OMB Circular No. A-130, the management of federal information resources: Its origins and impact

OMB Circular No. A-l 30, the Management of Federal Information Resources: Its Origins and Impact

J. TIMOTHY SPREHE*

An OMB circular is a policy directive that tells Federal executive agencies how they shall implement laws or presidential policies. OMB Circular No. A- 130, Manage- ment of Federal Information Resources, prescribes a general policy framework within the Paperwork Reduction Act for developing uniform and consistent Federal information resources management policies. The need for the policy framework was identified by the Commission on Federal Paperwork, and reaffirmed by the General Accounting Office and the Congress. The Circular enunciates some policies regarding dissemination of information for which Congress has not provided explicit statutory guidance. The Circular is quite general in its policy statements and does not subdistinguish various categories of government information. The principal impact of the Circular will be a continuing emphasis on planning for information resources management.

The development and issuance of OMB Circular No. A- 130, titled the Management of Federal Information Resources,* has aroused much interest within the past several years among information professionals in all walks of life. The issuance of the Circular by the Office of Management and Budget on December 12,1985, marked the end of a two-year period when the information community voiced its opinions over what the Circular might and ought to say. Now the information community is analyzing what the Circular does say and what are its consequences.

In discussing the contents of Circular No. A-130, it is useful to be mindful first of what the Circular is and how it arose. An OMB circular is a policy directive that tells Federal executive branch agencies how they shall implement laws or presidential policies. Circulars are not the same as Federal regulations because regulations them-

*Direct all correspondence to: .I. Timothy Sprehe, Offi e o f I f n ormation and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management ana’ Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503.

Government Information Quarterly, Volume 4, Number 2 (1987), pages 189-196. ISSN: 0740-624X.

190 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY Vol. ~/NO. 2/1987

selves have the force of law but circulars do not. Statutes always take precedence over the policy and procedural guidance contained in OMB circulars. For example, Circular No. A- 130 in no way alters Federal agency obligations to make government information accessible under the Freedom of Information Act (P.L. 93-502) or the Privacy Act (P.L. 93-579). Indeed, the Circular reemphasizes the public policy embodied in those laws.2

With Circular No. A- 130, OMB prescribed a general policy framework, as dictated by the Paperwork Reduction Act (P.L. 96-5 11). The act states that the general information policy functions of the Director of OMB shall include:

developing and implementing uniform consistent information resources management policies, and overseeing the development of information management princi- ples, standards, and guidelines, and promoting their use.3

Discharging this function was the guiding motivation behind the issuance of the Circular.

THE ORIGINS OF THE CIRCULAR

Over several years many voices had called for such general information policy guidance. In 1977, the Commission on Federal Paperwork, whose findings and recommendations were the basis for the Paperwork Reduction Act, identified problems associated with overlapping governmental information programs, proliferation and fragmentation of data, vague information goals and objectives, insufficient application of information technology, and rising costs of data and information.4 Among the Commission’s key findings with respect to information resources management were the following:

l The absence of a body of doctrine covering the effective and efficient management of information resources has fostered overlap and duplication in both the adminis- trative controls over, and organizational structures which manage, information gathering, processing, and dissemination. Government, thus, is insensitive to the burdens it places on citizens, businesses, and others because it collects duplicative information.

l We can no longer look upon information as a “free good.” Government must come to regard the data and information it collects as a costly asset which needs to be managed just as it manages its financial, material, physical, and human resources. Moreover, government must distinguish between “good” and “bad” paperwork and information. It collects too much information which is not used, and much of what is “used” is of little value in achieving positive results to improve citizen well-being.

l Government’s information-related programs and activities are dispersed, frag- mented, compartmentalized, and are not synchronized to the common goal of reducing the paperwork burden on the public while at the same time meeting the lawful needs of officials for reliable information. These activities must be consoli- dated and brought into harmony with one another.5

OMB Circular No. A- J30: Its Origins and Impact 191

The Commission recommended, among other things, consolidation of information policy oversight functions in a central management unit, and development of information planning, budgeting, and accounting guidelines to assist agencies.6 When Congress enacted the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, the law incorporated these recommendations by centralizing the information policy function into the new Office of Informa- tion and Regulatory Affairs within OMB, and by directing OMB to develop general information policy.

Several years after the passage of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the General Accounting Office (GAO) evaluated the Act’s implementation and stated in a 1983 report:

A central theme of the Paperwork Reduction Act is that OMB should play a strong role in developing uniform and consistent federal information policies and vigorously oversee implementation of these policies. The requirement for policy development and strong oversight by OMB was cited many times in the numerous studies which contributed to passage of the act; in both House and Senate Committee reports; and, more importantly, in the act itself. In our view, OMB has not vigorously pursued these objectives.’

When Congress took up the reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act in 1984, it addressed the point raised by GAO. Both House and Senate committees included in their proposed amendments to the Act a requirement that OMB discharge the general information policy function. For example, S.2433 of the 98th Congress, the Senate version of the reauthorization bill, contained an amendment to Section 3505 of the Act requiring that, within one year after the date of enactment of the amendments, OMB “develop and issue a comprehensive set of information resources management policies.“8 Although the reauthorization amendments were not enacted into law, congressional opinion with respect to the general information policy function was here clearly stated. If OMB did not carry out this function, Congress was likely to require expressly that OMB develop and issue such policy.

Thus, while some critics have characterized Circular No. A-l 30 as a new OMB incursion into how Federal agencies manage their information resources, others have seen the circular as a long overdue response to a widely perceived set of public policy issues and a clear statutory mandate.

Over the years since the Commission on Federal Paperwork concluded its delibera- tions the focus of public concern has shifted. The Commission’s attention was centered primarily on the paperwork burden on the public; that is, on excessive costs, inefti- ciencies and mismanagement surrounding information inputs to government. It is per- haps one indicator of the success of the Paperwork Reduction Act that controversy surrounding Circular No. A-130 has not centered on the government’s information gathering activities. In fact, those who commented on the information collection aspects of the draft Circular chiefly expressed the fear that essential information collec- tions would be diminished, and that government would collect too little information rather than too much. By far the major concern of cornmentors, however, was the issue of public access to government information; that is, the government’s information outputs.


Congress has given Federal agencies fairly explicit policy about information collection and processing, and about the public’s right of access to government information upon request. Circular No. A- 130 reaffirms these statutory policies. While the Paper- work Reduction Act in several places uses the term “dissemination,” neither in the Act nor elsewhere has Congress given the Executive Branch a single comprehensive set of statutory directions regarding responsibilities of all Federal agencies for actively disseminating government information. Put another way, the Paperwork Reduction Act provides statutory policy regarding information inputs to government-controlling the collection of information and imposition of recordkeeping requirements-but says little regarding policy on information outputs from government. In other pertinent laws such as the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the Government in the Sunshine Act (P.L. 94-409), Congress has set policy regarding information access, that is, what government information the public is entitled to upon request. But beyond access, Congress has not defined Federal agency responsibilities for actively reaching out and placing information in the public’s hands.

OMB believed that it could not develop and issue comprehensive policy on information resources management without addressing information dissemination. This meant, in part, that the development of Circular No. A-130 occasioned debate over some fundamental questions about the government’s role as information disseminator. While few would argue with the proposition that the government should actively disseminate certain kinds of information, that indeed our democratic polity and our economy could not continue to exist unless the government collected and disseminated certain basic information, the problem lies in determining what is “basic information” and how far government agencies must go in the business of actively placing information in the hands of the citizenry.

THE IMPACT OF THE CIRCULAR

Circular No. A-130 establishes a general policy framework for Federal information resources management. OMB deliberately couched the Circular in general terms because the legal mandate the circular discharges called for general information policy. Procedural guidelines, which might lend specificity to the Circular’s generality, were quite consciously excluded from the main body of the Circular, and to the extent they are incorporated at all they are placed in appendices. The Oversight section of the Circular (Section lo), where one might expect to find specific reporting requirements, in fact calls for no new reporting. Appendix IV states that “the broad scope of the Circular dictates a strategy of focusing oversight on a series of aspects of information resources management rather than on a single comprehensive reporting scheme.“9

The generality of the Circular itself has occasioned public concern. In part because the Circular is a generalized statement, its critics have been able to read their own specific interpretations into the Circular’s language. For example, despite the Circular’s statement that agencies shall “provide public access to government information, consistent with the Freedom of Information Act”,lO one critic concludes that “A- 130 will restrict public access to government information and stifle the production and dissemination of government information, except on a cost recovery basis.“l’

OMB Circular No. A-130: Its Origins and Impact 193

The Circular is also quite general in that it concerns itself with all government information and does not distinguish subcategories such as government scientific and technical information, government statistical information, or government printed information. Several commentors had urged that the Circular define these subcategories and develop specific policies to cover them. OMB did not accept the recommen- dation, chiefly because the Circular was intended to implement the Paperwork Reduc- tion Act and the Act does not distinguish among various kinds of information. Beyond this, the Circular’s intent was to set forth general government information policy that would apply to all subcategories of government information. This is not to say that government information cannot be subdistinguished; it does not constitute an assertion, as one critic has suggested, “that only one generic type of ‘government information’ exists”; and it certainly does not mean to overlook the fact “that different segments of the public have different information needs.“12

In OMB’s view, government scientific and technical information policy and govem- ment statistical policy are subsets of general government information policy. General government information policy is applicable to its subsets but not necessarily coexten- sive with them. That is, there are valid policies pertaining to scientific and technical information and to statistical information which are not applicable to all government information. In the case of statistical information there exists a body of OMB Statistical Policy Directives applicable to statistical information.

As regards printed information, the Circular does not deal with the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP) and the Government Printing Office (GPO), again, because the Paperwork Reduction Act does not do so. In addition, JCP and GPO, agencies of the legislative branch of government, fall outside the scope of the Circular, and indeed it would be inappropriate for OMB to enunciate policy applicable to these agencies. For example, the Circular does not set forth procedures concerning the Federal depository libraries because the depository library program is administered by GPO, and it would be inappropriate for OMB to formulate procedures for a program administered by GPO.

What the circular does do is to require executive branch agencies to develop procedures for complying with the law concerning depository libraries. That is, the Circular highlights existing Federal agency responsibilities to make their government documents available to the Federal depository library program (DLP), as required by 44 US. Code 1902. OMB stated its belief that the depository libraries are a kind of information “safety net,” an existing institutional mechanism that guarantees a minimum level of availability of government information to all members of the public.

One problem concerning the effectiveness of the depository libraries as a safety net is that:

no uniform, written guidelines exist to expand on the.. . provisions of title 44 and assist the agencies in determining which publications should be submitted for dis- tribution to the depository libraries.. . . Thus there is no assurance that the D.L.P represents a complete compendium of Federal publications that should be available to the public.13

GAO recommended that the Government Printing Office (GPO), the agency that administers the DLP, develop more definitive written criteria for Federal agencies to

194 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY Vol. ~/NO. 2/l 987

use in deciding which publications should be included in the depository library program.14 Should GPO develop DLP guidelines and providing OMB concurs in the guidelines, OMB will consider requiring executive agency compliance with such guidelines.

Given the general nature of the Circular, many have asked: What will be OMB’s “strategy of focusing oversight on a series of aspects of information resources management”? Already one chief element of the strategy is clear: OMB will require agencies to demonstrate planning in the management of their information resources.

Implementation of this strategic element commenced well before the issuance of Circular No. A- 130. The Paperwork Reduction Act required OMB to “develop, in consultation with the Administrator of General Services, a five-year plan for meeting the automatic data processing and telecommunications needs of the Federal Govern- ment.. . . .“I5 OMB issued the first Five- Year Plan for Meeting the Automatic Data Pro- cessing and Teltxommunications Neeak of the Federal Government in April 198316 and, construing congressional intent as a continuing requirement, has issued a five-year plan every year thereafter.” Volume I of each five-year plan contains guidance on planning for information resources management.

In addition, building on previous years’ work, OMB Bulletin 86- 12, Federal Informa- tion Systems and Technology Planning, is takes up the Circular’s emphasis on information technology planning processes. It requires agencies to prepare strategic plans. The Bulletin sets forth specific requirements for these plans.

In general, Federal agency information resources managers can expect an enduring emphasis on planning for information systems and information technology acquisitions. OMB is likely to insist that agencies continue to develop and update their strategic plans, and that major information systems acquisitions be reflected in these plans. As the information systems and technology planning process matures, it will be increasingly integrated with the budget process so that OMB will examine agency budget requests for major information systems’ acquisitions to ascertain whether they arise from a strategic plan.

Planning for information management-as contrasted with information systems and technology management-entails systematic consideration of the information life cycle: creation, collection, processing, transmission, dissemination, use, storage, and disposition of information. As Appendix IV to the Circular points out:

If agencies do contemplate disseminating particular information, they should plan for its dissemination when creating or collecting the information.. . . The focus of information dissemination plans should be on elevating to a policy level decisions regarding the agency’s positive obligations to disseminate information and ensuring that the agency discharges the obligations in the most efficient, effective, and economical manner.‘9

Incorporating this viewpoint, Bulletin 86- 12 takes up one aspect of information management and requires agencies to report on policies, procedures, and specific initiatives for electronic collection of information.

Planning translates organizational missions into specific goals and, in turn, into quantifiable objectives. 2o Planning then develops the means to achieve objectives,

OMB Circular No. A- 130: Its Origins and Impact 195

chooses among alternatives, and implements the chosen plans, monitoring progress and modifying plans as objectives and the environment change.

Within the Federal government, information resources management is a means to perform agency missions, not an end in and of itself. Agency planners must analyze exactly how information resources management (a tool) supports program goals (an objective). The linkage between information resources management and achieving agency program goals results in the translation of user information needs into agency information service offerings. Good information resources management strategy arises out of a dialogue between information users-whether governmental or nongovern- mental-and the suppliers of information services. Better planning improves the dialogue and focuses the information services to better serve user needs within agency objectives and available resources.

CONCLUSION

To paraphrase the findings of the Commission on Federal Paperwork cited earlier, better information resources planning should eliminate overlap and duplication in the management of information gathering, processing, and dissemination; it should enable agencies to distinguish between “good” and “bad” paperwork and information; it should diminish collection of information that is not used, and assure that what is used is of real value in achieving positive results to improve citizen well-being; it should synchronize government information programs to the common goal of reducing paperwork burden on the public while at the same time meeting governmental and public needs for reliable information. Far from receiving less access to less information by and about the government, members of the public can only be better served by Circular No. A-130’s emphasis on systematic improvements in Federal information resources planning.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Office of Management and Budget, “Management of Federal Information Resources; Final Publication

of OMB Circular No. A-130,” Federal Register, 50 (December 24, 1985): 52730-52751. Hereafter,

OMB Cimdar No. A- 130. 2. OMB Circular No. A-130, Section 8(a)(6), p. 52736. 3. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law 96-5 11,94 Stat 2812, codified at Chapter 35 of

title 44 of the United States Code, Section 3504 (b)( 1).

4. See “Information Resources Management,” A Report of the Commission on Federal Paperwork,

September 9, 1977.

5. “Final Summary Report,” A Report of the Commission on Federal Paperwork, October 3, 1977, p. 56. 6. Ibid., p. 57.

7. General Accounting Office, “Implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act: Some Progress, But Many

Problems Remain,” Report No. GAO/C&D-83-35, April 20, 1983, p. 27.

8. Report of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, to accompany S.2433 to amend Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, relating to the Coordination of Federal Information

Policy, and for other purposes, Report 98-576, August 6, 1985. The House version, which contains the same provision, is found in H.R. 27 18, Report of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House

of Representatives, concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments of 1983.

9. OMB Circular No. A-130, p. 52751.

10. OMB Circular No. A-130, Section 8 (aX6), p. 52736.


11.

12. 13.

14. 15. 16.

17.

18.

19. 20.

Peter Hemon, “The Management of United States Government Information Resources: An Assessment of OMB Circular No. A-130,” Government Information Quarterly, 3 (August 1986): 287. Ibid., p. 284. General Accounting Office, “The Government Printing Office’s Depository Library Program.” Report No. GAOIAFMD-85-19, December 17,1984, p. 1. Ibid., p. 2. The Paperwork Reduction Act, Section 3505 (3)(E). Office of Management and Budget, A Five-Year Plan for Meeting the Automatic Data Processing and Telecommunicatkms Needs of the Federal Government (Washington, D.C.: GPO, April 1983) (hereafter cited as Office of Management and Budget, A Five- Year Plan, with the fiscal year and page(s) given). Office of Management and Budget, A Five-Year Plan, (Washington, D.C.: GPO, April 1984 and June 1985). S.2433, introduced in the 98th Congress, and S.2230, introduced in the 98th Congress, both contain provisions making the Five-Year Plan a continuing annual requirement. Office of Management and Budget, OMB Bulletin 86- 12, Federal Information Systems and Technol- ogy Planning, April 14, 1986. OMB Circular No. A-130, Appendix IV, p. 52747. This section relies on materials in Office of Management and Budget, A Five- Year Plan, (Washington, D.C.: GPO, June 1985). p. 17ff.

Documents

OMB Circular No. A-130, the management of federal information resources: Its origins and impact