American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Advancing Government Accountability Baltimore, Maryland January 21, 2010 H. Glen Walker Executive Director, Recovery Accountability & Transparency Board

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act  $787 Billion available  Save and create 3 to 4 million jobs  Lay the foundation for a robust and sustainable 21 st century economy  Create an oversight body to ensure transparency and accountability of the funds 2

Breakout of $787 Billion Funding (Source – OMB) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 3

Agency Commitments vs. Spending* Contract, Grants, Loans, and Entitlements American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 4 *Updated through January 5, 2010 $ in Billions

 Provide public with unprecedented transparency of Recovery spending and job creation (Recovery.gov)  Provide oversight of Recovery spending to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse Mission of the Board 5

 Recovery.gov -TIGTA – Russell George (Committee Chair) -HHS IG – Daniel Levinson -Commerce IG – Todd Zinser -Defense IG – Gordon Heddell  Accountability -Homeland IG – Richard Skinner (Committee Chair & Board Vice-Chair) -Justice IG – Glenn Fine -Energy IG – Greg Friedman -Education IG – Mary Mitchelson (acting)  Recovery Funds Working Group -Transportation IG – Calvin Scovel (Committee Chair) -Agriculture IG – Phyllis Fong -Interior IG – Mary Kendall (acting) -Treasury IG – Eric Thorson Board Members & Committees 6

Recovery.gov Committee 7

Smartronix (KMPG, Synteractive, TMP Government), GSA (Savvis), DHS EPA (CGI Federal) EPA (CGI Federal) Web Portal Data Storage Reports on the use of funds Data visualization Content management Pre-compiled reports Raw report data Advanced geospatial capabilities Out-Bound Reporting Recipient In-Bound Reporting Recipient Registration Recipient Reporting Agency Validation Recovery.govFederalReporting.gov GSA Database (Sybase) GSA Database (Sybase) Database Data Replicated Between Hosting Centers Our strategy employs a hybrid approach, leveraging expertise and services from both government and industry. Recovery.gov Version 2.0 Architecture 8

9 Recovery.gov Version 2.0 Organizational Relationships

 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was selected to lead the development of the recipient reporting architecture (FederalReporting.gov)  FederalReporting.gov is powered by EPA’s mature CDX (Exchange Network) technology  EPA’s secure CDX is currently used by all 50 States for Reporting/Data Exchange FederalReporting.gov Overview 10

FederalReporting.gov is designed to satisfy Section 1512, “Reports on Use of Funds” as specified by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5). FederalReporting.gov Overview (continued) 11

Prime Recipient Level (State) Lowest Data Collection Level Sub Recipient Level 2 (Contractor) Sub Recipient Level 1 (City) Federal Agency Sub Recipient Level 3 (Paving Company) Sub Recipient Level 1 data is reported by the prime or sub recipient Only the identity of Sub Recipient Level 2 is reported Data on 3 rd or lower level recipients is not reported Recipient Reporting Requirements 12

 Late Reports – 16,997  Recipients Who Failed to Report – 4,359  Job Reporting  Data Input Issues  Funding and Awarding Agency Codes and Names  Treasury Account Symbol Code (TAS)  Congressional District Recipient and Place of Performance  Federal Award Number or ID Initial Recipient Reporting* Prominent Issues 13 *October 2009 Reporting Period

 New Data Anomaly Reports to assist with Data Quality Reviews  Quality Edit Checks & Alert Messages  Improved Data Definitions (OMB/RATB)  Simplified Job Reporting Requirements (OMB/GAO)  Extended Stakeholder Review Period Prime Recipient Reports 2 nd Quarter Enhancements 14

 Total Number of Reports – 134,194  Reports by Type of Award  Contracts – 18,205  Grants – 115,333  Loans – 656  Help Desk Statistics  Total Number of Contacts – 19,194  Average Response Time – 01:06 minutes  Satisfaction Rating – 4.5 out of 5 Recipient Reporting Preliminary January 2010* 15 *As of January 15, 2010

Accountability Committee 16

Referral Starting Point Generated from all types of external complaints and/or proactive RATB risk assessment, review and analysis Triage and Analysis Continued analysis on intake and internally generated issues Assignment (Referred to OIGs) Reporting back to RATB Required in monthly reporting on all Recovery related matters, and key to our predictive analysis Accountability Module Information Flow 17

 Reviews contracts and grants for completeness  Reviews whether competition requirements for contracts and grants have been satisfied  Reviews for wasteful spending, poor contract/grant management, and other abuses  Refers matters it considers appropriate for investigation to the OIG for the applicable agency Accountability Committee Contract & Grant Activities 18

Accountability Committee Recovery Operations Center 19  Initial Risk Assessment – Recipient screening  Target Analysis – In-depth fraud analysis to identify non-obvious relationships  Focusing Limited Resources – Enhancing the IG’s organic investigative capabilities Primary Function

Accountability Committee Key Oversight Statistics Recovery Board and All Inspectors General Data Through November 30,

21 Accountability Committee Generating Leads

Accountability Committee Complaints By Geographical Area 22 Heat Map technology affords a visual image of geographical hot spots.

Recovery Funds Working Group Committee 23

Recovery Funds Working Group Committee 24 Regular Updates Decision Making Process

Initiatives To Date:  OIG Recovery Act Plan – provides overview of planned work  OIG Monthly Report – provides overview of completed work  Survey of Federal Acquisition and Grant Personnel – data will be used to make government-wide recommendations regarding Recovery Act oversight  Funding – made recommendations to OMB to address funding State and Local Recovery Act oversight activities Recovery Funds Working Group Committee 25

Initiatives To Date (continued):  Single Audits – made recommendations to OMB to address Single Audit process issues as they relate to the Recovery Act  Oversight Coordination – coordinating across OIGs, GAO, and Federal Agencies and between Federal, State, and local governments  Reporting – issue quarterly and annual reports on Recovery Act funds and other issues as appropriate  Data Quality Reviews - HHS OIG, on behalf of the Recovery Board, issued a report entitled Summary of Inspectors General Reports on Federal Agencies’ Data-Quality Review Processes Recovery Funds Working Group Committee 26

 Two Fold Mission – Accountability & Transparency – Recovery.gov – Prevent fraud, waste, and abuse  Led by Three Board Committees – Recovery.gov – Accountability – Recovery Funds Working Group  Coordinated throughout Federal, State, and Local Oversight Communities Closing 27

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Advancing Government Accountability Baltimore, Maryland January 21, 2010 H. Glen Walker Executive Director, Recovery Accountability & Transparency Board