Jump to main content.

EPA Implementation of Government Performance and Results Act

The EPA Logo EPA Office of Inspector General

EPA Implementation of Government Performance and Results Act

#6100297

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE

We performed this survey to respond to the Agency CFO's request that we review EPA's ongoing and planned efforts to implement the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA or the Act). Specifically, the objectives of the survey were to answer the following questions:

  1. Does EPA's 5-year strategic plan clearly identify the Agency's mission?

  2. Has the Agency identified measurable goals for tracking the Agency's progress towards accomplishing its mission?

  3. Is the Agency taking the steps necessary to ensure the validity of its performance measurement data?

  4. Is the Agency taking the necessary steps to link its strategic plan, annual budget submission and performance measurement information with information on the cost of its programs?

BACKGROUND

GPRA was enacted on August 3, 1993, to provide for the establishment of strategic planning and performance measurement in the Federal government. The intent of GPRA is to change the culture of federal agencies from focusing on what agencies are doing to what they are accomplishing. The Act expands upon the firm foundation already built by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act in gathering financial information to support decision making. It requires agencies to develop strategic plans, reach a reasonable degree of consensus on desired goals with key stakeholders, and measure and report progress toward achieving those goals.

In recognition of the length of time needed for GPRA implementation, the Act's approach to implementation is one of initiating multi-year pilot projects. The Act calls for three types of pilot projects. The first is a pilot project for performance goals for fiscal years 1994, 1995 and 1996. EPA nominated six programs for participation in this GPRA pilot project, one in fiscal 1994, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program; two for fiscal 1995, the Acid Rain Program and the Drinking Water Program; and three for fiscal 1996, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Environmental Technologies Initiative (ETI), and the Superfund Program. As a result of budget reductions in the ETI program, program officials decided not to participate as a fiscal 1996 GPRA pilot. Our survey work focused on the five GPRA pilot projects.

The second type of pilot project discussed in GPRA is the pilot project for managerial accountability and flexibility for fiscal years 1995 and 1996. EPA has not initiated any of these pilot projects. Finally, the third type of pilot project is the pilot project for performance budgeting for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

RESULTS IN BRIEF

To respond to a National Academy of Public Administration's (NAPA) report on EPA, entitled "Setting Priorities, Getting Results" (issued April 1995), the Agency established the Planning, Budgeting and Accountability (PBA) Task Force. The Task Force was charged with identifying ways the Agency could better use scientific information in setting priorities, and better link the Agency's planning, budgeting and accountability functions. In its February 1996 report "Managing For Results," the Task Force recommended a major restructuring of the Agency's planning, budgeting and accountability system. It also recommended a goals-based budget and establishment of a budget process based on comparative risk and strategic planning. Further, the Task Force report stated that the new system must be used by the entire Agency and must completely integrate the Agency's planning and budgeting functions.

According to the Task Force, to be effective, the new integrated system will need a strong organizational center which clearly identifies roles and responsibilities and encourages close cooperation. The Administrator requested the Acting Chief Financial Officer lead the effort to establish the new office and manage the new Agency-wide system associated with implementing the Task Force recommendations.

We commend the Agency on its initial efforts to move the Agency in a results oriented management direction that will help the Agency meet the requirements of the GPRA. The following paragraphs discuss further actions EPA needs to take to implement GPRA.

EPA Can Better Articulate Its Direction By Developing A Clearer And More Complete Mission Statement, Finalizing Its Environmental Goals And Updating Its Strategic Plan

GPRA requires the Agency to submit a five-year strategic plan to OMB and Congress by September 30, 1997. The plan must include (among other things): a comprehensive mission statement covering the major functions and operations of the Agency; and, general goals and objectives, including outcome-related goals and objectives, for the major functions and operations of the Agency. We found that the Agency's current mission statement is fundamentally sound in stressing the integrated nature of the environment and an interest in global environmental quality. However, it does not clearly establish Agency-wide direction, guidance and focus.

Also, EPA has set in motion an effort to draft National Environmental Goals. The Goals Project is a noteworthy and innovative effort. Despite the efforts of Agency staff, the project has not moved as quickly as originally hoped. Continued delays in issuing the Agency's National Environmental Goals will impact the Agency's ability to effectively plan, budget for and assess the results of its environmental programs. Finalizing the Agency's goals and revising its mission statement are critical to the Agency's development of a revised strategic plan.

Results Oriented Management Requires Timely, Accurate and Complete Performance Data

Managers need timely, accurate and complete information on how their programs are performing to make decisions about the programs. We are concerned about how the Agency will verify and validate its program performance data. We found that while the performance plans for EPA's five current GPRA pilots provide a data source, three do not address how the Agency will validate and verify the accuracy and reliability of the Agency's reported performance measurement data. During past audits, we identified problems with the quality of performance data for these three GPRA performance pilots. For two GPRA pilots, program officials have developed ways to verify and validate reported performance measurement data.

In addition, the Agency terminated its Program Evaluation Division in fiscal year 1996, and it has not developed alternative requirements for conducting program evaluations throughout the Agency. Program evaluations are directed at answering questions about how programs are working, why results vary, and which program alternatives have the most impact and are the most cost effective. Without a system for conducting routine program evaluations, Agency decisionmakers may have to make important policy and resource decisions without information that could improve these decisions.

Cost Information Is Critical To GPRA Implementation

GPRA requires agencies to track the costs related to achieving its goals. Cost data is essential for budgeting and controlling cost, measuring performance and setting priorities. Without accurate and complete cost data, Agency managers are at a serious disadvantage during the planning and budgeting processes. Program officials participating in the GPRA performance pilots told us that they track program costs in the Agency's accounting system by using program elements. We found that program elements do not provide accurate and complete cost data. Agency officials are aware that the current program element structure needs to be revised and plans are underway to make these changes. The Agency also needs to consider how it will track the costs for its Performance Partnership Grants and relate these costs to Agency goals.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We are recommending that the Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning, and Evaluation finalize and publish the Agency's National Environmental Goals.

We are recommending that the Acting Chief Financial Officer:

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION

In a memorandum dated September 6, 1996, the Acting Chief Financial Officer responded to our draft report. She agreed with many of the recommendations contained in the report and indicated that efforts are underway to address the problems identified. The Director of the Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, also responded to our draft report in a memorandum dated September 12, 1996. He agreed with the importance we are placing on completing the Goals Project and explained that the project is taking longer than expected due to the need to get a reasonable degree of agreement from the major parties involved at each step. We recognize that the Agency has initiated a number of activities to implement GPRA and look forward to continuing to support the Agency in its efforts to fully implement the Act.

Go To:
[Table of Contents Icon] Table of Contents [Audit Report Icon] Audit Report
Created February 12,1997

Top of page

 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.