DATA Act Analytics. Unlocking Federal Spending Data through Analytics

Transcription

1 DATA Act Analytics Unlocking Federal Spending Data through Analytics MAY 2017

2 OVERVIEW 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE DATA ACT 2. USE CASES FOR CURRENTLY AVAILABLE DEFENSE DATA FEDERAL ACCOUNTS OBJECT CLASS 3. USE CASES FOR UPCOMING DEFENSE DATA AWARDS BY GEOGRAPHY EXPLORING CONTRACTS PRODUCT SERVICE CODES

3 INTRODUCTION TO THE DATA ACT 2

4 DATA ACT BACKGROUND In May 2014, President Obama signed into law the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act) (P.L ), which expands on the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of DATA Act requires agencies to make publicly available specific classes of Federal agency spending data, with more specificity and at a deeper level than is currently reported - Additionally, agencies are required to report this data on USASpending.gov or its successor site In May 2017, all Federal agencies provided data for posting on USAspending.gov using a standard data exchange called the DATA Act Information Model Schema Grants Loans and Other Assistance $3.8 Trillion in Federal Spending Procurements and Contracts Other Agency Expenditures This will allow Treasury to track $3.8 trillion dollars in annual spending on a quarterly basis and link data from the budget, accounting, procurement and financial assistance databases into one common format that allows for comparability across government 3

5 THE JOURNEY IMPLEMENTATION MILESTONES Schema 0.4 Schema Prototype 0.6 DAIMS 0.7 DAIMS 1.0 Alpha Beta Full Dec 2014: Launche d Federal Spending Collabor ation Space (GitHub) March 2015: SBA Pilot Begins May 2015: OMB Guidance Setting Data Standards/ DATA Act Playbook/ Baseline Schema Version 0.2 Released July 2015: 2 nd Schema Version 0.4 Released Sept 2015: Prototyp e Broker Complet e/ Sandbox Testing Begins Oct 2015: Schema Version 0.6 Released Nov 2015: OpenBeta. USAspend ing.gov Launched Dec 2015: DAIMS Version 0.7 Released March 2016: Draft DAIMS Version 1.0 Released for Agency Comment April 2016: DAIMS Version 1.0 Complet e/ Alpha Broker Released June 2016: Beta Broker Released Sept 2016: Full Broker Released April 2017: Agencies submit certified data May 2017: Beta.USAspendi ng.gov is launched 4

6 THE ARCHITECTURE 5

7 BENEFITS Improved Data Quality Increase access to searchable and reliable Federal spending data Data Centric Decision Making Promote data driven decision making due to access of reliable agency data Better Oversight Encourage better tracking of how the Federal government spends funds Research and Innovation Promote research and innovation both inside and outside of government 6 6

8 DATA QUALITY Establishing a standard schema and method as well as implementing new business rules on many backend financial systems has improved the data quality and completeness of information reported to USASpending.gov To measure the effect on data quality, the DATA Act Program Management Office (PMO) compared the records available on 24 April 2017 (19,911 grants) with a sample from USAspending.gov taken in October 2015 (23,368 grants). As can be seen, each of the four fields provided on the right, saw drastic improvements in Data Quality between 2015 and 2017 Errors are defined as values which are either null (when a value should be present) or invalid (e.g. 126 for State Name) 2017 Error Rate Awarding Agency Name 2015 Error Rate 0% % 57% % Awarding Sub Tier Agency 2017 Error Rate Name 2015 Error Rate 0% % % % Primary Place of Performance State 2017 Error Name 2015 Error Rate 0% Rate % 29% % Primary Place of Performance Country 2017 Error Code Rate2015 Error 0% Rate 100 0% 8% % 7

9 THE WEBSITE: BETA.USASPENDING.GOV On May 9 th, 2017, The beta.usaspending.gov website launched with Q data Over the next 3 months additionally features will be brought online and historical data from 2001 and later will be ingested into the site In the end of September 2017, the legacy USASpending.gov website will be decommissioned and formally replaced by the current beta site. Beta.USAspending.gov 8 8

10 FUTURE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUBMISSIONS Submitted by agencies from financial systems Extracted from intermediary award data systems C Data Standards D B E A F DATA Act Broker Agency Certification Data Store Prior to April 30, 2017, the DoD submitted it s A and B files to the Broker and the provided data is now available on beta.usaspending.gov Within the next months, the DoD will begin providing the C file (all awards) as well By providing the C file, the D1, D2, E, and F files will be generated and pulled from current financial systems DATA Act Information Model Schema (DAIMS) Released in April Contains 400+ data elements DATA Act Broker Full Broker released in September Agency files are combined and validated. Certification Senior Accountable Officials (SAO) certify FY17 Q2 data by April 30, 2017 Data Store Once certified, agency data is transmitted to the Treasury Data Store. 9

11 Use Cases for DoD Data 10

12 MONITORING FEDERAL ACCOUNTS The website provides a breakout of each federal account showing the total budget authority, sources of funding, and total obligations. The chart below provides the current federal account data for Defense Working Capital Fund Based on this information, a website user can see that, for this current fiscal year, DoD has been granted authority to spend $126B out of this federal account. They carried over a balance of $12B from last year, were given $472M in new appropriations, and have authority to use $114B of other budgetary resources. To date, 51.4% ($65B) of the total $126B has been obligated

13 COMPARING EXPENDITURES BY OBJECT CLASS GOVERNMENT-WIDE Insurance claims and indemnities $970B Interest and dividends $228B Supplies and materials Other services from non-federal sources Other services from Federal sources Medical care With the implementation of the DATA Act, information on how the government spends money across Object Classes is made widely available for the first time. Grants, subsidies, and contributions $666B Refunds $187B Benefits for former personnel $102B Full-time permanent $79B Financial transfers $83B Military personnel benefits Equipment $59B The tree map to the left shows expenditures across the government by object class 12

14 COMPARING EXPENDITURES BY OBJECT CLASS (CONT D) DEFENSE DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES ONLY Benefits for former personnel $93.0B Supplies and materials $50.3B Other goods and services from Federal Sources $33.5B Military personnel $37.8B Full-time permanent $28.6B Operation and maintenance of equipment $22.8B Research and development contracts $22.1B Other services from non- Federal sources $15.6B Military personnel benefits $24.0B Civilian personnel benefits $13.9B Equipment $55.2B Insurance claims and indemnities $29.0B Unknown: No Object Class Specified* $25.6B Undistributed $4.08B The Department of Defense spends nearly the same proportion on personnel compensation and benefits (39%) as they do on contractual services and supplies (37%). Similarly, they spend nearly the same proportion across two other spending categories, grants and fixed charges and other: these account for about 12% (or 6% each) of DoD s spending. *A total of $25,550,589,697 was classified as major object class Other using an incorrect major object class code, and object class was left blank. This misclassified amount was excluded from the analysis by federal agency stacked bar charts on slides

15 DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING ON PRODUCTS AND SERVICES BY TYPE In terms of contracts, defense spends slightly more on products than it does services. Nearly 52% is spent on products while about 48% is spent on services. In Q2 of FY17, Defense spent almost $46 billion on products and nearly $43 billion on services. Services $42.9B 48.4% Products $45.8B 51.6% Data as of 05/05/17 14

16 Aerospace craft and structural components $11.9B Ships, small craft, pontoon, docks $5.90B Guided Missiles $3.09B Furnace/steam/ drying; nuclear reactor $2.24B Medical/dental/ veterinary equipment/ supplies $2.20B DEFENSE: SPENDING BY PRODUCT SERVICE CODE CATEGORY (PRODUCTS ONLY) IT equipment including firmware) $1.34B Comm/ detect/ coherent radiation $2.81B Engines and turbines and components $1.16B Ammunition and explosives $831M Subsistence $772M Electrical/ electrical equipment components Weapons $736M Aerospace craft components and accessories $2.73B Fuels, lubricants, oils, waxes $2.32B Other product service code (PSC) categories for DoD products included: construction and building materials; hand tools; and clothing, individual equipment, insignia, and jewelry. About two-fifths of spending for products was for aerospace crafts and structural components and ships, small craft, pontoon, and docks. Data as of 05/05/17 15

17 Support services (professional, administrative, management) $9.37B Research and development $6.80B Medical services $6.23B Maintenance, repair, rebuild equipment $5.98B DEFENSE: SPENDING BY PRODUCT SERVICE CODE CATEGORY (SERVICES ONLY) ADP and telecommunications $3.29B Utilities and housekeeping $2.43B Construction of structures/ facilities $1.84B Operation of governmentowned facility $784M Education and training $721M Transport, travel, relocation $2.02B Maintenance, repair, alteration of real property $1.54B Other PSC categories for DoD products included: natural resources management, non-r&d studies, and modification of equipment. About 65% of spending was for the top five largest PSC categories. The remaining 40% of spending on services spans 18 PSC categories. Data as of 05/05/17 16

18 EXPLORING CONTRACT AWARDS Add link to run visualization during presentation 17 17

19 COMPARING AWARDS ACROSS GEOGRAPHIES SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA) LOANS AND GRANTS BY REGION The maps above provide total loans and grants awarded to each SBA region (left) as well as the per capita dollars awarded to each region (right) From these charts we can see that the Southeast region received a high total amount of grants and loans, while the Rocky Mountain region received a relatively low amount However, when looking at the amount received per capita, the results are opposite. The Southeast region received a relatively low amount of grants and loans, while the Rocky Mountain region received a relatively high amount. 18

20 COMPARING AWARDS ACROSS GEOGRAPHIES (CONT D) SBA DISASTER RELIEF AWARDS Visualizing Disaster Relief Loans & Grants show funds concentrated in areas predisposed to hurricanes, fires, and earthquakes Visualizing data in this manner can identify trends in award actions as well as outliers in areas receiving awards 19

21 QUESTIONS 20

22 APPENDIX 21

23 Objectives Strategic Goals Analytics Team Priorities The Analytics Team cultivates a transparent data ecosystem that connects citizens with timely, reliable, consumable, and secure U.S. federal spending data to promote research, innovation, and data driven decision making across the private, public, and social sector. Partnerships with Agencies Partnerships with States Resources for the Public Encourage agency accountability and promote the use of data by educating agencies on data quality and assisting them with analytic tools to unlock the value of their information. Encourage state-level engagement and the use of data by partnering with states and assisting them with analytic tools to unlock the value of the data Connect the general public with consumable data by educating them on how to leverage and interpret information - Develop and implement a framework for DATA Act data visualizations and reporting - Proactively develop analytics use cases and demos showcasing the power of DATA Act data - Connect federal level spending Data with State level data to gain better understanding of the end recipients of funding - Develop trainings and learning materials around the DATA Act data and make it available on a new analytics website - Engage the open data community to promote the use the DATA Act data 22 22

24 Beta.USAspending.gov screenshots 23

25 24 24

26 25 25

27 26 26

28 27