Federal officials don’t know how many billions of dollars they spend every year duplicating each other’s collection programs for geographic mapping data such as satellite images, building identities and footprints, street addresses and a host of other characteristics.
Such information, known as “geospatial data,” represents more than 80 percent of all federal data produced by agencies and is used for tasks ranging from tracking wildfires to viral disease outbreaks. The problem, according to the Government Accountability Office, is federal departments and agencies don’t coordinate their data collection to avoid overlap, and don’t have a management handle on related spending.
“Selected agencies have made limited progress…to ensure they do not invest in duplicative data,” the accountability report said. Eliminating such overlap just for the seven federal agencies investigators reviewed could save billions of dollars.
For example, consolidating agencies’ street address indexes into a single national database could save the U.S. Census Bureau nearly $200 million for the 2020 census and $2 million annually for the Department of Homeland Security. Other benefits include the “improved ability to respond to emergency and public safety incidents” and “less fragmented address systems,” the report said.
However, it is illegal for some federal departments to share such information with other agencies and there are uncertainties concerning which agency should manage such a unified database.
One program was initiated to increase address sharing and updating, as well as road data, across all levels of government that was touted as enabling savings of an estimated $1 billion. However, the accountability office found that the effort lacks a comprehensive strategy, deadlines and measurable goals.
Another strategy would reduce nearly $940 million of duplication across all levels of government over 10 years by coordinating efforts to collect and share a specific type of aerial photography data. The project “is now dormant due to a lack of funding and a lack of interest,” though “officials from several states stated that they would use such a program and expressed disappointment that it never got started,” the report said.
Previous attempts to reduce elimination, such as a 1994 initiative by President Clinton and a 2012 accountability office report, were also unsuccessful.
Investigators were unable to estimate the amount even just the agencies reviewed could save by eliminating duplication, because the government is unable to measure how much it spends on its geospatial projects.
“Federal agencies report spending billions of dollars on geospatial investments,” the accountability office said. “However, the estimates are understated because agencies do not always track geospatial investments. For example, these estimates do not include billions of dollars spent on earth-observing satellites that produce volumes of geospatial data.”
The Office of Management and Budget found in 2007 that the government planned to spend nearly $2 billion in geospatial data and services from 2007-09. This estimate was undervalued “largely because agencies either provided incomplete information or did not respond at all,” the accountability report said.
The Department of Interior, which is a primary manager of interagency geospatial data, estimated in 2012 that the government invests billions of dollars annually, but “didn’t provide a breakdown of that estimate,” the report said.
Agencies inconsistently define geospatial costs, which is a major cause of underreported expenses. For example, investigators found agencies spent an average of $385 million on 131 geospatial information technology investments annually from 2013-25.
However, nearly half of those investments were not categorized as geospatial projects, though they used the term in their budget documents. The OMB found the government had spent $1.3 billion on the 131 investments as of August 2014.
However, that total still fell short of accounting for all of the related spending. Two National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellite programs that have already cost $9 billion and are estimated to total $22 billion were excluded, even though they provide billions of bytes of geospatial data.
Similarly, although it was found that agencies spent nearly $500 million in 2013 on contractors concerning geospatial data, the total cost was underreported “because there is not a definitive way to categorize the contracts as being geospatial in nature,” the accountability office said.
Only one federal agency reviewed, the Farm Service Agency, was able to offer comprehensive accounting of its geospatial data costs. Conversely, NOAA couldn’t provide any cost information “even though the vast majority of its mission involves geospatial data,” the report said.
The other five agencies reviewed were able to provide at least some estimates. Investigators found that the total geospatial costs of each agency ranged from nothing to almost $27 million. However, the accountability office found an unreported Census Bureau geospatial project that spent $1.4 billion over a 10-year period.
