamlined portal.

Solicit and be responsive to user feedback. Soliciting and being  responsive to user feedback—both when the website is being developed  and on an ongoing basis—can help ensure that the website meets users’  needs. Feedback can also surface issues with the functionality of the  website and the quality of the data, thus enabling the data provider to  make corrections when needed. User feedback mechanisms vary and  can include online comment forms, forums, and discussion boards, as  well as in-person public forums. Open data experts we spoke with said it  is particularly helpful to list the contact information for a responsible  official on the website in case users have questions about the data. In  addition, timely response to feedback encourages engagement by  assuring users that their voices have been heard.

Monitoring how the public is using the data can also help practitioners  determine which content and features are most useful. Web analytics can  show how the data are being used, such as by identifying commonly-used  search terms and datasets, and showing trends over time.

Web Analytics  Web analytics is the collection, reporting, and  analysis of website data, such as the number  of users who visit the website.

According to a city official, Los Angeles uses web analytics to measure  how frequently its datasets are accessed. Web analytics data showed  that some datasets were often accessed on certain dates or in  conjunction with current events, while other datasets were rarely used.  City officials use this information to adjust how data are presented on the  website, which has increased overall use of the city’s data. For example,  the city created data visualizations and links to data—including its City  Revenue and City Budget Expenditures datasets—to accompany the  release of its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

Reach out to potential users to encourage data use. Actively  engaging potential users can provide an opportunity to educate them on  how the data can be appropriately used and encourage innovation. Data  trainings can provide potential users with important context and  information, which can include teaching users how the data can be used.  Resources such as how-to guides can also encourage data use. For  example, as shown on the website, New York City’s open data portal  includes a “How To” page with a step-by-step guide to help users get  started with open data, and directs them toward additional resources such  as data dictionaries.

We previously found that open data collaboration and prize competitions  or challenges are two strategies that agencies can use to harness the  ideas, expertise, and resources of those outside of their organization.

Agencies engage in open data collaboration by mobilizing participants to  use their open data in innovative ways, such as sharing, exploring, and  analyzing publicly-available datasets; using the data to conduct research;  designing data visualizations; or creating web and mobile applications  and websites that help people access and use the data. In addition,  agencies use prize competitions or challenges for help solving a problem  or reaching a specific goal by asking members of the public to submit  potential solutions. The agency then evaluates these proposals and  provides a monetary or nonmonetary award to selected winners.

New York City encourages the use of its open data using these strategies  by hosting data literacy trainings, hackathons, and contests. For example,  in the spring of 2018 the city hosted a contest to recognize projects that  effectively use its open data and showcase the diversity of potential uses,  according to city officials and contest documentation. Winning projects  were posted to a gallery on the city’s open data website. As shown on the  city’s open data website, one winner—a project called “Plan(t)wise”— predicts various tree species’ likelihood of survival in locations throughout  the city based on tree census data, and recommends which type of tree  to plant at a given address.

Data are most useful when they are provided in formats that allow them to  be analyzed in a variety of ways. We identified four key actions for  providing data in useful formats (see figure 4).

Provide users with detailed and disaggregated data. Data are most  useful when they are provided in as much granularity as possible. For  example, Ohio’s online checkbook allows users to view detailed,  disaggregated data in a user-friendly checkbook format, as shown on the  website (see figure 5). The representation of the expenditure is displayed  as a check, and includes the vendor’s name and address, the amount  paid, payment date, check number, and contact information for the  appropriate state office.

Provide machine-readable data that can be downloaded in bulk and  in selected subsets. Providing data in machine-readable formats makes  them easier to process and analyze, which is particularly important for  large datasets. For example, Kansas City officials said the city has been  working to convert information from the PDF format to machine-readable  formats such as CSV because PDF documents are challenging for the  city to update and for users to navigate. In one instance, officials said that  converting the city’s list of vehicles for sale in its tow lot from PDF to CSV  format allowed the city to update the data more frequently so that users  can see what vehicles are for sale at any given time.

Making data available to download in bulk allows users who need the full  dataset to easily access it rather than retrieving information record-by- record. If the full dataset is large, allowing users to download selected  subsets can make it easier for them to work with only the data they need.  Data can also be provided to users through an Application Programming  Interface (API), which allows users to connect directly with the dataset by  enabling machine-to-machine communication. APIs can be particularly  useful for large, frequently updated, or highly complex datasets because  they offer users flexibility to obtain the data they need. In addition,  developers can use APIs to build applications based on the data.

Non-Proprietary File Formats  File formats describe what type of information  a file contains, as well as how that information  is stored and structured. Some file formats are  proprietary, meaning that they can only be  opened by specific commercial software  applications. In contrast, non-proprietary  formats are publicly available and can be  used by all software developers. Examples of  non-proprietary file formats include:

CSV, which stores tabular data;  RDF, which stores metadata;  TXT, which stores unformatted text; and  XML, which stores both the format and  content of data.

Provide data downloads in a non-proprietary format. To ensure broad  and equitable access, data downloads should be available in formats that  do not require specific commercial software to access, and therefore do  not exclude users who do not have access to such software. Non- proprietary data formats include, but are not limited to, CSV, RDF, TXT,  and XML. For example, Kansas City, Missouri’s, open data portal allows  users to export spatial data in an open format that does not require  proprietary mapping software, according to city officials and the city’s  open data portal website. Open data experts we spoke with said that  practitioners should consult stakeholders when determining which format  is appropriate for a given program, and that the appropriate format may  change over time as technology advances.

Make the data interoperable with other datasets. Making data  interoperable with other datasets can make them more useful because  users may want to create new opportunities for analysis by linking  datasets together. This can be done by standardizing the way that the  data are reported. For example, using standard definitions for the specific  items included in a set of data—known as data elements—can promote  consistency with other datasets. Additionally, documentation such as data  dictionaries can help ensure that definitions are clear and avoid  misunderstandings.

To promote interoperability between datasets that use geographic  information, Kansas City uses standard land parcel identification numbers  across departments. This allows different datasets that contain location  information to be used in combination. For example, officials said that the  city is linking different datasets that use those identification numbers— including building code violation data, 311 calls, and dangerous buildings  data, among others—to build a model to prioritize code enforcement  inspections.

Providing information about a dataset allows users to determine whether  it is suitable for their intended purpose, and make informed decisions  about whether and how to use it. With that in mind, we identified four key  actions for fully describing the data (see figure 6).

Disclose known data quality issues and limitations. Disclosing data  quality issues and limitations helps users make informed decisions about  whether and how to use the data. Disclosure of data quality issues and  limitations can include descriptions of the completeness, timeliness, and  accuracy of the data, such as an explanation of why certain data may not  be disseminated. For example, we observed that Connecticut’s  “OpenCheckbook” website includes an “About” page explaining that some  information is excluded to protect privacy, or because it is not processed  through the state’s financial system, such as the state’s Airport Authority,  jury duty payments, and unclaimed property.

Disclose data sources and timeliness. Disclosing where the data come  from and how frequently they are updated provides context that helps  users judge their quality and determine whether they can be appropriately  used for the intended purpose. Without this information, users may view,  download, or use data without full knowledge of the extent to which they  are timely, complete, or accurate, and therefore could inadvertently draw  inaccurate conclusions from the data.

Metadata  Metadata provide descriptive information  about a dataset in a structured, machine- readable format. They describe aspects of the  dataset—such as the source of the data and  when it was last updated—in clearly  delineated fields.

Clearly label data and provide accompanying metadata. In addition,  data should be clearly labeled and accompanied by structured metadata  so that users can easily find information about the dataset. Metadata  describe the characteristics of data in clearly defined, machine-readable  fields, which can include attributes such as the date the data were  created or modified, or the license used, among other things. Structuring  metadata in clearly defined fields makes it possible for search tools to  filter and match content pertaining to those fields. As shown in figure 7,  Kansas City’s budget data are accompanied by metadata showing when  they were last updated, the source of the data, and the name and contact  link for the dataset owner, among other things.

Publish data under an open license and communicate licensing  information to users. Documentation for a dataset should also specify  what license applies to the data because a data license provides users  with information about how they may use the data, including whether  there are any restrictions, such as copyrights. An open license indicates  that there are few to no restrictions on how the data may be used. An  open license can encourage innovation, for example, by assuring users  that they are permitted to use the data to develop commercial  applications. To realize these benefits, licensing information should be  clearly communicated to users, ideally in machine-readable and human- readable formats. As shown in figure 7, metadata can be used to  communicate licensing information in a clear and structured way.  Including licensing information in metadata can help ensure that it is  machine readable—which makes it easier to process and analyze—as  well as help users discover the licensing information and compare it  across datasets.

Data discovery is facilitated by presenting the data in a way that enables  users to easily explore them. We identified five key actions for facilitating  data discovery for all users (see figure 8).

Provide an interface that enables intuitive navigation and ensures  that the most important information is made visible. To facilitate data  discovery for all users, practitioners of open government data should  ensure that the data are provided on a website that is simple and intuitive  so that users can easily navigate it to find the information they need.  Obtaining user feedback and conducting usability testing can help  practitioners assess whether the website is easy to use, and identify any  aspects that do not work well for users. In addition, websites designed to  work on mobile devices, as well as mobile applications such as Ohio’s  “OhioCheckbook” app (see figure 9), can allow users to access data on a  variety of devices, according to the state’s website and our observations.

Provide users with appropriate interpretations of the data, such as  visualizations or summaries. Summaries and visualizations can help  users explore data. For example, our review of Montgomery County,  Maryland’s, “spendingMontgomery” website found that the website  provides summary data of the top five services, vendors, and expense  categories with the greatest amount of spending, as well as a chart of  annual spending along with historical averages, as shown in figure 10.  This summary information provides a starting point for users, who can  then navigate through the website to access more granular data.

Ensure that the website’s content is written in plain language. The  content of an open data website should also be written in a way that is  clear and direct, using plain language. Using commonly understood terms  rather than technical jargon can help users understand the information  provided. For example, to use well-understood terms when  communicating budget information, Kansas City officials told us they  participated in plain language training and applied that knowledge to the  city’s open budget data website. In addition, we found that in cases where  it is necessary to use technical language, providing a glossary that  defines key terms can help make the information understandable to  users.

Provide a search function that is optimized for easy and efficient  use. Open data websites should also include a search function that is  optimized for easy and efficient use so that users can find information that  is relevant to them. For example, Connecticut officials said that the  search function on the state’s open spending data website is designed so  that users do not need to be familiar with the state government’s structure  or terminology to find meaningful results. When a user enters a search  term, the search bar will return a list of items that include this term and a  description of what they are. For example, when we typed “Education”  into the search bar, the website suggested Department of Education  spending, bilingual education programs, and a vendor called Family Life  Education.

In addition, Connecticut officials told us that they track the most  commonly-used search terms—such as “housing” and “voter turnout”—on  the state’s open data portal, and test them to verify that the information is  discoverable. Similarly, Ohio’s online checkbook includes a “Popular  Searches” tool that provides presaved searches that allow users to see  expenditures for a variety of categories—such as travel, roads and  highways, or parks—by clicking a single button. In addition, officials told  us that if a user’s search returns a large volume of results, a pop-up  appears prompting the user to narrow their search, which could help them  focus on more relevant information.

Use central data repositories and catalogues to help users easily  find the data they are looking for. Central data repositories and  catalogues—also known as data portals—are websites that provide a  “one-stop shop” for users to access a variety of datasets. These websites  host the data directly, link to other websites where users can access the  data, or a combination of the two. They typically provide descriptions of  the datasets, as well as structured metadata, to help users find data  suitable for their purpose. New York City’s open data portal also includes  a number of tools to help users find datasets, including a search function  as well as lists of new datasets, popular datasets, and datasets by  category, as shown in figure 11.

USAspending.gov Aligns with Several Key Practices, but Does Not Fully Meet Licensing, Search Functionality, and Other Requirements USAspending.gov Provides Free and Unrestricted Spending Data

We found that USAspending.gov aligns with the key practices of providing  free and unrestricted data and engaging with users. However, Treasury  does not fully describe the data and two data elements required by law  are not searchable. In addition, Treasury lacks a process to ensure all  pages on the website are secure, consistent with federal requirements.

Spending data are open by default and sensitive information is  protected. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of  2006 (FFATA) requires the website displaying the data that agencies  must provide to be accessible to the public at no cost. In response to  requirements in FFATA, as amended by the Digital Accountability and  Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act), in May 2014, OMB and Treasury  developed standard definitions for data elements for agencies to report,  and Treasury displays these open data on USAspending.gov. Agencies  should not report classified or protected information, such as personally  identifiable information (PII). However, they are required to aggregate  some awards containing PII at the county or state level if they are unable  to report spending at the individual level.

All data are available for free. Treasury has made all of the data on  USAspending.gov available to users at no cost, as required by the DATA  Act and FFATA. During the course of our work, we found that users could  only download the complete database after registering for an account with  the database host—Amazon Web Services. Further, we also found that  users would incur a charge when attempting to download the entire  database. Treasury officials said they intended for the data to be available  for free and were unaware that users were being charged to access the  data. In response to our inquiries on this issue, in July 2018, Treasury  resolved this issue and provided an option for users to download the  entire database for free without creating an account.

Treasury Engages Users by Encouraging Feedback and Data Use

Treasury identifies data users and their needs through user  research. Treasury researches users to understand their needs when  working with USAspending data. Treasury has developed profiles for  eight types of users ranging from data consumers like “Citizen” or  “Journalist” (see figure 12) to budget analysts or chief financial officers.  These profiles are part of Treasury’s user-centered design process in  which officials told us they learn from users, make changes to the  website, and test whether those changes make the website more useful  and intuitive to users.

Treasury obtains and responds to user feedback. Treasury officials  told us that they track user feedback, which informs improvements they  make to the website. We previously found that Treasury has a variety of  user feedback mechanisms, including a community forum, one-on-one  interviews, and a “contact us” link that allows users to provide feedback  by email. As of July 2017, Treasury officials said they had interviewed  more than 130 users, such as citizens, funding recipients, and federal  agency officials, regarding USAspending.gov website features. They have  since conducted 20 additional interviews about the user experience and  received feedback from another 130 users about the Data Lab, a related  website that offers visual interpretations of the spending data. Treasury  has also conducted “intercept” interviews where interviewers go to a  location with large groups of people and request feedback about the  website from random individuals. For example, figure 13 shows a  Treasury contractor interviewing a visitor about an early version of  USAspending.gov at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center.

Treasury officials said they respond to user feedback about  USAspending.gov on two websites. They respond directly to user  comments on the USAspending.gov Community website, where users  can share feedback and find answers to frequently asked questions.  Treasury officials told us they also track users’ issues as “stories” on an  open development platform called JIRA, which is their primary way of  documenting website development decisions and tracking potential  improvements to the website. For example, Treasury added new  functionality to the Application Programming Interface (API) based on  user feedback from agencies. Officials said this feature allowed some  agencies to more efficiently manage their quarterly DATA Act  submissions. Treasury announces updates to the API and other changes  to the website via an email newsletter.

Treasury reaches out to potential users to encourage data use.  Treasury educates the public about the use of the spending data on  USAspending.gov and the Data Lab through how-to guides and outreach  activities. For example, the website offers an “API Guide” for users  seeking to utilize computer programs to request and receive the data, and  the Data Lab features an “Analyst Guide” that answers questions about  using the data.

Treasury officials told us that they have directly engaged with various  audiences about USAspending.gov. For example, they have engaged  with the Syracuse University Maxwell School of Government to map the  use of federal funds in New York State. In April 2017, we observed  Treasury’s participation in a hackathon where participants developed  ways to use federal spending data, including using the spending data to  evaluate block grant formulas and track the economic impact of stimulus  money. Treasury officials said they have held information sessions with  Congress, federal agencies, and nongovernment organizations.

USAspending.gov Data Are Detailed and in Standardized Formats, but Treasury Lacks Certain Security Processes

USAspending.gov provides users with detailed and disaggregated  data. As shown in figure 14, an award summary page on the website  displays information on specific awards, including the awarding agency,  recipient, award amount, description, and location. These pages also  include transaction histories so that spending can be tracked over time.  As of October 2018, we found that USAspending.gov listed more than 53  million pages of prime awards representing more than $33 trillion in  obligated funds between fiscal year 2008 and 2018.

Data are machine readable and can be downloaded in bulk and in  selected subsets, but Treasury lacks a process to fully ensure  security. As shown in figure 15, USAspending.gov provides six ways for  users to download the data, including subsets of the data or the complete  database. An API is also available, which enables machine-to-machine  communication that allows real-time updates.

During the course of our review, we found that some of the data  download web addresses did not point to a government domain and were  unsecured. OMB guidance requires that federal web pages be hosted on  a .gov domain and be encrypted by the secure HTTPS protocol. In  response to our inquiries on this issue, Treasury updated  USAspending.gov in October 2018 so that the web pages for the  database download and agency submission files use the secure HTTPS  protocol and are on a government domain. As a result, the users  requesting this information from USAspending.gov now have better  assurance of the integrity of the data requested, the privacy of their  connection to USAspending.gov, and that the website they are using is a  trusted government domain.

Treasury officials said they take steps to ensure they meet federal  information security requirements, but had not noticed that the web pages  were unsecured or on a nongovernment domain. According to Treasury  officials, the agency has a process for the team developing a website to  vet whether proposed pages are secured and hosted properly, but they  acknowledged unintended gaps in how the process was applied in this  case, which caused some pages to be omitted. Standards for Internal  Control in the Federal Government states that management should  design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks.  Control activities are the policies, procedures, techniques, and  mechanisms that enforce management’s directives to achieve the entity’s  objectives and address related risks.

Until the gaps in Treasury’s information security process are addressed,  the agency does not have assurance that any new pages that may be  added to USAspending.gov will conform to federal information security  requirements. In response to our inquiries, Treasury provided  documentation showing that the agency is in the process of addressing  the issue to prevent future unintended gaps. The agency has taken initial  steps to revise its process to ensure that all pages on USAspending.gov  are secured and hosted properly. We will continue to monitor Treasury’s  efforts to develop and implement this new process.

Downloads are available in standard, non-proprietary formats.  Downloads of search results, agency files, and subsets of the  USAspending.gov database are available in file formats that can be  opened using common office software, including CSV and XML files.

Spending data are potentially interoperable with other datasets. The  data in the USAspending.gov database are organized according to a  government-wide standard which can potentially support interoperability  with related government datasets. The DATA Act Information Model  Schema (DAIMS) provides standardized definitions for federal spending  information, including 57 data standards that federal agencies are  required to report for DATA Act implementation. These standards come  with technical specifications describing the format and structure of each  data element, which are intended to facilitate consistent data reporting  across the federal government, and allow for interoperability between  agencies’ data submissions.

According to Treasury’s DAIMS Architecture document, DAIMS could  eventually support interoperability between USAspending.gov and related  nonfederal datasets such as state, local, and international spending  data. For example, state governments could make their data  interoperable with the federal spending data on USAspending.gov by  developing their own data standards and definitions aligned with DAIMS  as appropriate. In addition, the DAIMS Architecture document specifies  that future DAIMS content could include federal receipt and financing  balances with accounts and sources, as well as performance measures  and outcomes linked to federal grants, awards, or other financial  assistance.

Treasury Improved Descriptions of Data, but USAspending.gov Lacks Metadata and Complete Licensing Information

Website still does not completely disclose data quality issues.  Treasury has improved the disclosure of data quality issues and  limitations, but other issues have not yet been described to users. In  November 2017, we found that the website did not sufficiently disclose  known limitations affecting data quality. We recommended that Treasury  disclose known data quality issues and limitations. Treasury agreed with  the recommendation and took the following steps to disclose limitations:

By May 2018, Treasury had added a “Learn More” box to the website  with information about the data, including an explanation that the  Department of Defense reports its data later than other agencies.

In June 2018, Treasury added information on unreported spending to  the Spending Explorer tool that visualizes federal spending, clarifying  that information reported on the website does not capture the totality  of federal spending. Treasury explains to users that data might not be  reported when an agency reports incomplete data, has a submission  deadline extension, is not required to submit certain data elements,  and for accounts that are not reported to Treasury.

While the steps Treasury has taken are positive, they do not fully address  our recommendation. This is because one purpose of the DATA Act is to  allow users to track federal spending more effectively by linking specific  awards to financial budgetary information. However, we found that award  data do not appear in the Spending Explorer for combinations of certain  agencies and program activities. For example, as figure 16 shows, there  are “no associated awards” for the program activity “Vaccines for  Children” within the Department of Health and Human Services account  for Medicaid grants to states. However, the account page for this  program elsewhere on USAspending.gov shows approximately $3.6  billion in obligations and various associated awards for the first three  quarters of fiscal year 2018.There is no context for a user to understand  whether this information is required for this federal account, missing, or  searchable elsewhere on the website.

Treasury officials informed us of a number of data limitations that could  cause spending data and award data to be disconnected in the Spending  Explorer, but these issues are not disclosed on the website. According to  Treasury officials, agencies might not currently report certain data fields  as some fields are optional, there are inconsistencies between several  agency data systems, and some agencies have not been able to link  financial and award data. As a result, the Spending Explorer does not  consistently provide a clear and complete presentation of federal  spending, and because Treasury does not disclose these limitations, it  could limit the ability of taxpayers and policy makers to fully track federal  spending with this tool.

More broadly, we have raised concerns that USAspending.gov does not  sufficiently disclose other, broader government-wide data quality issues.  For example, we found in November 2017 that only between 0 to 1  percent of awards were fully consistent with agency records. While the  consistency of individual data elements varied, our prior report found  inconsistencies with agency records in at least 41 percent of the data for  Award Description, Current Total Value of Award, and Primary Place of  Performance Address from the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2017.

Website discloses data sources and timeliness. The “About” page and  “Frequently Asked Questions” describe data sources, data quality, and  legal requirements. There is also a diagram on the “About” page showing  how the data go from agencies to the database for USAspending.gov,  and the frequency with which the data are updated, which is a useful way  to visualize how the types of award data are updated either daily, bi- monthly, or every quarter.

Website labels some data, but lacks structured metadata. Treasury  labels some of the data on USAspending.gov in tables and data  visualizations, and describes it in narrative form. The website also  includes data dictionaries that provide definitions for the data elements.  However, the website lacks structured, machine-readable metadata. OMB  guidance requires agencies to use metadata to describe their datasets so  that all users can understand and process open data. Agencies must  consult with the best practices from Project Open Data, OMB’s online  repository of tools and schema, to help agencies meet the requirements  of its open data policy. According to Project Open Data, metadata are  structured information that describe, explain, locate, or otherwise make it  easier to retrieve, use, or manage datasets like that displayed on  USAspending.gov. This guidance also indicates that making metadata  machine readable greatly increases their utility.

Treasury officials said the types of information found in metadata are  already available in a number of separate documents on Treasury’s  Fiscal Service web page. Treasury officials told us that they decided not  to provide structured metadata on USAspending.gov because it is more  efficient to provide external links to other websites. Further, Treasury  officials asserted that providing metadata on those websites is sufficient  to comply with OMB guidance.

However, the information found on these various websites does not align  with best practices outlined in Project Open Data, or the key action to  clearly label data and provide accompanying metadata, because it is not  provided in a single place on USAspending.gov as structured metadata in  a machine-readable format. Without easy access to information that fully  describes the data, it may be difficult or time consuming for users of  USAspending.gov to find the information available on other websites, and  determine whether or how to use the data for their purposes.

Website lacks complete licensing information. While the website  describes restrictions on the use of proprietary contract data from Dun &  Bradstreet Inc.’s Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS), it does not  include general licensing information for the rest of the data. The  website includes a link to a notice specifying the “Limitation on  Permissible Use of Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. Data.” According to Treasury  officials, most data on USAspending.gov are in the public domain, but we  found that the website does not clearly indicate which data are openly  available to use without restrictions.

OMB M-13-13 specifies that federal agencies “must apply open licenses,  in consultation with the best practices found in Project Open Data, to  information as it is collected or created so that if data are made public  there are no restrictions on copying, publishing, distributing, transmitting,  adapting, or otherwise using the information for non-commercial or for  commercial purposes.” According to OMB staff, agencies should include  licenses in metadata so that this information is machine readable. If data  access is limited, this should also be prominently featured in the  metadata. In addition, Project Open Data specifies that licensing  information should be provided in metadata.

Treasury officials said that the agency is evaluating options and  approaches for including open data licensing information on the website,  consistent with OMB M-13-13. In addition, Treasury officials said they had  only received one question from users about licensing.

However, not displaying licensing information for the majority of data  elements on the website is not consistent with the key action to publish  data under an open license and communicate licensing information to  users. Without licensing information for all of the data, users will likely be  unable to determine what license, if any, applies to USAspending.gov,  and it will be unclear to the public whether there are any restrictions to  reusing data that they can download from the website.

USAspending.gov Makes Data Easy to Discover, but Does Not Fully Meet Search Requirements

Website includes a user interface to assist navigation.  USAspending.gov’s top menu gives users various ways to explore,  search, download, and understand the most important information. The  menu links to the Spending Explorer, Award Search, Profiles, Download  Center, and Glossary. There is also “featured content” on the home page  guiding users to the Data Lab, and other new features such as a  download option for Federal Account data and recipient profile pages for  any entity that has received federal money in the form of contracts,  grants, loans, or other financial assistance.

Interactive visualizations enable exploration. Search results can be  visualized by prime award or subaward aggregated in a table, in a chart  showing awards over time, in a map showing the geographic distribution  of awards (see figure 17 for an example of social security insurance  results mapped by congressional district), or in a bar chart showing the  top 10 awards by category. The visualizations show how spending has  increased over time, the regional concentration of spending, and a list of  the top recipients.

We found that the Spending Explorer provides a simple, graphical  interface that allows users to navigate spending data by budget function,  agency, and object class. It gives users the option to drill down from  these three high-level categories to specific program activities, federal  accounts, recipients, or awards. It displays the total amount obligated for  the selected category, and a breakdown of the amounts in dollars and as  a percentage of the total.

The Data Lab is a separate website linked to USAspending.gov that  offers users visual interpretations of the spending data. Treasury officials  said the “Contract Explorer Sunburst” is a popular Data Lab visualization.  As shown in figure 18, it provides users an interactive overview of about  $500 billion in federal contract data organized as a set of concentric  circles starting from the funding agency (inner ring) to the recipients  (outer ring). Treasury officials noted that analyses and visualizations in  the Data Lab are updated with varying frequency because it can be a  challenge to continually update some of the visualizations.

The website includes a glossary that provides plain language  definitions of terms that describe the spending data. To help users  understand the data on USASpending.gov, the website provides a  “Glossary” sidebar that is available on every page of the website, and  provides users both “plain language” and official definitions of financial  terms that are used on the website, as shown in figure 19. According to  the key practices we identified, using commonly understood terms rather  than technical jargon can help users understand the information provided.

A variety of search tools are available, but program source and city  are not searchable. We found that the website features a variety of  search tools to help users find and interpret the data. Users can search  the data using generic keyword search and advanced search filters.  These features allow users to explore and quickly obtain large volumes of  award results. For example, we found that searching by funding agency  returns all spending by that particular federal agency and by award.

However, we tested the search functionality of the website and found that  two data elements required to be searchable by FFATA, as amended by  the DATA Act, were not: (1) program source (Treasury Account Symbol  (TAS)) and (2) city. Our search testing of a nongeneralizable, random  sample of awards for data elements required by FFATA successfully  found most of the data elements, but we were unable to search for  program source (TAS) or city. TAS and city data can be downloaded  and are displayed on award web pages, but we were not able to search  for them using either the advanced or keyword search pages. Treasury  officials said they did not include functionality to search for these two  required data elements on the new website because users searching by  these data elements on the Beta version of the website had received  confusing results. This is due in part to the fact that agency submissions  with these data elements used different standards before and after the  DATA Act. Instead, according to our review of the website, users can  access TAS and city information using the website’s navigation features,  which officials said meets the spirit of the FFATA requirement.

However, simply displaying TAS or city information only on award or  federal account pages does not meet the FFATA requirement that users  be able to search for this information. Users currently have to click on a  specific award or federal account page, and scroll through the web page  to find the relevant section that shows city or TAS information. If federal  agencies and Congress are not able to search for TAS, they cannot easily  connect detailed information on financial transactions to federal accounts  for management or oversight purposes. In addition, users looking for  geographic information related to recipients or federal programs cannot  easily search USAspending.gov by city.

Government data catalogues and repositories link to  USAspending.gov. Treasury facilitates discovery of the DATA Act data  by linking to USAspending.gov from centralized data repositories and  catalogues. Information and links to USAspending.gov can be found on  DATA.gov, which is a data catalogue for a variety of U.S. government  datasets.

Treasury maintains a web page on GitHub, a public online collaboration  website, designed to share information about its process in meeting the  requirements of the DATA Act, including information and links to  USAspending.gov. Associated pages on this GitHub site serve as a  data repository for the computer code behind the central data submission  platform for the DATA Act, called the Data Act Broker, the API for  USAspending.gov, and the USAspending.gov website itself.

USAspending.gov is a major open government data program with the  potential to be a model for transparently reporting government data—if  Treasury takes additional steps to further align it with the five key  practices and associated key actions for open data in addition to DATA  Act requirements. USAspending.gov has already followed several key  actions such as providing the data on the website for free, engaging the  public online and in person, providing detailed and disaggregated data for  download, and making interactive tools so users can interpret and  visualize the data. Treasury has also made progress in disclosing  limitations of the data, although it has not fully addressed our prior  recommendation to do more to make users fully aware of issues that  affect its quality.

However, Treasury has not fully aligned USAspending.gov with some key  practices or federal website standards, and has not fully implemented the  search functionality required by FFATA, as amended by the DATA Act.  As a result, users may not be able to find the information they need, and  may not have confidence in the integrity of the data. Treasury updated  USAspending.gov in October 2018 so that the web pages for the  database download and agency submission files available at that time  used the secure HTTPS protocol and a government domain. However,  without an effective control process in place, Treasury does not have  assurance that any new pages that may be added to USAspending.gov  will conform to certain federal information security requirements.  Furthermore, without easy access to structured metadata, it may be  difficult or time consuming for users of USAspending.gov to find the  information they need to determine whether or how to use the data.  Similarly, the lack of an explicit open license might discourage some  users from using the data to develop innovative commercial products.  Users are also not able to easily search award information by program  source or city, as required by FFATA, which could limit their ability to find  and use these data to inform future decision making.

We are making a total of five recommendations to Treasury. Specifically:  The Secretary of the Treasury should establish a process to ensure all  pages on the USAspending.gov website use the secure HTTPS protocol,  consistent with OMB requirements. (Recommendation 1)

The Secretary of the Treasury should establish a process to ensure all  content on USAspending.gov is available from a government domain,  consistent with OMB requirements. (Recommendation 2)

The Secretary of the Treasury should fully comply with OMB’s  requirements by providing metadata in a single location that are easy to  find on the USAspending.gov website. (Recommendation 3)

The Secretary of the Treasury should fully comply with OMB’s  requirements by communicating licensing information on  USAspending.gov. (Recommendation 4)

The Secretary of the Treasury should ensure that users can easily search  for awards by city and program source (TAS), consistent with FFATA  requirements. (Recommendation 5)

Agency Comments, Third-Party Views, and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the Treasury, the  Director of OMB, and the Administrator of GSA for review and comment.  Treasury provided written responses, which are summarized below and  reproduced in appendix II. Treasury and OMB also provided technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. GSA responded that  the agency had no comments on the report.

In its written response, Treasury highlighted areas where  USAspending.gov aligned with the key practices that we identified for  transparently reporting government data, such as engaging users and  providing the data in useful formats. Treasury agreed with our  recommendations. Treasury stated that the agency has already taken  steps to address our first two recommendations, to establish processes to  ensure that all pages on USAspending.gov use the secure HTTPS  protocol and to ensure that all content on the website is available from a  government domain. Treasury provided us with documentation of a  revised process that is intended to address these issues. We revised the  report to acknowledge that Treasury has taken these steps. We will  continue to monitor Treasury’s efforts to develop and implement this new  process and update the status of our recommendations accordingly.

We also provided excerpts of the draft report to Connecticut; Kansas City,  Missouri; Los Angeles, California; Montgomery County, Maryland; New  York City, New York; and Ohio. Los Angeles, Montgomery County, New  York City, and Ohio provided technical comments, which we incorporated  as appropriate. Connecticut and Kansas City officials responded that they  had no comments.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Treasury, the  Director of OMB, and the Administrator of the General Services  Administration, as well as interested congressional committees and other  interested parties. This report will be available at no charge on our  website at https://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact  Triana McNeil 202-512-6806 or McNeilT@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of our report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix III.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act)  includes a provision for us to review implementation of the act. Over the  last 4 years, we have issued 13 reports assessing various aspects of  DATA Act implementation. This report builds on our body of work on the  DATA Act and (1) identifies key practices for transparently reporting  government data on a centralized website, and (2) evaluates the extent to  which the new USAspending.gov is consistent with these key practices,  as well as existing standards for federal websites.

To identify key practices for transparently reporting open government  data on a centralized website, we conducted a literature review and  interviewed experts on open data and representatives of good  governance groups. We also identified illustrative examples by  interviewing open data practitioners from state and local governments.

Literature review. To conduct the literature review, we first identified  relevant publications using a number of bibliographic databases, including  ProQuest, the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and  Development’s (OECD) iLibrary, the National Technical Information  Service, and the Public Affairs Information Service. We reviewed articles  that focused on open data programs and practices in OECD countries,  including scholarly peer-reviewed articles, working papers, conference  papers, and reports by policy research organizations, nonprofit  organizations, and associations. We conducted our search in March 2017  and subsequently added relevant articles identified during our  background research. To systematically review these articles, one  analyst reviewed each article to identify relevant themes. A second  analyst then reviewed the documentation to verify categorization  decisions. Then, both analysts met to resolve any discrepancies. We  evaluated and synthesized the categorized information to identify  commonly-reported key practices for transparently reporting open  government data.

Interviews with experts. We selected open data and good governance  experts based on recommendations made by other experts, frequent  citations in others’ work, and recent contributions to the field. We also  selected experts that represent a variety of sectors and backgrounds  (such as government, academia, and nonprofit organizations). We  obtained the views of the following individuals and organizations:

Andrew Stott, former United Kingdom Director for Transparency and

Dr. Anneke Zuiderwijk-van Eijk, Delft University of Technology,

Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency,

Governance Laboratory of New York University,  IBM Center for the Business of Government,  Johns Hopkins University Center for Government Excellence,

We first had open-ended conversations with experts to obtain their views  on what key practices exist for transparently reporting open government  data. After developing an initial list of key practices, we then conducted a  second round of interviews with experts to finalize the list. We shared a  draft of the key practices with the Department of the Treasury (Treasury),  the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and GSA.

Illustrative examples. To obtain illustrative examples showing how those  key practices can be implemented, we selected open data practitioners  from six selected state and local governments:

We selected these practitioners because they were identified in our  literature search and by the experts we spoke with as having well- regarded open data websites. We also selected practitioners that have  websites with both a general open data portal and visualizations showing  budget or spending data. We also selected practitioners that represent  different locations and levels of government, including cities, counties,  and states. We reviewed these practitioners’ open data websites and  related documentation, and interviewed cognizant state and local  government officials.

To assess the extent to which USAspending.gov is consistent with the  key practices and selected standards for federal websites, we reviewed  the website, reviewed agency documents, observed Treasury’s  participation in a hackathon, and interviewed OMB staff and Treasury  officials. Specifically, we analyzed the USAspending.gov website to  determine how it aligned with the key practices and the extent to which  data elements were searchable as required by the Federal Funding  Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA). We also assessed  USAspending.gov against criteria for federal websites and open data  programs, including OMB M-17-06, Policies for Federal Agency Public  Websites and Digital Services, and OMB M-13-13, Open Data Policy— Managing Information as an Asset.

To evaluate the extent to which the USAspending.gov search functionality  complies with FFATA requirements, as amended by the DATA Act, we  randomly selected a nongeneralizable sample of 30 awards (consisting of  15 contracts and 15 financial assistance awards) downloaded from  USAspending.gov for fiscal year 2017. We identified the required FFATA  data elements from these awards, searched for these elements on  USAspending.gov in July 2018, recorded whether each search  successfully resulted in a matching award, and observed any other issues  that occurred during testing. Finally, we interviewed Treasury officials to  corroborate our observations on search functionality and other aspects of  the website, and discussed any planned improvements to the website.  We also interviewed GSA officials and OMB staff to clarify policies and  procedures for federal websites.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2017 to December  2018 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.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Treasury

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Thomas J. McCabe, Assistant  Director, and Laurel Plume, Analyst-in-Charge, supervised the  development of this report. Colenn Berracasa, Samuel Gaffigan, and  Parke Nicholson made major contributions to this report. Also contributing  to this report in their areas of expertise were Michael Bechetti, Steven  Campbell, Mark Canter, Jenny Chanley, Jacqueline Chapin, Peter Del  Toro, Nancy Donovan, Kathleen Drennan, Sarah Gilliland, Sarah  Kaczmarek, Michael LaForge, Paula M. Rascona, Andrew J. Stephens,  and James Sweetman, Jr.

DATA Act: Reported Quality of Agencies’ Spending Data Reviewed by  OIGs Varied Because of Government-wide and Agency Issues.  GAO-18-546. Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2018.

DATA Act: OMB, Treasury, and Agencies Need to Improve Completeness  and Accuracy of Spending Data and Disclose Limitations. GAO-18-138.  Washington, D.C.: November 8, 2017.

Open Innovation: Executive Branch Developed Resources to Support  Implementation, but Guidance Could Better Reflect Leading Practices.  GAO-17-507. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2017.

DATA Act: As Reporting Deadline Nears, Challenges Remain That Will  Affect Data Quality. GAO-17-496. Washington, D.C.: April 28, 2017.

DATA Act: Office of Inspector General Reports Help Identify Agencies’  Implementation Challenges. GAO-17-460. Washington, D.C.: April 26,  2017.

DATA Act: Implementation Progresses but Challenges Remain.  GAO-17-282T. Washington, D.C.: December 8, 2016.

DATA Act: OMB and Treasury Have Issued Additional Guidance and  Have Improved Pilot Design but Implementation Challenges Remain.  GAO-17-156. Washington, D.C.: December 8, 2016.

Open Innovation: Practices to Engage Citizens and Effectively Implement  Federal Initiatives. GAO-17-14. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 2016.

DATA Act: Initial Observations on Technical Implementation.  GAO-16-824R. Washington, D.C.: August 3, 2016.

DATA Act: Improvements Needed in Reviewing Agency Implementation  Plans and Monitoring Progress. GAO-16-698. Washington, D.C.: July 29,  2016.

DATA Act: Section 5 Pilot Design Issues Need to Be Addressed to Meet  Goal of Reducing Recipient Reporting Burden. GAO-16-438. Washington,  D.C.: April 19, 2016.

DATA Act: Progress Made but Significant Challenges Must Be Addressed  to Ensure Full and Effective Implementation. GAO-16-556T. Washington,  D.C.: April 19, 2016.

DATA Act: Data Standards Established, but More Complete and Timely  Guidance Is Needed to Ensure Effective Implementation. GAO-16-261.  Washington, D.C.: January 29, 2016.

DATA Act: Progress Made in Initial Implementation but Challenges Must  be Addressed as Efforts Proceed. GAO-15-752T. Washington, D.C.: July  29, 2015.

Federal Data Transparency: Effective Implementation of the DATA Act  Would Help Address Government-wide Management Challenges and  Improve Oversight. GAO-15-241T. Washington, D.C.: December 3, 2014.

Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Inconsistent Definitions and  Information Limit the Usefulness of Federal Program Inventories.  GAO-15-83. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2014.

Data Transparency: Oversight Needed to Address Underreporting and  Inconsistencies on Federal Award Website. GAO-14-476. Washington,  D.C.: June 30, 2014.

Federal Data Transparency: Opportunities Remain to Incorporate  Lessons Learned as Availability of Spending Data Increases.  GAO-13-758. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2013.

Government Transparency: Efforts to Improve Information on Federal  Spending. GAO-12-913T. Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2012.

Electronic Government: Implementation of the Federal Funding  Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. GAO-10-365. Washington,  D.C.: March 12, 2010.

Open data—like the spending data the Treasury Department shares on USAspending.gov—can increase transparency to promote public trust in government. Because the data have broad appeal among users such as grant recipients, Congress, and the public, it's important to make the data as usable as possible.

We identified 5 key practices for transparently reporting government data. For example, websites should facilitate data discovery by presenting the data in a way that allows easy exploration, such as through a search function.

We recommended steps to better align USAspending.gov with key practices and other requirements.