audiTors and comPTrollers faster, cheaper, better: demands for financial reporting from state governments by nancy Kopp Financial reporting and auditing professionals ensure that the public has a clear view of the health and viability of state governments. They are keepers of the public trust. Today, how- ever, these professionals face more demands than ever and have fewer resources than ever to support their important efforts. Cumbersome, and often burdensome, processes and financial limitations are now colliding with a multi-faceted push for financial reporting that is faster, cheaper and better. Can states sustain current efforts, and even go beyond, pushing the limits of their capacity to provide speed, economy and quality? Setting the Stage terly grant reporting became a reality beginning in Faster comprehensive annual financial reports, September 2009. faster annual single audits of federal grant funds, Satisfaction with this accomplishment, how- quarterly financial statements, quarterly grant ever, was short-lived, as the demands continued to reporting, more transparent reporting of state gov- increase. ernment pension plans, interim financial report- Recent reports by the U.S. Government Account- ing—these items are just part of a growing list of ability Office have concluded there is a need for reporting demands presenting real challenges to faster reporting of single audits (the organization- state government financial management and audit wide audit of any entity expending $500,000 or professionals. more of federal assistance), particularly reporting One can hardly open a newspaper, go online or of internal control deficiencies.2 To accomplish even watch the local evening news these days with- faster single audits, states must complete compre- out confronting a headline about state government hensive annual financial reports in a more timely financial woes. The Great Recession has affected fashion. While state governments historically have just about everyone, but it has been particularly been vastly more transparent than the private sec- hard on state governments. States are strapped tor, there also have been recent calls for increased for cash, and in most cases, tax revenues have transparency and greater control over the promul- decreased dramatically, exacerbating the problem. gation of state and local government accounting A recent study by the National Association of standards. As if these issues were not daunting State Budget Officers reports that state sales tax, enough, Congress recently showed unprecedented personal income tax and corporate income tax— interest in the pension plans of state and local which make up about 80 percent of state general governments, demonstrating that the federal gov- fund revenue—all declined in the 2009 and 2010 ernment desires to exert its influence in areas it fiscal years.1 Even now, after economists have perceives as weak. officially declared the recession over, state tax rev- The clamor for faster and more transparent fi- enues have risen slowly, if at all. nancial reporting from state governments is louder The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act than ever. of 2009 helped, but the majority of its funding to state governments is set to expire in 2011 and 2012. What’s At Stake? Even though it provided much-needed aid to States have plenty at stake in this regard. First, states, the Recovery Act came with significant ac- citizens have a right to financial information from countability requirements. Among other things, their governments. Citizens must be confident that states were required for the first time to report fed- government is being run in an efficient, effective eral grant expenditures on a quarterly basis. Many and financially stable manner. A loss of confidence said this feat could not be accomplished. However, in government by its citizens is hard to regain. through the efforts of dedicated government ac- Second, investors must have adequate and countability professionals across the country, quar- timely financial information upon which to base The council of state Governments 183 audiTors and comPTrollers their investment decisions. If investor demands are elusive. Perhaps the most significant reason is that not met, governments run the risk of not being able government accounting and reporting require- to sell bonds. Given the current financial stresses ments are fundamentally different from those upon states, any decrease in bond sales would be for companies in the private sector. In fact, the devastating and would likely result in the stoppage differences are so profound that two separate of key infrastructure projects (e.g., road improve- accounting standards-setting boards are needed: ments, new school buildings, etc.). the Financial Accounting Standards Board for the Third, bond raters need timely, reliable and eas- private sector and the Governmental Accounting ily accessible financial information upon which to Standards Board for state and local governments. base their decisions. Without providing such infor- Among the key differences are: mation, governments run the risk that bond raters . Collecting data from component units and will downgrade their bonds. This is not a desirable agencies. To complete the comprehensive an- outcome under any circumstance, but especially in nual financial reports, state finance officials are the current economic environment. dependent upon data from a number of entities The Government Financial referred to as “component units” (e.g., public Reporting Environment and colleges and universities). Not only does each state have multiple component units, the com- Obstacles to Faster Reporting ponent units in turn have their own component Government is Different units (e.g., foundations at a public university). The flow of information from each of these Critics argue that state government year-end levels to the preparers of the comprehensive financial reporting is hardly timely. While com- annual financial report is not always as expedi- prehensive annual financial reports are audited ent as desired or as timely as may be technically and presumably accurate, critics say they are not very useful for making timely investment or required. In a recent survey, state comptrollers management decisions. When compared to large, indicated that even if all other obstacles to com- multi-national private sector corporations, where pleting a faster comprehensive annual financial audited financial statements are available within report were addressed, difficulties with getting 60 to 90 days, states lag far behind. data from component units would preclude suc- Generally, states strive to issue their compre- cess. In addition, obtaining financial information hensive annual financial reports (CAFRs) within from a myriad of state agencies also contributes six months—or 180 days—after the end of the fis- to delays in completing the annual report. In cal year. As Table A reveals, states have been very many cases, state agencies operate in a decen- consistent in their completion dates. On average, tralized environment that differs vastly from the states fall short of meeting the six-month target. private sector. Time has passed and technology has evolved, . Dual perspective reporting model. In its land- yet improving the completion time for state com- mark Statement No. 34,3 the Governmental Ac- prehensive annual financial reports has remained counting Standards Board prescribed a dual Table a: comprehensive annual financial report (cafr) completion dates FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 Average number of days for states to complete the CAFR 208 204 205 204 206 Source: National Association of State Comptrollers, November 2010. 184 The book of the states 2011 audiTors and comPTrollers perspective reporting model for state and local . Outdated accounting systems that need to be government financial statements resulting in upgraded or replaced. The status of accounting two different sets of financial statements. One systems in the states varies widely. While some set examines the government from a govern- states have purchased and implemented new, ment-wide, or enterprise perspective. Here, ac- robust enterprise resource planning systems, oth- tivities are measured on a full accrual basis of ers continue to operate on aging legacy systems. accounting. The second set contains the fund New, updated systems clearly will be needed at statements, where activities are measured using some point in the future for many states. How- a modified accrual basis of accounting. Differ- ever, funding constraints make major system ences between the two sets of financial state- purchases a long shot in the short-term. ments must then be reconciled, adding further Year-end reporting is not the only government complexity to the overall process. Then, there is financial reporting issue receiving attention. a statement that compares actual financial re- The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sults to the approved budget. All told, preparers is conducting field hearings to examine various of state financial statements must use at least issues pertaining to the municipal market. Not three different bases of accounting to compile only is the SEC concerned about the lack of timely the comprehensive annual financial reports. Of financial statements, it also would like to see more course, auditors similarly have to audit these reporting of financial information on an interim different bases of accounting. The audit is fur- basis. Publicly traded companies that must