	Management of EPA’s Workload, Workforce, and Real Property

With respect to its workload and workforce, EPA has struggled for years  to identify its human resource needs and to deploy its staff throughout the  agency in a manner that would do the most good. We noted that the agency had not  comprehensively analyzed its workload and workforce since the late  1980s to determine the optimal numbers and distribution of staff  agencywide. We  recommended, among other things, that EPA link its workforce plan to its  strategic plan and establish mechanisms to monitor and evaluate its  workforce planning efforts. EPA generally agreed with these  recommendations. For example, in July 2011, we  reported that EPA had made considerable progress in meeting goals to  contain and control contamination at high-risk hazardous waste sites. An assessment could also  help EPA develop budget estimates and requests that align with program  needs. EPA operates a laboratory  enterprise consisting of 37 laboratories housed in 170 buildings and  facilities located in 30 cities across the nation. Specifically, we reported that EPA did not have basic information on its  laboratory workload and workforce, including demographic data on the  number of federal and contract employees working in its laboratories. Because of the challenges  identified in this report, we made recommendations to address workforce  and workload planning decisions. Finally, our July 2011 report on EPA laboratories also identified  challenges related to EPA’s management of its real property. The need to better manage federal real property was underscored in a  June 2010 presidential memorandum that directed agencies to accelerate  efforts to identify and eliminate excess properties to help achieve a total  of $3 billion in cost savings by 2012. We made  several recommendations for EPA to improve its physical infrastructure  and real property planning, including improving the completeness and  reliability of operating-cost and other data needed to manage its real  property and report to external parties. Coordination with Other Agencies to More Effectively Leverage Limited Resources

EPA relies on other federal and state agencies to help implement its  programs. Given the federal deficit and the government’s long-term fiscal  challenges, it is important that EPA improve coordination with its federal  and state partners to reduce administrative burdens, redundant activities,  and inefficient uses of federal resources. In a September 2011 report on Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts, for  example, we found that federal and state agencies were not working  toward the same strategic goals. We recommended,  among other things, that EPA work with federal and state stakeholders to  develop common goals and clarify plans for assessing progress. We  recommended that EPA establish a work group or formal mechanism to  coordinate research on pharmaceuticals in drinking water. In a 2009 report on rural water infrastructure, we reported that, from fiscal  years 2000 through 2008, EPA and six federal agencies obligated $1.4  billion for drinking water and wastewater projects to assist communities in  the U.S.-Mexico border region. As a result, we suggested that Congress consider  establishing an interagency task force to develop a plan for coordinating  funding to address the region’s most pressing needs. In March 2011, we issued  our first annual report to Congress in response to a new statutory  requirement that GAO identify federal programs, agencies, offices, and  initiatives—either within departments or government-wide—which have  duplicative goals or activities. Over the years, our periodic review of EPA’s budget justification  documents has led to two recurring observations. First, EPA has not  consistently provided detailed justification for its activities when  requesting new or expanded funding. In some cases, we have noted that  such requests have not included (1) clear justification for the amount of  funding requested or a detailed description of the type and scope of  activities the funding would support, or (2) information on the  management controls, such as a schedule for spending the requested  funds, EPA would use to ensure the efficient and effective use of  requested funding. Second, our reviews have often focused on the agency’s efforts to make  use of unliquidated balances, or those funds that have been appropriated  and properly obligated but not expended. We have also observed that such information could be useful  to Congress because the availability of recertified amounts could partially  offset the need for new funding.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) faces a number of management and budgetary challenges, which are particularly important as Congress seeks to decrease the cost of government while improving its performance. EPA operates in a highly complex and controversial regulatory arena, and its policies and programs affect virtually all segments of the economy, society, and government. From fiscal years 2000 through 2010, the agency's budget rose in nominal terms from $7.8 billion to $10.4 billion, but has remained relatively flat over this period in real terms. This testimony highlights some of the major management challenges and budgetary issues facing a range of EPA programs and activities today. This testimony focuses on (1) management of EPA's workload, workforce, and real property; (2) coordination with other agencies to more effectively leverage limited resources; and (3) observations on the agency's budget justifications. This testimony is based on prior GAO products and analysis..

What GAO Found

Recent GAO work has identified challenges with EPA's efforts to manage its workload, workforce, and real property and made recommendations to address these challenges. In 2010, GAO reported that EPA had not comprehensively analyzed its workload and workforce since the late 1980s to determine the optimal numbers and distribution of staff agencywide. GAO recommended, among other things, that EPA link its workforce to its strategic plan and establish mechanisms to monitor and evaluate their workforce planning efforts. A 2011 review of EPA's efforts to control contamination at hazardous waste sites found that the program was making progress toward its goals but that EPA had not performed a rigorous analysis of its remaining workload to help inform budget estimates and requests in line with program needs. Regarding real property management--an area that GAO has identified as part of its high-risk series--GAO reported that EPA operated a laboratory enterprise consisting of 37 laboratories housed in 170 buildings and facilities in 30 cities. GAO found that EPA did not have accurate and reliable information on its laboratories to respond to a presidential memorandum directing agencies to accelerate efforts to identify and eliminate excess properties. The report recommended that EPA address management challenges, real property planning decisions, and workforce planning. GAO has reported on opportunities for EPA to better coordinate with other federal and state agencies to help implement its programs. Given the federal deficit and the government's long-term fiscal challenges, it is important that EPA improve its coordination with these agencies to make efficient use of federal resources. In a September 2011 report on the Chesapeake Bay, GAO found that federal and state agencies were not working toward the same strategic goals and recommended that EPA establish a working group or formal mechanism to develop common goals and clarify plans for assessing progress. In a 2009 report on rural water infrastructure, GAO reported that EPA and six other federal agencies had funded water and wastewater projects in the U.S.-Mexico border region. GAO suggested that Congress consider establishing an interagency task force to develop a plan for coordinating this funding. These findings were included in GAO's March 2011 report to Congress in response to a statutory requirement for GAO to identify federal programs with duplicative goals or activities. Periodic GAO reviews of EPA's budget justifications have led to two recurring observations. First, with respect to proposals for new or expanded funding that GAO has examined, EPA has not consistently provided clear justification for the amount of funding requested or information on the management controls that the agency would use to ensure the efficient and effective use of requested funding. Second, GAO's reviews have found that EPA's budget justification documents do not provide information on funds from appropriations in prior years that were not expended and are available for new obligations. Such information could be useful to Congress because these funds could partially offset the need for new funding. The work cited in this testimony made a number of recommendations intended to address management and related budget challenges, including improving the agency's workforce and workload planning, as well as its coordination with other federal agencies. EPA generally agreed with these recommendations.