EPA Met Few Performance Goals in Its 2009–2013 Grants Management Plan for Various Reasons

Of the 17 performance goals in its 2009–2013 grants management plan,  EPA fully met 2, partially met 6, and did not meet 1, according to our  review of EPA grants management performance data. For the remaining 8 performance goals, which span all five strategic  goals, EPA did not measure its performance. According to OGD responses to our standard  set of questions, of the 8 performance goals not measured, EPA did  not measure 5 because it redirected some of its grants management  resources to managing American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of  2009 (ARRA) funds. Under ARRA, EPA more than doubled its  grants awards from $3.7 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $9.8 billion in  2009. For five performance goals, EPA and OGD reported that not meeting or  not measuring the goals did not affect EPA’s grants management  activities because the agency either mitigated the potential negative effect  of missing the performance goal, or the negative effect was minimal,  according to our analysis of OGD responses and supporting documents  (see app. For three performance  goals, not measuring them led to the absence of agencywide data on  compliance with directives intended to ensure that grant funds  achieve the desired results of protecting human health and the  environment, according to OGD responses to our standard set of  questions and supporting documents. Inefficient processes. Delayed process for awarding grants. Delayed training and policy implementation. EPA’s 2016–2020 Draft Grants Management Plan Partially Follows Selected Leading Practices for Federal Strategic Planning but Omits Key Information

As of May 2015, EPA’s November 2014 version of its draft 2016–2020  grants management plan partially follows four selected leading practices  for federal strategic planning that we identified from prior GAO work and  OMB guidance (see table 4). However, as of May 2015, the agency  does not yet link these goals to an overarching mission statement. Ensure leadership accountability. Develop and use performance measures. We have previously  found that a primary purpose of federal strategic planning is to improve  federal agency management.practices for federal strategic planning, EPA could have better assurance  that it has established a framework to effectively manage and assess  efforts to accomplish its grants management strategic and performance  goals, without reducing the plan’s flexibility, and that may help the agency  address its long-standing grants management weaknesses. However, two key challenges  hamper EPA’s efforts to monitor directives agencywide: (1) most of its  regional offices rely on paper files and (2) its IT systems have limited  reporting and analytical capabilities. First, 8 of its 10 regional offices document their compliance with  grants management directives in paper files, according to EPA officials. with grants management directives generally requires paper file reviews,  which agency officials described as resource-intensive. In 2009 and 2011, EPA deployed two web-based reporting systems to  pull certain information from its databases for analysis; however, as of  June 2015, EPA used these tools to monitor 8 percent (17 of 212) of its  requirements. EPA  incorporated these strategies into its 2009–2013 plan and made some  progress toward achieving its strategic goals. To build on its progress,  EPA has developed a draft 2016–2020 grants management plan which,  as of May 2015, partially follows several leading strategic planning  practices but has not yet included certain key elements, such as defining  strategies that address management challenges that may threaten EPA’s  ability to meet long-term goals and identifying the resources, actions, and  time frames needed to meet these goals. EPA also currently plans to adopt an updated grants  management system by 2017, and it has incorporated addressing  potential IT improvements as part of its draft 2016–2020 plan. However,  EPA has had similar plans to improve its IT system since 2009 but has  not done so because the systems the agency initially identified either did  not meet its needs or were too expensive, resulting in a need to identify  and analyze alternative systems. By using existing  web-based tools more effectively until it implements its new IT system,  EPA can better monitor agencywide compliance with grants management  directives. Until the new IT system is implemented, develop ways to more  effectively use existing web-based tools to better monitor agencywide  compliance with grants management directives. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines (1) the extent to which the Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA) met the performance goals in its 2009–2013 grants  management plan; (2) the extent to which EPA’s 2016–2020 draft grants  management plan follows selected leading practices for federal strategic  planning; and (3) the progress, if any, EPA has in made in monitoring  compliance with grants management directives agencywide. We then compared the 212 requirements to the  requirements tracked in EPA’s agencywide grants management systems.
Why GAO Did This Study

In 2014, EPA disbursed about $4.6 billion in grants through its headquarters and 10 regional offices to states and others, in part to implement laws. In 2006, GAO identified weaknesses in EPA's grants management program, including the absence of goals, and made recommendations to address them. As part of its response to GAO's 2006 recommendations, EPA issued a 2009-2013 grants management plan.
GAO was asked to follow up on its 2006 review. This report examines (1) the extent to which EPA met the goals in its 2009–2013 plan, (2) the extent to which its draft 2016–2020 plan follows relevant leading practices for strategic grants management planning, and (3) the progress EPA has made since 2006 in monitoring agencywide compliance with grants directives.
GAO analyzed EPA's 2009–2013 plan and obtained EPA officials' responses to a standard set of questions regarding progress in achieving the goals; compared the draft 2016–2020 plan to four leading strategic planning practices relevant to grants management; compared 212 requirements from relevant grants directives to requirements tracked in EPA's grants management systems; and interviewed agency officials.

What GAO Found

Of the 17 performance goals in its 2009–2013 grants management plan, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fully met 2, partially met 6, and did not meet 1. EPA did not measure its progress for the other 8 goals. EPA officials provided several reasons for meeting relatively few of the performance goals and not measuring the others. For example, according to officials, EPA did not measure progress for some goals because it redirected resources from achieving grants management goals to managing American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 grants, under which EPA more than doubled its grants in 2009. For 5 goals where EPA either did not meet the goal or did not measure performance, officials reported that there was no impact on the grants management program because EPA took mitigating actions or the negative effect of missing the goal was minimal. However, for 10 goals, GAO found a negative effect of EPA not measuring or partially meeting the goals, including an absence of data on compliance with policies, inefficient processes that increased workload, delayed processes for awarding grants, and delayed training and policy implementation.
As of May 2015, EPA's draft 2016–2020 grants management plan partially follows four relevant leading practices for federal strategic planning that GAO identified from prior work and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. Specifically, the draft plan
sets 5 strategic goals but has yet to link them to an overarching mission statement,
includes strategic objectives but has yet to define strategies to address management challenges or identify resources needed to achieve the goals,
ensures leadership accountability for just 1 of the 5 strategic goals, and
includes 11 performance measures but has so far only one measurable target.
By fully incorporating these leading practices, EPA could have better assurance that it has established an effective framework to guide and assess its efforts to meet its grants management goals and help address long-standing grants management weaknesses.
EPA has made progress monitoring grants management directives agencywide since GAO's 2006 report. For instance, EPA electronically tracks unspent grant funds and the timely submission of grantee reports. However, two key challenges hamper EPA's efforts to monitor such directives. First, 8 out of 10 regional offices use paper files to document compliance with grants management directives, so monitoring these offices' compliance requires resource-intensive manual file reviews. Second, the limited reporting and analysis capabilities of its IT systems leave EPA without agencywide information for most of the 212 directive requirements GAO reviewed. Although EPA deployed two web-based reporting tools to pull data from its IT system, it uses them to track 8 percent, or 17, of the 212 grants directive requirements GAO reviewed, making it difficult for managers to compare actual performance to expected results agencywide. EPA plans to fully implement an updated IT system by 2017, but it has had similar plans since 2009 and has not yet done so. By developing ways to more effectively use existing web-based tools until it implements its new IT system, EPA could better monitor compliance with grants management directives agencywide.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other things, that EPA fully follow leading strategic planning practices in its draft 2016–2020 plan and develop ways to more effectively use its web-based tools for monitoring compliance with directives. EPA generally agreed with GAO's findings and recommendations.