In the interim, EPA established the Planning, Budgeting, Accountability, and Analysis Work Group composed of employees on temporary assignment, to begin to develop the new system. EPA’s New Office Is Being Formed to Develop an Integrated System

Although approved by the Administrator in January 1997, EPA’s new Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability will not be fully staffed until July 1997. 1.) Such data are also needed to identify and respond to emerging problems before significant damage is done to the environment. A major technical challenge in developing and using environmental measures is to be able to scientifically establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship between a program’s activities and changes in environmental conditions. In a March 1990 response to our report, EPA said that the new Administrator had made managing for environmental results a major policy and operational focus for the agency and was initiating a strategic planning, budgeting, and accountability effort to improve the agency’s ability to protect human health and the environment. The goals of that effort were very similar to those of the system being proposed today. These elements describe the organizational, informational, and procedural capabilities that EPA needs to improve and integrate its management processes. Even given this much time, the agency will have difficulty obtaining the scientific and environmental data and developing and reaching agreement on the appropriate environmental measures of its programs’ and its own performance called for by the new system. National environmental performance partnership agreements with the states to set out expectations for their contribution to achieving national environmental and agencywide goals and measures for assessing their performance in achieving these goals. Specifically, the Chairmen asked us to review the status of EPA’s efforts to (1) establish a new planning, budgeting, and accountability office and develop and implement an integrated system and (2) ensure that the system uses comprehensive scientific and environmental data and appropriate environmental measures. They also asked us to discuss EPA’s previous efforts to implement this type of system and to identify elements of an effective system that could be used as benchmarks to gauge progress in this current effort. To determine the status of EPA’s efforts to establish the new office and to develop and implement an integrated system, we reviewed relevant documents on EPA’s plans, target dates for these efforts, and actions taken; the staffing provided for the Planning, Budgeting, Accountability, and Analysis Work Group that was set up until the new planning, budgeting, and accountability organization could be established; and the status of the new office’s approval and staffing. To identify elements that could be used as benchmarks for monitoring EPA’s progress in implementing an integrated planning, budgeting, and accountability system, we reviewed the findings and recommendations of the NAPA report on EPA, the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act, our prior reviews of EPA, and other external and internal EPA studies and evaluations to identify key elements of an effective planning, budgeting, and accountability system for EPA.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the status of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) efforts to: (1) establish a new office that would develop and implement an integrated planning, budgeting, and accountability system for the agency; and (2) ensure that the agency has comprehensive scientific and environmental data and appropriate environmental measures of progress for use in strategic planning, budgeting, and accountability. GAO also reviewed EPA's previous efforts to implement this type of system and identified elements of an effective system that could be used as benchmarks to gauge progress in this current effort.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) in January 1997, the EPA Administrator approved the organizational structure and staffing for a new office, called the Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability, which is responsible for developing and implementing an integrated planning, budgeting and accountability system; (2) earlier, in March 1996, EPA had established a work group, composed of employees on temporary assignment, to begin developing the new system; (3) although the work group was never fully staffed and made limited progress in developing the system, it developed a conceptual framework that the new office is beginning to implement; (4) members of the work group were temporarily assigned to the new office, which will not be fully staffed before July 1997; (5) EPA faces long-term challenges to obtain the scientific and environmental information needed to fully support its new system; (6) although much scientific and environmental information has already been collected, many gaps exist, and the data are often difficult to compile because different data collection methods have been used; (7) likewise, much effort is still needed to identify, develop, and reach agreement on a comprehensive set of environmental measures to link the agency's activities to changes in human health and environmental conditions; (8) currently, EPA has to rely mainly on administrative measures, such as the number of permits issued or inspections made, to measure its performance or success; (9) EPA has been trying since the early 1970s to revise its management systems to better manage for results; (10) in the early 1990s, for example, EPA announced a strategic planning, budgeting, and accountability effort that was very similar to the system being proposed today; (11) however, such efforts proved to be difficult and fell short of EPA's expectations; (12) EPA's current plans are no less complex and challenging; (13) given this complexity, GAO identified various elements of an effective planning, budgeting, and accountability system that EPA can use as benchmarks to monitor its progress as it works to implement its plans for an integrated system; (14) these elements describe organizational, informational, and procedural capabilities needed to improve and integrate EPA's management processes; and (15) EPA also needs performance partnership agreements with the states to set out expectations for their contributions to meeting national environmental and agencywide goals and to specify measures for assessing their performance.