Audited financial statements in the federal government: Intentions, outcomes and on-going challenges for management and policy-making

The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (and the subsequent Government Management Reform Act of 1994) mandated federal agencies to prepare corporate-style annual financial statements and subject them to independent audit. Over a decade later, it is reasonable to ask what the consequences of CFO Act financial statements have been. Accrual accounting produces auditable financial statements that establish accountability, contribute to the credibility of financial information, and identify long-term financial issues; but financial statements are not linked to the processes for resource-allocation decisions, nor do they produce information needed by managers. Some of these shortcomings are explained by contextual and sectoral differences

Audited financial statements in the us federal government: The question of policy and management utility

The article of record as published may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-25-01-2013-B007The Chief Financial Officers Act and subsequent legislation require federal agencies to produce corporate-style financial statements. Arguments for financial statements drew on private sector analogies and suggested policy makers and managers would use the information to make better public policy and management decisions and improve accountability for financial management and program performance. Nearly all major government agencies have unqualified audit opinions and improvements in financial management are claimed. But benefits for policy making and management are not yet well understood. This paper examines the question by comparison with the private sector and by examining what agencies say about the uses and users of financial statement information. The emerging challenge in the evolution of federal financial reporting is to develop better government-specific analytical tools and other financial information for policy makers and managers