Information Technology Spending in the
President’s Budget Submission: In Brief
Updated April 27, 2022
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R46972

link to page 3 link to page 3 link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 10 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12

Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission: In Brief

Introduction
Over the past two decades, government spending on information technology has evolved from a
minor component of the President’s annual budget submission to a dedicated chapter. This
evolution may reflect the increased importance of IT systems to agencies’ operations as well as
the increased focus on IT policy issues by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the
President.
In recognition of IT’s role in sustaining government operations and achieving policy goals,
Congress has passed a series of measures that assign certain IT planning and management
responsibilities to executive branch agencies, agency chief information officers (CIOs), and
OMB. These actors may play significant roles in the budgeting, management, and funding of IT.
This report discusses how congressional and executive branch actions have shaped the format and
content of federal IT budgetary reporting, including aggregated reporting on IT spending that has
been included in the President’s budget submission. Drawing on this data, the report analyzes
how aggregate federal IT spending, as reported by OMB, has changed over time in recent years.
The report concludes by briefly analyzing budget data presented in the most recent presidential
budget submission for FY2023.1 The IT spending aggregates contained in this report as well as
the spending trends may be of interest to authorizing and appropriations committees that oversee
agencies with substantial IT investments. (For more information about federal IT budgeting
processes in the context of the broader executive budget process, see CRS Report R46877,
Federal Information Technology (IT) Budgeting Process in the Executive Branch: An Overview,
by Dominick A. Fiorentino.)
The IT chapter of the President’s annual budget submission may also be of interest to external
agency stakeholders. Federal agencies increasingly use IT systems as a way to interact with many
groups outside an individual agency’s boundaries, including:
 members of the public (e.g., providing information or services);
 other federal agencies (e.g., collaborating with or providing services to one
another);
 state and local governments (e.g., operating joint programs or providing funds);
and
 the private sector (e.g., receiving goods and services from contractors).
The President’s Budget Submission
The President’s annual budget submission is one of the most comprehensive modes of reporting
budgetary information at the federal level. In practice, OMB prepares the budget submission on
the President’s behalf. In recent decades, the President’s budget submission has included several
printed and electronic volumes, including one called Analytical Perspectives.2

1 Detailed information about particular IT budget projects and corresponding budget proposals is outside the scope of
this CRS report. More information on these proposals may be found in detailed agency congressional budget
justifications.
2 To find these documents, see U.S. Government Publishing Office, “Budget of the United States Government,”
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/budget.
Congressional Research Service

1

Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission: In Brief

A Focus on IT Spending in the Analytical Perspectives Volume
The Analytical Perspectives volume contains in-depth discussion of government programs,
technical explanation of budget baselines and concepts, and policy-area-focused budgetary
breakouts. An example of the latter includes IT spending aggregated at the agency level.3 The
form and content of the IT budgetary information has evolved over time, potentially reflecting
increased reliance on IT systems by executive agencies to carry out their missions as well as
increased focus on IT policy issues by OMB and the President.4
Evolving Reporting of IT Spending in Analytical Perspectives
Presentation of IT-related spending in the principal volumes of the President’s budget submission
has evolved over time. Prior to the FY2000 budget submission, IT investments were grouped
under the category of “major equipment,” which also included capital assets such as weapons
systems.5 In FY2000, however, the budget submission began listing individual IT investments
separately from other types of capital asset investments.6 The Analytical Perspectives volume
began including an aggregate federal IT spending figure for the first time in FY2003.7
In 2009, OMB created the IT Dashboard website to increase transparency of agency IT
investments.8 The resulting publicly accessible website currently displays data from 26 agencies
on the cost, schedule, and performance of certain IT investments.9 In FY2013, OMB began using
the Analytical Perspectives volume to annually report aggregated information about IT spending.
OMB used information submitted to the IT Dashboard by agencies to produce Department of
Defense (DOD) and non-DOD (referred to as “civilian agency”) IT spending totals.10
While spending totals presented in the Analytical Perspectives include both classified and non-
classified DOD IT spending, only non-classified IT spending appears on the IT Dashboard. DOD
reports classified IT investments separately to OMB.11
Since the President’s FY2018 budget submission, OMB has presented disaggregated IT spending
by agency in the Analytical Perspectives volume based on data submitted to the IT Dashboard.12
This disaggregation includes 26 agencies—25 civilian agencies and DOD—that report spending

3 See CRS Report R47019, The Executive Budget Process: An Overview, by Dominick A. Fiorentino and Taylor N.
Riccard.
4 In 2002, the George W. Bush Administration released the first President’s Management Agenda in which “Expanding
Electronic Government” was made one of the five government-wide management priorities. For more information
about the FY2002 agenda, see OMB, The President’s Management Agenda, FY2002, https://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf#page=22.
5 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 1999: Analytical Perspectives, February 1998, p. 139,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-1999-PER/pdf/BUDGET-1999-PER.pdf#page=139.
6 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2000: Analytical Perspectives, February 1999, p. 361,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2000-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2000-PER.pdf#page=361
7 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2003: Analytical Perspectives, February 2002, p. 395,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2003-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2003-PER.pdf#page=395.
8 The IT Dashboard website is located at https://itdashboard.gov/, or https://viz.ogp-mgmt.fcs.gsa.gov/.
9 IT Dashboard, “FAQ,” https://viz.ogp-mgmt.fcs.gsa.gov/faq.
10 See OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2013: Analytical Perspectives, February 2012, p. 361, note on
Table 20-1, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2013-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2013-PER.pdf#page=361.
11 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2013: Analytical Perspectives, p. 361.
12 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2018: Analytical Perspectives, May 2017, p. 206,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2018-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2018-PER.pdf#page=206.
Congressional Research Service

2

Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission: In Brief

data to the IT Dashboard. Those reporting to the dashboard include all of the major executive
branch departments and agencies. The inclusion of these agencies is driven by statute, namely the
Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act) and Federal Information Technology Acquisition
Reform Act (FITARA), which are discussed in the section below.
Statutory Requirements Related to IT Budgeting
Several pieces of legislation have shaped the presentation of IT spending data in the President’s
budget submission and other modes of reporting.
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996
Congress passed the Clinger-Cohen Act due to growing concern about the federal government’s
ability to develop and maintain IT infrastructure and personnel.13 Provisions pertinent to IT
budgeting include:
 establishing the role of CIOs within agencies to develop and maintain IT systems
as well as to evaluate and report on IT improvements; and
 establishing a new federal IT capital planning and investment control process,
with prominent roles for OMB and agencies.14
From FY2003 to FY2009, OMB noted that the inclusion of the IT chapter in the Analytical
Perspectives fulfilled the reporting requirements of Clinger-Cohen.15
E-Government Act of 2002
The E-Government Act created the Office of Electronic Government (E-Gov) within OMB,16
which helps guide executive branch agencies’ IT budgeting and IT capital planning.17 E-Gov is
responsible for aspects of two annually issued documents:
 OMB Circular No. A-11, which provides agencies with instructions and
schedules for the submission of budget requests and justifications to OMB; and
 the corresponding IT Budget—Capital Planning Guidance, which provides
annual guidance around IT budget submissions and budgetary reporting.18

13 The law, as subsequently retitled by P.L. 104-208 (110 Stat. 3009-393), comprised Divisions D (110 Stat. 642) and E
(110 Stat. 679) of P.L. 104-106 (110 Stat. 186), at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ106/pdf/PLAW-
104publ106.pdf.
14 Statutory provisions that are associated with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 have been amended and codified into
Title 40, Subtitle III, of the U.S. Code (40 U.S.C. §§11101-11703) and relate to multiple aspects of IT management and
acquisition.
15 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2009: Analytical Perspectives, February 2008, p. 169,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2009-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2009-PER.pdf#page=169.
16 P.L. 107-347, December 17, 2002; 116 Stat. 2899, at 2902. Relevant provisions are codified at Title 44, Section
3602, of the U.S. Code.
17 OMB, “Office of Management and Budget Office of E-Government & Information Technology,”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/egov/#A1. For a more detailed discussion of the OMB statutory offices,
see CRS Report RS21665, Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview, coordinated by Taylor N. Riccard.
18 See OMB, Circular No. A-11, “Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget,” August 2021,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars/; and OMB, FY 2022 IT Budget—Capital
Planning Guidance, November 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/egov/.
Congressional Research Service

3

Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission: In Brief

Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (2014)
Multiple provisions of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA)
were built upon provisions associated with the Clinger-Cohen Act and codified into the U.S.
Code.19 FITARA’s provisions that relate to IT budgeting include:
 the increased transparency of reporting for IT investments via the IT
Dashboard;20
 establishment of requirements for categorizing IT investments according to
risk;21 and
 establishment of requirements for an agency IT portfolio review process, where
individual investments are viewed in the context of the agency’s broader set of
projects.22
Enactment of FITARA followed in the wake of several administrative initiatives undertaken by
OMB during the Obama Administration, including the creation of the IT Dashboard website in
2009.23
Not all executive branch agencies are subject to FITARA. Rather, agencies covered by FITARA
are identified in provisions associated with the CFO Act of 1990.These agencies are therefore
commonly referred to as “CFO Act agencies.”24 OMB guidance encourages, but does not require,
non–CFO Act agencies to comply with FITARA.25 The IT Dashboard currently includes IT
spending data from 26 agencies: the 24 CFO Act agencies, the National Archives and Records
Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.26
Perspectives on IT Spending Trends: FY2003-FY2023
Reporting on overall IT-related spending for the executive branch has evolved over recent
decades, although it has been inconsistent in format and content. Nevertheless, the President’s
budget submission has given increased attention to the topic of IT funding and spending.

19 Most practitioners refer these statutory provisions as FITARA, even though they were not formally enacted into law
by that name. Rather, an earlier, stand-alone version of the legislation of that name was incorporated as a subtitle in
another measure. See P.L. 113-291, Title VIII, Subtitle D, of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015; 128 Stat. 3438.
20 40 U.S.C. §11302(c)(3)(A).
21 40 U.S.C. §11302(c)(3)(C).
22 40 U.S.C. §11319.
23 For an overview of these administrative initiatives, see Vivek Kundra, U.S. Chief Information Officer, OMB, 25
Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology Management, December 9, 2010,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/25-point-implementation-plan-to-
reform-federal-it.pdf.
24 40 U.S.C. §11302(c)(1)(A); The CFO Act of 1990 (31 U.S.C. §901(b), P.L. 101-576, 104 Stat. 2838) enacted into
law a financial management and reporting framework in the executive branch. The legislation also created the role of
CFO and deputy CFO at certain executive agencies who have certain statutory responsibilities related to financial
management and reporting. There are currently 24 CFO Act agencies.
25 OMB, Memorandum M-15-14, “Management and Oversight of Federal Information Technology,” June 2015,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2015/m-15-14.pdf#page=2.
26 IT Dashboard, “Agency Analysis,” https://viz.ogp-mgmt.fcs.gsa.gov/agency-analysis.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 8 link to page 8 Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission: In Brief

A review of presidential budget proposals may help to reveal trends in IT spending. In practice,
OMB has frequently presented historical spending about IT spending in terms of proposed
amounts rather than obligated amounts.27 The history of proposed amounts may provide
perspective on the evolving scale and composition of IT spending in the executive branch.
Proposed IT spending, in nominal terms, has generally increased each year since FY2003 (see
Figure 1). After adjusting for inflation, however, proposed IT spending totals have remained
relatively constant, with real proposed spending peaking in 2018 (see Figure 2). Total proposed
IT spending was not provided in the FY2019, FY2022, and FY2023 budget submissions because
DOD IT spending figures were excluded.28
OMB’s methodology for measuring IT spending has varied since FY2003, as outlined in a
number of updates:
 In FY2015, OMB revised the FY2013 and FY2014 DOD IT spending figures
downward by 3% to account for past overstatements in amounts for the Defense
Working Capital Fund.29
 Prior to FY2019, the IT budgets for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Health and Human Services included grants made to state and
local governments for IT systems used to administer federal benefits. In FY2018,
these grants totaled $9 billion, accounting for approximately 10% of the total
federal IT budget. In FY2019, OMB updated its guidance to exclude these funds,
because state and local governments, rather than federal CIOs, are responsible for
the development and maintenance of these IT systems.30

27 Obligations are incurred when agencies enter into legally binding commitments such as employing personnel or
awarding contracts for the provision of goods or services. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, A Glossary of
Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP, September 2005, p. 70, https://www.gao.gov/products/
gao-05-734sp.
28 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2019: Analytical Perspectives, February 2018, p. 234,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2019-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2019-PER.pdf#page=234; OMB, Budget of
the United States, Fiscal Year 2022: Analytical Perspectives, May 2021, p. 179, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
BUDGET-2022-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2022-PER.pdf#page=179; OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2023:
Analytical Perspectives, “Information Technology and Cybersecurity Funding, March 2022, p. 1,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2023-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2023-PER-4-2.pdf#page=1.
29 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2015: Analytical Perspectives, March 2014, p. 311,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2015-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2015-PER.pdf#page=311.
30 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2019: Analytical Perspectives, p. 233.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 9

Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission: In Brief

Figure 1. Presidential Proposals for IT Spending in Nominal Terms
FY2003-FY2023 (billions of nominal dollars)

Source: CRS analysis of data from annual publications of OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States
Government, FY2003-FY2023.
Notes: Data for FY2019, FY2022, and FY2023 are excluded because aggregated DOD IT spending figures were
not provided. Starting in FY2020, IT spending totals have excluded grants made to state and local governments.
Nominal spending totals have not been adjusted to reflect changes in prices (inflation or deflation) over time.
Figure 2. Presidential Proposals for IT Spending in Real Terms
FY2003-FY2023 (billions of 2020 dollars)

Source: CRS analysis of data from annual publications of OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States
Government, FY2003-FY2023. Data was adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Notes: FY2019, FY2022, and FY2023 are excluded because aggregated DOD IT spending figures were not
provided. Starting in FY2020, IT spending totals have excluded grants made to state and local governments.
Nominal spending totals have not been adjusted to reflect changes in prices (inflation or deflation) over time.
In FY2013, OMB began providing aggregated DOD and civilian IT spending figures, with DOD
consistently accounting for 40 percent or more of total IT spending (see Figure 3). In real terms,
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 9

Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission: In Brief

DOD-proposed IT spending peaked in FY2018. Civilian-agency-proposed IT spending increased
until FY2018, decreased in FY2019, and peaked again in FY2023 (see Figure 4).
Figure 3. Non-DOD vs. DOD Proposed IT Spending in Nominal Terms
FY2013-FY2023 (billions of nominal dollars)

Source: CRS analysis of data from OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, FY2003-
FY2023.
Notes: DOD IT spending figures were not provided in the FY2019, FY2022, and FY2023 budget submissions.
Figure 4. Non-DOD vs. DOD Proposed IT Spending in Real Terms
FY2013-FY2023 (billions of 2020 dollars)

Source: CRS analysis of data from OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, FY2003-
FY2023. Data was adjusted for inflation using CPI-U from BLS.
Notes: DOD IT spending figures were not provided in the FY2019, FY2022, and FY2023 budget submissions.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 10

Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission: In Brief

Analysis of Proposed IT Spending: FY2023
The President’s budget submission for FY2023 proposed $65.8 billion in IT spending at civilian
agencies, a 12.7% increase from the FY2022 total proposed amount of $58.4 billion.31 DOD IT
funding was not included in the total IT spending figure provided by OMB in the FY2023
Analytical Perspectives. The FY2023 budget includes funding for 4,290 investments at 24
agencies, of which 742 are categorized as “major” IT investments.32 According to a breakdown of
this data by OMB, these investments support the following three IT portfolio areas:
 Part 1: Mission Delivery (i.e., IT investments that directly support an agency’s
mission);
 Part 2: Administrative Services and Support Systems (activities that are common
across all agencies such as human resources and financial management); and
 Part 3: IT Infrastructure, Security, and Management (IT goods and services
common to all agencies such as IT security and IT network infrastructure).33
The Administrative Services and Support Systems category accounts for approximately 12% of
total proposed spending, with the remaining amount divided between Mission Delivery and IT
Infrastructure, Security, and Management (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. Proposed FY2023 Spending: Federal Civilian IT Investments

Source: CRS analysis of data from OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year
2023, “Information Technology,” March 28, 2022.
Notes: DOD IT funding was not included in the total IT spending figure provided by OMB in the FY2023
Analytical Perspectives.

31 OMB, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2023: Analytical Perspectives, “Information Technology and
Cybersecurity Funding,” March 2023, p. 1.
32 Ibid. OMB has defined major IT investment as
an IT investment requiring special management attention because of its importance to the mission
or function of the government; significant program or policy implications; high executive visibility;
high development, operating, or maintenance costs; unusual funding mechanism; or definition as
major by the Agency’s [Capital Planning and Investment Control] process.
See OMB, FY 2022 IT Budget—Capital Planning Guidance, p. 10.
33 OMB, FY 2022 IT Budget—Capital Planning Guidance, p. 7. In OMB’s FY2022 Capital Planning Guidance
document, the portfolio names differ slightly from the FY2023 Analytical Perspectives. In the Capital Planning
Guidance document, portfolio areas 1-3 are called “mission delivery,” “mission support services,” and “standard IT
investments,” respectively.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 11 Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission: In Brief

The FY2023 budget submission also disaggregated total proposed civilian IT spending by agency
(see Table 1). The top three civilian agencies by proposed IT spending are (1) the Department of
Homeland Security, (2) the Department of Veterans Affairs, and (3) the Department of Health and
Human Services.
Table 1. Proposed FY2023 Civilian Federal IT Spending and Percentage by Agency
FY2023 Proposal
Percent Change
Agency
Percent of Total
from FY2022
(millions of dollars)
Proposal
Department of Homeland Security
$10,296
15.64%
26.3%
Department of Veterans Affairs
$8,606
13.07%
1.3%
Department of Health and Human Services
$7,824
11.88%
12.5%
Department of the Treasury
$5,615
8.53%
-5.9%
Department of Justice
$4,102
6.23%
18.0%
Department of Transportation
$4,078
6.19%
10.4%
Department of Energy
$3,545
5.38%
9.2%
Department of Agriculture
$3,912
5.94%
41.6%
Department of State
$3,195
4.85%
15.9%
Department of Commerce
$2,665
4.05%
2.6%
Social Security Administration
$2,375
3.61%
10.1%
National Aeronautics and Space
$2,174
3.30%
1.4%
Administration
Department of the Interior
$1,721
2.61%
14.6%
Department of Education
$1,138
1.73%
15.9%
General Services Administration
$977
1.48%
39.2%
Department of Labor
$867
1.32%
5.9%
Department of Housing and Urban
$558
0.85%
27.7%
Development
Office of Personnel Management
$423
0.64%
200.0%
Environmental Protection Agency
$413
0.63%
11.6%
U.S. Agency for International Development
$327
0.50%
24.3%
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
$309
0.47%
14.9%
Small Business Administration
$295
0.45%
170.6%
National Science Foundation
$164
0.25%
-0.6%
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
$142
0.22%
-6.6%
National Archives and Records
$111
0.17%
-12.6%
Administration
Total
$65,832
100.00%
12.65%
Source: CRS analysis of data from OMB, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year
2023, “Information Technology,” March 28, 2022.
Notes: This analysis excludes DOD. Agencies may use different accounting methodologies when reporting
proposed IT spending.
Congressional Research Service

9

Information Technology Spending in the President’s Budget Submission: In Brief

Author Information

Dominick A. Fiorentino

Analyst in Government Organization and
Management

Acknowledgments
Amber Wilhelm, Visual Information Specialist, collaborated on the report’s figures.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46972 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED
10