Pennsylvania Spending Transparency 2.0

Online Tools for Better Government

The ability to see how government uses the public purse is fundamental to democracy. Spending transparency checks corruption, bolsters public confidence in government, and promotes fiscal responsibility. Pennsylvania Spending Transparency 2.0 explains how Pennsylvania’s new online government spending Web site – the Contracts e-Library – represents a good first step toward greater transparency. But Pennsylvania has a long way to go to match the spending transparency efforts of leading states in the movement toward “Transparency 2.0” – a new standard of comprehensive, one-stop, one-click budget accountability and accessibility.

The ability to see how government uses the public purse is fundamental to democracy. Spending transparency checks corruption, bolsters public confidence in government, and promotes fiscal responsibility.

Pennsylvania’s new online government spending Web site – the Contracts e-Library – represents a good first step toward greater transparency. But Pennsylvania has a long way to go to match the spending transparency efforts of leading states in the movement toward “Transparency 2.0” – a new standard of comprehensive, one-stop, one-click budget accountability and accessibility.

With the state in the midst of a budget crisis, it’s especially important for Pennsylvanians to have easy access to information about the state’s expenditures. Pennsylvania should fill in the gaps in government reporting and bring its online transparency up to the level of leading states. Doing so will create savings and will allow Pennsylvanians to hold decision makers in Harrisburg more accountable.

The movement toward Transparency 2.0 is broad, bipartisan, and popular.

  • A nationwide wave – Legislation and executive orders in 32 states have given residents access to online databases of detailed government expenditures, and the federal government has launched similar initiatives. The vast majority of these states have acted over just the last three years.
  • Bipartisan efforts – Transparency legislation has been championed by legislators both Republican and Democratic. In 2009, the Pennsylvania House unanimously passed legislation sponsored by a Democrat to create an enhanced transparency Web site (providing more information than the Contracts e-Library). A similar bill, sponsored by a Republican, passed in the Senate.In 2008, federal legislation to strengthen Web-based spending transparency was co-sponsored in the U.S. Senate by presidential rivals John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL).
  • Public support – Republicans, independents and Democrats all support enhanced government transparency by wide margins. When asked about the role of transparency in the federal economic recovery package of early 2009, fully 75 percent of American voters said creating state level Web sites to track funds was “important,” and 34 percent said it was “very important.”

Transparency 2.0 saves money and bolsters citizen confidence.

  • Increased civic engagement – Americans are eager to use transparency Web sites. Houston officials report improved public confidence after the launch of their transparency Web site. The Missouri Accountability Portal received more than 13 million hits in the 18 months after its launch.
  • Low cost – Spending transparency Web sites can be inexpensive to create and maintain. The federal transparency Web site, which allows Americans to search over $2 trillion in federal yearly spending, cost less than $1 million to create. Missouri’s Web site, which allows its residents to search over $20 billion in state annual spending and is updated daily, was created with already-existing staff and appropriations.
  • Big savings – Transparency Web sites can save millions through more efficient government operations, fewer information requests, more competitive contracting bids, and lower risk of fraud. In the two years following the launch of its transparency website, the Texas Comptroller reported $4.8 million in savings from more efficient government administration. Utah estimates millions in savings from reduced information requests. The largest savings may come from the deterrence of waste or abuse of public funds due to enhanced public scrutiny – savings that are impossible to quantify but likely significant.
  • Better-targeted expenditures – Transparency budget portals allow states to track how well subsidies and tax incentives deliver results. Funds from underperforming projects and programs can be reinvested in more successful programs. By tracking the performance of state subsidies, Minnesota and Illinois have both been able to recapture money from numerous projects that failed to deliver promised results.
  • Better coordination of government contracts – The Massachusetts’ State Purchasing Agent identifies four sources of savings for state procurement officers: sharing information with other public purchasers on good deals; avoiding wasteful duplication of bidding and contracting procedures through centralized processes; better enforcement of favorable pricing and contract terms; and focusing cost-cutting in areas where greater resources are spent.

Pennsylvania’s transparency Web site puts the state on the right track, but still has major deficiencies.

  • Good first step into Transparency 2.0 – Pennsylvania’s new Contracts e-Library Web site gives residents access to crucial government accountability information. State contracts are keyword-searchable by department, supplier name, and cost, making it easy for Pennsylvanians to find out information about how government is spending taxpayers’ money.
  • An effective and cheap tool – The Contracts e-Library Web site cost $457,000 to create, and lessons from other states indicate that Pennsylvania will recoup this cost through fewer information requests and more efficient government spending.
  • Information on corporate tax breaks and subsidies is incomplete – The state’s Investment Tracker Web site provides incomplete information on the millions of dollars that Pennsylvania spends each year on corporate tax breaks and subsidies. Data that would allow citizens and officials to evaluate the effectiveness of these subsidies are missing.
  • Contracting data are incomplete – Contracts are missing from the Contracts e-Library because the state agencies determine which contracts are subject to public disclosure. No enforcement mechanism exists to ensure that officials comply with the law. This represents a large weakness in the state’s transparency efforts.
  • Comprehensive information on contracts is unavailable – Though Pennsylvania does provide copies of the contracts on the Contracts e-Library, it does not offer other key points of information, such as the competing bids received for each contract or the performance of contractors. This information must be included so that the public can determine if the contracts represent an efficient use of government funds.
  • Transparency information is not centrally located – Pennsylvania provides a lot of government information on the Web, but most of it is scattered across multiple Web sites and is not in a searchable format. This reduces the ability of citizens who do not already know what they are looking for and where to find it to effectively monitor government spending and find important information.

Pennsylvania should fill in the major holes on its transparency Web site and make the site easier to use, bringing it up to the best practices established by other Transparency 2.0 states.

  • Add corporate tax subsidies – Pennsylvania should incorporate information on tax subsidies for corporations from the Investment Tracker Web site into its transparency Web site, including the names of the corporations that benefit, the intent of the subsidies, and a measure of whether the subsidies achieved their intended purposes. Given that Pennsylvania spends millions of dollars on tax expenditures, it is essential that the performance of these subsidies is monitored so taxpayers can ensure their money is being used wisely.
  • Include contracts from all agencies – Pennsylvania should require all agencies to report expenditures on the transparency Web site, and specify penalties for noncompliant agencies.
  • Include comprehensive information on government contracts – The Contracts e-Library should not only provide copies of the contracts, but it should also offer more detailed information that would allow citizens to fully monitor the contracting process, such as providing information on other bids received, noting whether subcontractors were employed, and analyzing the performance of the contractors.
  • Provide accountability information on one Web site – Pennsylvania should ensure that all government accountability information is provided on a central Web site.
Topics
Authors

Kari Wohlschlegel

Policy Associate

Elizabeth Ridlington

Associate Director and Senior Policy Analyst, Frontier Group

Elizabeth Ridlington is associate director and senior policy analyst with Frontier Group. She focuses primarily on global warming, toxics, health care and clean vehicles, and has written dozens of reports on these and other subjects. Elizabeth graduated with honors from Harvard with a degree in government. She joined Frontier Group in 2002. She lives in Northern California with her son.

Find Out More