Office of Inspector General
Central Audit Division
Memorandum Report
GRANT MANAGEMENT
Increased Focus on Grant Management
and Internal Relationships Would Improve
Region 8fs Tribal Assistance Program
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
September 29,2000
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mai! code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
EPA
350/
2001.6
Information Resources Center
US EPA (3404)
401 M Street, SW /
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Inspector General Division
Conducting the Review:
Region Covered:
Program Office Involved:
Staff Conducting Review:
Central Audit Division
Denver, Colorado
Region 8
Office of Partnerships and
Regulatory Assistance
Larry Dare
Jean Finn
Garrett Westfall
-------
* ^^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-/*^%\ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
- " CENTRAL AUDIT DIVISION
726 MINNESOTA AVENUE BRANCH OFFICES
.CITY, KANSAS 66101
1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE
913-551-7878 DALLAS, TEXAS 75202-2733
FAY- On *e;l 7R-J7 - 214-665-6621
rAA. »1000 I-/00f FAX. 214.665^58g
'999 18TH STREET, SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2405
303-312-6872
V . FAX: 303-312-6063
M September 29, 2000
Q> MEMORANDUM
AQ
^ SUBJECT: Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
sources Center
FROM: Larry Dare (W**> ->"- -i,...-*""
Acting Audit Manager
TO: William P. Yellowtail, Washington,
Regional Administrator
Region 8
Attached is our report entitled Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal
Relationships Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program. We initiated this review as
a result of a December 7, 1999 anonymous letter addressed to the Region 8 Regional
Administrator alleging grant mismanagement and other improprieties in the Tribal Assistance
Program (TAP). With Region 8's support, we reviewed allegations contained in that letter. In
addition, we reviewed three Office of Inspector General (OIG) hotline complaints regarding the
Region's tribal program.
Region 8 legally awarded all 137 Tribal grants managed by TAP between fiscal 1996 and
1999. However, TAP's inconsistent management of Tribal grants gave the appearance to some
regional staff that certain grants were illegal because TAP did not sufficiently focus on grant
management and internal relationships. Region 8 chose to place a higher priority on external
relationships and supported the TAP Director's (Director) focus on external priorities. Some
grants reviewed included unallowable activities or had inadequate or untimely work plans and
progress reports. However, we found no apparent evidence that the Director acted illegally in the
grant award process. The Region has taken steps to correct some problems we observed with the
internal grant award process. Although some regional staff were aware of financial accounting
problems at some Tribes, the Region did not place a high priority on ensuring Tribes resolved
those problems.
While TAP focused on developing Tribal policy and building external relationships,
TAP's internal relations and program management sometimes suffered. Relationships within
TAP and between TAP and some Region 8 programs suffered. TAP appeared to advocate too
RECYCLED
n.CT -2 2000 «~
-------
strongly for Tribes which hindered the relationship between other Regional programs and Tribes.
In addition, Region 8 management has not reevaluated whether TAP needed its level of travel
funding for building and maintaining Tribal relationships or whether other program staff working
with tribes needed additional funds. In addition, the Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of
Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance and the Director did not comply with Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) flexiplace policies and procedures.
ACTION REQUIRED
In accordance with EPA Order 2750, you, as the action official, are required to provide
this office with a written response within 90 days of the final report date. For corrective actions
planned, but not completed by the response date, reference to specific milestone dates will assist
in deciding whether to close this report.
We have no objection to the release of this report to any member of the public. This
report contains findings that the OIG has identified and corrective actions OIG recommends.
This audit report represents the opinion of OIG and the findings in this report do not necessarily
represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this audit report will be
made by EPA managers in accordance with established EPA audit resolution procedures.
If you have any questions, please call Jeff Hart at (303) 312-6169 or me at (303)
312-6969. Please refer to report number 2000-P-000615-00021 on any correspondence.
Attachment
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PURPOSE 1
BACKGROUND 1
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 3
PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE 4
TAP ACCOMPLISHMENTS 4
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN GRANT MANAGEMENT AND
INTERNAL PROGRAM RELATIONSHIPS 5
Region 8 Chose to Focus its Tribal Program on External
Relationships and Policy Development 5
Region 8 Legally Awarded Tribal Grants, but Grant Management
Needed Improvement 6
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 14
Tribal Program Management Focus Was Not Balanced 15
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 21
CONCLUSION 22
RECOMMENDATIONS 23
EXHIBITS
1 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 25
2 METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING GRANT LEGALITY 27
3 OTHER POTENTIAL ISSUES 29
APPENDICIES
I AGENCY RESPONSE .....' 30
II ABBREVIATIONS 33
III DISTRIBUTION 34
*
i Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
PURPOSE
With the Regional Administrator's support, we initiated
this review as a result of a December 7,1999 letter alleging
grant mismanagement and other improprieties in the Tribal
Assistance Program (TAP). Our overall objective was to
determine the validity of allegations regarding Region 8's
Tribal grant management and Tribal program operations.
We limited our review to Region 8's overall management of
Tribal grants, specific allegations made in.the December 7,
1999 letter, and allegations made in Office of Inspector
General (OIG) hotline complaints dated March 27,2000;
April 10,2000; and April 19,2000. We issued a
memorandum on March 17; 2000, stating we concluded
that Region 8 legally awarded all Tribal grants that we
reviewed.
Because there were numerous allegations in the
December 7,1999 letter, we categorized them into three
broad objectives to answer the following questions.
1. Has Region 8 legally awarded Tribal grants?
2. Has Region 8 effectively managed its Tribal
grants and Tribal program?
3. Have Tribes in Region 8 effectively
managed grants?
This report addresses question numbers one and two; we
will answer question number three during a subsequent
review.
BACKGROUND
The federal government's trust responsibility for Tribes
describes the special relationship between the federal
government and federally recognized Tribes. The
responsibility arises from treaties, statutes, executive
orders, and historical relations between the United States
Government and Indian Tribes. The federal government's
Indian trust responsibility recognizes a federal duty to
protect the sovereignty of each Tribe. Sovereignty is what
distinguishes Indian Tribes as political entities. President
1
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
Clinton's April 29,1994 Executive Memorandum directed
each federal agency to be responsible for ensuring that it
operates based on a government-to-government relationship
with federally recognized Tribes. The memorandum also
requires that federal agencies consult, to the greatest extent
practicable and to the extent permitted by law, with Tribal
governments prior to taking action that affects Tribes.
As part of its October 1995 reorganization plan, Region 8
created TAP within its Office of Partnerships and
Regulatory Assistance. Region 8 formed TAP in response
to expanding Tribal environmental needs and to fulfill
overall commitments to Indian Tribes found in the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 1984 Policy for
the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian
Reservations (Indian Policy). The program served as a first
point of contact for Indian Tribes seeking delegation of
federal environmental programs and financial and technical
assistance relating to development of Tribal environmental
programs. TAP also provided a coordination point for
Tribal environmental issues among EPA staff, Tribal
representatives, and the public.
TAP staff include a program director, seven Tribal Program
Managers, one senior environmental employee, and one
stay-in-school employee. Tribal Program Managers were
project officers for all Tribal grants awarded under the
General Assistance Program (GAP); Clean Water Act;
Clean Air Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act; and Performance Partnership Grants.
While TAP is responsible for processing most Tribal
grants, Region 8's Grants, Audit, and Procurement program
is responsible for awarding all grants. Tribal Program
Managers relied on Region 8 program staff for technical
assistance, except for GAP and also coordinated technical
assistance between Regional programs and Tribes. Grant
specialists rely on Tribal Program Managers to certify that
work plans are adequate and budgets accurately support
planned activities.
Twenty-seven Tribes on 26 Indian reservations, located in 6
states and covering approximately 15 million acres, are
located in Region 8. Between fiscal 1996 and 1999, TAP
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
processed Tribal grants totaling about $25 million to
develop and implement environmental programs. Region
8's work with Tribes has been guided by EPA's Indian
Policy and the federal government's Indian trust
responsibility. EPA's Indian Policy states that EPA will:
work directly with Tribal governments and
recognize Tribal governments as primary
parties for setting standards, making
environmental policy decisions, and
managing programs for reservations; and
take affirmative steps to encourage and
assist tribes in assuming regulatory and
program management responsibilities, and
as appropriate, to remove legal and
procedural impediments to working directly
with tribal governments.
SCOPE AND
METHODOLOGY
We performed our review in accordance with Government
A uditing Standards (1994 Revision) issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States. We conducted
our review from January through September 2000. We
reviewed all 137 Tribal grants processed by TAP between
fiscal 1996 and 1999. We did not review any grants for
Tribes located in Montana because Region 8's Montana
Operations Office processed all grants for those Tribes.
Region 8 did not award any contracts to Tribes between
1996 and 1999. We interviewed current and former TAP
staff and various other Region 8 staff. We met individually
with grant specialists to understand the grant process and
grant management responsibilities. We also reviewed a
judgmental sample of grant work plans to determine
whether they adequately addressed work plan requirements.
We assessed the legality of Region 8 Tribal grants and
regional management of those grants and its Tribal
program. See Exhibit I for a detailed description of our
scope and methodology. Exhibit III includes other potential
issues we reviewed that are not discussed in the body of the
report.
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
PRIOR AUDIT
COVERAGE
We recommended in our report, Better Planning and
Organizational Changes Could Improve Region 8's Tribal
Program (ElSMF4-08-0036-5100141), dated January 23,
1995, that the Regional Administrator: (1) assess Tribal
environmental needs, (2) allocate travel funds consistent
with overall regional strategy, (3) establish quantifiable and
time-specific performance measures for the Region's Tribal
program, (4) assign a single Tribal program manage'r with
sufficient staff to manage Region 8's Tribal program, and
(5) identify primary Tribal coordinators within each
regional program. The Region has implemented changes
and policies to address most of those recommendations.
Although TAP established specific measures, they were
activity rather than outcome measures. The Region has
also worked on other unique Tribal issues, such as the
federal government's trust responsibility and jurisdiction on
reservations.
TAP
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
TAP established good relationships with Tribes and
participated effectively in Tribal policy development.
EPA's Director, American Indian Environmental Office,
Office of Water, stated that TAP's rapport with Tribes in
Region 8 resulted in federal-Tribal partnerships that had.
worked through important and often difficult issues. She
stated that Region 8's Tribal program developed a Regional
Tribal consultation policy, contributed significantly to
national Tribal policies and initiatives, and fostered
widespread involvement of Tribes in environmental matters
within the Region. In addition, TAP staff participated in
development of the proposed Tribal Performance
Partnership Grants Rule and prepared budget proposals for
EPA Senior Leadership Council's consideration at its
annual budget forum. TAP successfully negotiated a Tribal
Environmental Agreement between the Yankton Sioux
Tribe and Region 8, the first such agreement in the. Region.
TAP coordinated a federal memorandum of agreement
between 18 agencies to work cooperatively and in close
consultation with Tribal governments.
TAP also provided information and training to both Tribal
and regional program staff. For example, TAP delivered
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
grant training and four water quality workshops to Tribes in
Region 8. In addition, TAP developed and co-sponsored
national Working Effectively with Tribal Governments
curriculum and routinely provided training for regional
staff. TAP and Region 8 enforcement staff also
collaborated to create regional Tribal enforcement guidance
and training aimed at educating staff about the complexity
of enforcement actions on Tribal land.
IMPROVEMENTS
NEEDED IN GRANT
MANAGEMENT AND
INTERNAL PROGRAM
RELATIONSHIPS
While TAP established good relationships with Tribes and
participated effectively in Tribal policy development, its
grant management and internal relationships needed
improvement. TAP's management of Tribal grants was
inconsistent and gave the appearance to some regional staff
that certain grants may have been illegal. TAP's internal
program management suffered at times because it did not
adequately focus on internal relationships.
Region 8 Chose to Focus its
Tribal Program on
External Relationships and
Policy Development
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
TAP's management of Tribal grants was inconsistent and
relationships within TAP and between TAP and some
regional programs suffered because TAP did not adequately
focus on grant management and internal relationships. At
the direction of regional management, TAP emphasized
building relationships with Tribes. Senior regional
management chose to place a greater emphasis on building
relationships with Tribes and supported the Director's focus
on external priorities. In 1999, Region 8 identified
protecting public health and environment in Indian Country
as one of its highest priorities. The Region gave priority to
Tribal programs and emphasized EPA's trust responsibility
to directly manage environmental programs in Indian
Country.
TAP focused on its relationship with Tribes at the expense
of effective grant management. Tribal Program Managers
stated that in order to maintain good relationships with
Tribes, EPA should be more understanding and flexible. In
addition, in order to prevent a negative impact on the
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
Region 8 Legally Awarded
Tribal Grants, but Grant
Management Needed
Improvement
Region 8 Awarded
Questionable Grants
relationship between Region 8 and Tribes, the Director
stated that the Region should not discontinue grants to
Tribes because it adversely affects EPA's relationship with
Tribes. As a result, TAP appeared to some Regional staff
to advocate too strongly for Tribes. .
Region 8 legally awarded all 137 Tribal grants managed by
TAP between fiscal 1996 and 1999. See Exhibit II for the
methodology we used to determine grant legality.
However, TAP's management of Tribal grants was
inconsistent and gave the appearance to some Regional
staff that certain grants may have been illegal. Some grants
we reviewed were awarded for questionable reasons, which
included unallowable activities, or had inadequate or
untimely work plans and reports. We found no apparent
evidence that the Director acted illegally in the grant award
process. Although some regional staff were aware of
various Tribal financial accounting problems, the Region
did not place a high priority on ensuring Tribes resolved
those problems. As a result, some Tribal grant funds were
not used efficiently, effectively, or for their intended
purposes.
Region 8 awarded five questionable Tribal grants totaling
$1,278,371. We questioned these grants because they
included unallowable activities or Tribes did not effectively
use funds. In two of the examples discussed below,
program staff stated they felt pressure to award Tribal
grants even though they had concerns regarding those
grants. For example, one regional staffmember stated that a
Tribal Program Manager and the Director told her not to
ask questions about work plans because it was not her job.
In addition, some Tribes received funding that was not
effectively used and could have been better utilized by
other grantees. These examples also gave the appearance to
some regional staff that certain grants may have been
illegal.
We identified the following examples of questionable grant
awards:
(1) The Region funded a $ 135,000 GAP grant
6 Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
would have been more appropriately funded
by other EPA programs or other federal
agencies. The Director stated that this grant
was a headquarters initiative even though
Region 8 awarded the grant. The grant
clearly included implementation activities
that are prohibited under Interim Final
Guidance on the Award and Management of
General Assistance Agreements for Indian
Tribes, dated June 1994. The grant provided
funding for activities such as, "Minimize
children's risk of exposure to hantavirus,
bubonic plague, insect stings, and snake
bites by 25%; groundwater testing and
remediation activities; and reduce childhood
injury and illness rates by 25%." Also,
although we believe that the activities
included in the child health care campaign
are important, another EPA program or
another federal agency may have more
appropriately awarded this grant.
(2) Three Tribes did not effectively use lead
program grant funds totaling $810,863. One
regional staff member stated that the three
Tribes were neither maintaining significant
program progress, nor were seeking program
authorization. Fiscal 2000 Toxic Substances
Control Act, Title IV grant guidance
prohibits recipients from participating
further in the lead program without program
authorization after they have completed
developmental activities. The three Tribes
did not use all grant funds for their intended
purposes and had unexpended funds of
$67,229, $69,510, and $60,957 at the end of
fiscal 1999. Because of jurisdictional issues,
none of the Tribes sought program
authorization and could not use the
unexpended funds to assist EPA with their
lead programs. Other Tribes could have
more appropriately used these funds for
'7 Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
Grant Work Plans Contained
Unallowable Activities
legitimate program developmental activities
and would have been able to participate
earlier in the lead program.
(3) The Region awarded a $332,508 Tribal grant
shortly before the end of fiscal 1999 that we
believe should have been awarded as a
contract. The grant was for a Tribe to
provide a service to other Tribes by
developing and conducting four water
pollution control training sessions.
Typically, a contract is the best instrument to
use when purchasing services. Region 8
senior management noted that they believed
this is an example of the Region's grant
review process working well because
regional staff and senior management
identified, elevated, discussed, and resolved
the issue by making changes to the grant.
While we agree that this instance was a good
example of the grant process working, we do
not believe a grant was the best instrument
to achieve the stated objective.
The Region's grant award process included steps intended
to ensure that recipients and project officers fulfilled grant
requirements. For example, grant specialists used an
application and pre-award review sheet to determine if they
needed further information or changes from recipients or
project officers. Senior management stated, and we agree,
that staff involved in the grant process have a responsibility
to raise questions about work plans, even in the face of
resistance, and management has an equal responsibility to
deal effectively with these issues.
Even though Tribal Program Managers received advice and
approval from other EPA officials, 11 of 24 GAP grant
work plans contained one or more unallowable
implementation activities because the Region's GAP grant
review process was inadequate. GAP guidance requires
that Tribes use funds to develop capacity to manage
environmental programs, but prohibits funding
8
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
implementation activities. Tribal Program Managers said
that they consulted guidance or elevated issues to the
Director for clarification. If the Director required . .
clarification, she said that she consulted with her
counterparts in other regions, the American Indian
Environmental Office, the Assistant Regional
Administrator (ARA), or Region 8 Counsel.
We identified the following examples of questionable
activities in GAP grant work plans for grants awarded
between fiscal 1996 and 1999 that we believe are
unallowable:
using a geographical positioning system to
map oil and natural gas leases, to map forest
fires and forest replanting projects, and to
work with the Tribal police department to
map and document high accident areas;
minimizing children's risk of exposure to
hantavirus, bubonic plague, insect stings,
and snake bites, and reducing childhood
injury and illness rates;
implementing a recycling program;
purchasing two computers for onsite water
monitoring;
inspecting underground storage tank
facilities to ensure records were current and
facilities were in compliance;
measuring and mitigating radon in
cooperation with the Tribe's Housing
Authority and the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development;
providing technical assistance on asbestos
cleanup at a former Indian Health Service
Hospital and monitoring compliance on a
site-by-site basis;
9 . Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
Better and Timely Work
Plans and Progress Reports
Needed
testing Tribal community homes for radon;
contracting with a private firm to conduct
water sampling;
testing soil at a solid waste site; and
*
purchasing a cardboard bailer for a recycling
program.
The Region's GAP grant review process did not ensure
GAP grants included only eligible activities. While Tribal
Program Managers were responsible for reviewing work
plans, Region 8's Grants, Audit, and Procurement program
had final authority to award grants. Even though the
Director of the Grants, Audit, and Procurement program
was given an opportunity to review all grants and was the
award official, his staff sometimes did not have adequate
time to review work plans and had been told by TAP staff
that reviewing work plans was not their responsibility. As
a result, some GAP funds were not used for their intended
purposes.
Region 8 awarded some grants without approved work .
plans. For example, in fiscal 2000 the Region awarded 11
of 25 GAP and Tribal water grants without approved work
plans. Work plans should be approved before grants are
awarded. Grant specialists rely on project officers to certify
that a work plan is approved or conditionally approved.
One grant specialist stated the Region regularly awarded
Tribal grants without approved work plans in prior years as
well. While it is acceptable to award grants without an
approved work plan, it is not appropriate on a regular basis.
Many Tribal progress reports did not include sufficient
detail or were untimely. Most Tribal progress reports we
reviewed did not include sufficient detail to monitor
financial status and programmatic accomplishments. Of 23
reports we reviewed, 20 did not include sufficient detail to
determine progress on projects.. In addition, some Tribes
did not submit progress reports in a timely manner. For
10
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
example, one Tribe submitted reports up to a year late and
inadequately reported accomplishments. Further, the Tribal
Program Manager had requested additional clarification for
unresolved fiscal 1997 reporting issues.
Some work plans and progress reports were inadequate
because many tribes lacked sufficient infrastructure. The
Director stated that many Tribes lack sufficient
infrastructure and regional staff should recognize
differences between Tribes and states. However, the
Director agreed that these challenges are not an excuse for
nonperformance. TAP created an "excellent examples"
reference library of adequate reports and instituted a policy
to send postcard reminders because it was aware that Tribes
needed to improve adequacy and timeliness of grant
reporting. While TAP has taken strides to improve
adequacy and timeliness of grant reporting, Tribes have
continued to submit inadequate and untimely reports. .
Also, some work plans and progress reports were
inadequate because TAP did not have adequate technical
expertise to review work plans or progress reports. Tribal
Program Managers did not have the years of technical
experience that regional program staff have. When Tribal
Program Managers questioned eligibility of work plan
activities, they stated that they first discussed issues with
other Tribal Program Managers and the Director. One
Tribal Program Manager stated that while technical staff
were included in the work plan review process, they could
not ensure that technical staff had reviewed all work plans.
When TAP staff did obtain technical staff comments, they
did not always document the resolution of their concerns.
The Region had not held Tribes accountable for grant
requirements. As a result of untimely and inadequate work
plans, the Region awarded grants before it had a clear
understanding of work to be performed. As a result of
inadequate reports, Tribal Program Managers had to
develop alternative methods to monitor and oversee Tribal
work, such as more frequent visits and phone calls. In
addition, without adequate reporting on work plan
accomplishments, EPA staff outside TAP did not have
sufficient knowledge of what Tribes were accomplishing
and how Tribes were spending grant funds.
11
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
Region 8 Needs to Improve
its Financial Oversight
During the course of our review, the Region took actions,
that if fully implemented, we believe will address some of
our grant award process concerns. On June 6,2000, the
ARA issued a memorandum to his program directors
instituting several changes in the grant award process. He
required all project officers to certify that the recipient had
a work plan with budget in place, technical program staff
reviewed the work plan and budget, and that they had
resolved all technical and legal issues before awarding a
grant. The ARA or his associate director will process
grants without a work plan and budget only in very rare
situations. On July 20, 2000, the ARA for Technical and
Management Services issued a regionwide memorandum
instituting the same changes for all other regional offices.
Additionally, she required that project officers certify that
they received an acceptable application. She also
announced a strategy for developing a tailored post-award
monitoring plan for each office.
Region 8 had not resolved many financial management
issues found in Management Assistance Program reviews
because: (1) it had not given sufficient priority to
conducting or following up on reviews, (2) Tribal Program
Managers stated that they believed it was unrealistic to
expect them to be experts in both program and financial
issues, and (3) not all grant specialists were aware of
financial accountability review issues. Region 8's Audit
Liaison is responsible for conducting financial system
oversight reviews at Tribes and resolving issues found
during those reviews.
Since 1995, the Region has conducted 17 Tribal
Management Assistance Program reviews at Tribes.
Beginning in 1997, the Region's review teams conducted
more detailed reviews of accounting practices than in prior
years. Examples of issues that the review team identified
since 1995 include:
one Tribe borrowed funds from one program
to cover expenses from another program;
12
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
one Tribe charged travel expenses to the
wrong grant and did not obtain authorization
from an appropriate EPA official for travel
expenses;
Tribes did not document in-kind match;
Tribes did not regularly reconcile grant
funds;
one Tribe charged staff hours based on
budgeted hours rather than actual time
worked on the program;
Tribes had internal control weaknesses; and
Tribes did not submit timely financial status
reports.
Region 8 had not given sufficient priority to Management
Assistance Program reviews. It had dedicated only a
portion of one person's time to conduct and follow up on
reviews. Until the Region identifies and allocates
additional resources to the followup process, it will not be
able to successfully and sufficiently follow up on issues
found in Management Assistance Program reviews.
Tribal Program Managers did not have financial
backgrounds and stated that they believed it was unrealistic
to expect them to be experts in both program and financial
issues. Although Tribal Program Managers are responsible
for reviewing financial status reports and approving
reimbursement requests, they are not responsible for
monitoring Tribes' accounting practices. However, some
project officers in other programs reviewed reimbursement
requests and the corresponding detail of costs during visits
to Tribes to identify and resolve issues promptly. It is not
unreasonable to expect Tribal Program Managers to also
review reimbursement requests and the corresponding
detail of costs as part of their project officer duties.
13
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
Not all grant specialists were aware of financial
accountability issues raised in Management Assistance
Program reviews. Three grant specialists said that financial
oversight or following up on Management Assistance
Program review findings were not their responsibility. To
increase grant specialists awareness of financial
accountability issues, the Region established a followup
process in fiscal 2000.
The Region did not provide sufficient resources to conduct
and follow, up on reviews and Tribal Program Managers
and grant specialists were not involved in resolving issues.
As a result, the Region could not be certain Tribes used
grant funds efficiently, effectively, or for their intended
purpose.
Within the last year, Region 8 has taken meaningful steps
to hold Tribes more accountable. For example, the Region
has terminated one Tribal grant, demanded repayment or
disallowed portions of reimbursement requests for
undocumented costs, and, in extreme cases, withheld new
awards until requirements were met on other grants. In
addition, the Region's Audit Liaison has begun to
coordinate tribal reviews with Tribal Program Managers'
visits. This coordination has helped Tribal Program
Managers gain an understanding of some financial
accountability issues. As a result, TAP is more aware of
financial accountability issues and agreed with the Region's
decision to declare two Tribes as high risk grantees.
Agency Comments and
OIG Evaluation
Region 8 generally agreed with our conclusion that
relationship problems existed within TAP and between
TAP and other Region 8 program offices but believes
relationship issues are much more of a two-way street than
our report portrays. While we agree that most relationship
problems are typically attributable to both parties, in this
case we believe TAP must take responsibility for the
majority of the cause. In our opinion, TAP staff were much
14
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
,. Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
less willing to work cooperatively with program staff to
resolve issues than program staff were willing to work . .
cooperatively with TAP.
Region 8 also agreed that we accurately described Region 8
Tribal grant management and our conclusions are
adequately substantiated. The Region notes that in some
cases, they simply disagree with our conclusion that some
grants were questionable and some GAP grant activities
unallowable. The Region further notes that it does not
believe the GAP program draws a clear line between
allowable developmental activities and unallowable
implementation activities. Finally, the Region discussed
recent initiatives intended to improve the Tribal grant
process. We agree that the GAP program guidance is not
always clear between allowable and unallowable activities.
However, we believe the examples provided in this section
are clearly implementation activities and should not have
been funded through the GAP program and should have
been funded by other media grants or other federal
agencies. We also agree that recent initiatives to improve
the Tribal grant process should help ensure Tribal grants
are better managed.
Tribal Program
Management Focus Was
Not Balanced
While TAP focused on developing Tribal policy and
building external relationships, TAP's internal program
management suffered at times because it did not adequately
focus on internal relationships. Relationships within TAP
suffered because the Director spent, at the direction of
senior management, between 50 and 70 percent of her time
outside the office. Relationships between TAP and some
Region 8 programs suffered because TAP appeared to
advocate too strongly for Tribes which hindered
relationships between some regional programs and Tribes.
TAP and some program staff did not effectively
communicate or collaborate. TAP focused on activity
measures to assess Tribes' performance rather than
outcomes or accomplishments in human health and the
15
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
Relationships Within TAP
Needed Continuous
Improvement
travel priorities and the ARA and the Director violated
flexiplace policy.
Relationships within TAP suffered at times because the
Director worked outside of the TAP office between 50 and
70 percent of her time. Senior management stated they
directed and supported the Director's extensive work on
external priorities and that she did not do anything that they
did not tell her to do. Also, the Director's skills and
interests were in working directly with Tribes. In her
absence, TAP operated without effective leadership or
management and divergent views arose about how TAP
should be integrated throughout the Region. For example,
one former TAP staff made decisions or reached
agreements with other regional programs and subsequently
discussed them with the Director. However, the Director
would frequently overturn decisions or agreements. Had
the Director been in the office more frequently, staff could
have more easily clarified expectations before making
decisions or agreements that the Director would not support
or were not in accordance with Agency or Region 8 Tribal
policy.
,-;
While the Director's skills and interests were in building
Tribal relationships and formulating Tribal policy,
relationships within TAP suffered because the Region did
not ensure she had good management skills. Senior
regional management believed that TAP internal working
relationships may have suffered because of the Director's
management style combined with the expectations and
supervision needs of some of the original TAP staff. The
Director stated that relationships with initial TAP staff were
difficult and believed that her intentions were
misinterpreted. One former TAP staff said that she highly
respected the Director's ability to explain Tribal
perspectives but disagreed sometimes with how the
Director dealt with conflicts. Two other former TAP staff
said that they believed the Director favored some TAP staff
over others. The Director told us that she did not believe
she had acted inappropriately or favored some staff, but did
acknowledge that she preferred working with external
customers over internal management. The Director stated
16
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
TAP Relationships With
Some Programs Suffered
that she now selects self motivated staff who do not need
e
step-by-step assistance. However, without clear and
consistent direction and leadership, TAP has not functioned
as an effective team. In addition, self-motivated staff who
do not need step-by-step assistance do not necessarily have
the skills to build strong relationships.
Also, relationships suffered within TAP because the
Director did not have good interpersonal skills. Current
TAP staff acknowledged that relationships with the
Director had been difficult at times, although they fully
supported her and the role of TAP. Without good
interpersonal skills, the Director may have unintentionally
offended staff within and outside TAP.
Relationships between TAP and some Region 8 programs
suffered at times because TAP appeared to advocate too
strongly for Tribes. Senior management noted and we
agreed that there is a fine line between being a strong
positive advocate and one whose enthusiasm negates
effectiveness. While some Region 8 managers agreed that
TAP staff may have been overly enthusiastic in their
advocacy for Tribes, they also believed that some program
staff do not clearly understand or agree with federal Tribal
policy.
TAP and some program staff did not effectively
communicate or collaborate which resulted in
misunderstanding each other's intentions. For example, a
program office wanted to discontinue a grant to a Tribe
because the statute did not permit further funding until the
grant recipient sought program authorization. The Tribe
contacted TAP to review the program's decision. The
Director wanted to brainstorm about possible alternatives to
discontinuing the grant and requested that the ARA decide
whether or not there were alternatives to canceling the
grant. While the program staffs perception was that the
Director second guessed their decision and authority, the
Director felt that discontinuing the grant would have a
negative impact on Tribal relationships and that the
program was unwilling to seek creative alternatives. Even
though the ARA upheld the program office's decision
17
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
because no alternatives were acceptable, TAP's willingness
to accommodate Tribal needs hindered the relationship
between other regional programs and Tribes. If TAP and
program staff had effective communication or collaboration
skills, they may have been able to reach agreements or
solutions without raising issues to the ARA or hindering
program staff and Tribal relationships.
TAP and some program project officers had different
perspectives on managing Tribal grants. For example, one
program project officer provided additional oversight
because of the complexity of the program by closely
reviewing Tribes' program accomplishments and
reimbursement requests. However, the Director said that
this additional oversight was micro-managing Tribal grants.
The program staff expected and insisted that Tribes submit
timely, complete reports to prevent future problems from
arising. Some programs have stricter requirements than
others and require an increased level of oversight.
Conversely, TAP staff were more willing to supplement
untimely and incomplete reports with phone calls and site
visits.
Also, TAP and some program project officers did not
always share the same understanding of EPA's trust
responsibility on Tribal lands and Tribal sovereignty. For
example, during environmental spills on Tribal lands,
regional programs were most concerned about immediately
cleaning up the spill, whereas TAP was more concerned
about protecting Tribal jurisdiction and sovereignty. The
ARA's associate director noted that at times Tribal
sovereignty outweighed environmental concerns. He added
that each decision the Region makes involving Tribes may
adversely affect Tribal sovereignty and establish a
precedent for all Tribes. TAP's Working Effectively with
Tribal Governments training presentations reduced
misunderstandings and clarified appropriate procedures for
program staff. However, not all staff who interact with
TAP and Tribes have received this training.
While we found that relationships between TAP and some
regional programs suffered, TAP has improved its
18 Report No. 2000-P-00061S-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
TAP Measures of Success
Focus on Activities, Not
Results
relationships with some program offices. According to one
enforcement .staffmember, working together as a team has
improved TAP'S relationship with the enforcement
program. Enforcement and TAP staff collaborated to create
Regional Tribal enforcement guidance and training aimed
at educating staff about the complexity of enforcement
actions on Tribal land. Also, the Pollution Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxics Program Director said that although
she had not had the'opportunity to address some issues with
TAP, she appreciated when the Director brought Tribal
issues to her attention. She added that she used those
meetings as an opportunity to improve communication and
coordination with TAP.
The Region measured TAP's success with activity
measures instead of environmental outcome measures. The
Director said that TAP's goals were tied to Government
Performance and Results Act objectives. The Government
Performance and Results Act requires that federal agencies
develop outcome measures, report achievements, and
explain shortcomings. TAP measured success by: (l)how
many programs Region 8 has delegated to Tribes; (2) the
number of Tribal Environment Agreements that Region 8
has negotiated with Tribes; and (3) the development of
Tribal infrastructure and establishment of a greater
environmental presence in Indian Country. The Region had
delegated programs to two Tribes and successfully
negotiated one Tribal Environmental Agreement. The
ARA said that TAP measured development of
infrastructure by the number of EPA full-time equivalent
positions.
Although we determined that TAP's goals were activity
measures and did not measure environmental results, we
recognize that establishing performance measures is a slow
and difficult task for EPA nationally as well as states and
Tribes. The ARA said that his office discussed success in
terms of the number of full-time equivalent positions
because they were easy to measure and measuring
improvements in the environment in Indian Country was
very difficult. He said that at the end of fiscal 1999, Region
8 had funded at least 40 EPA positions for direct
19
Report No. 2000-P-000615-0002I
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
implementation of programs in Indian Country. He also
said that EPA was a bureaucracy and that the number of
positions was what regional staff understood.
Establishing good performance measures is necessary to
measure environmental results. After 4 years TAP should
begin to establish measures other than the number of
programs delegated, Tribal Environmental Agreements
negotiated, and EPA full-time equivalents implementing
Tribal programs. We agree that establishing sufficient
performance measures is difficult for states, Tribes, other
EPA partners, and EPA. However, Congressional
overseers recently noted that it is difficult or impossible to
evaluate agency goals and allocate resources without
adequate performance measures.
Region 8 Needed to While TAP's visits to each Tribe have helped build strong
Reevaiuate Travel Priorities relationships, Tribes' needs vary and some Tribes would
benefit from increased technical assistance. The Regional
Administrator chose to allocate sufficient travel funds to
TAP to facilitate TAP's ability to build strong relationships
with Tribes and participate in developing Tribal policy.
However, Tribal Program Managers do not have sufficient
technical expertise to assist Tribes in implementing
programs and TAP has not evaluated what assistance would
best benefit each Tribe's needs. The ARA said, and we
agreed, that since TAP has had 4 years to build
relationships, now may be the time to reallocate travel
funds to provide additional technical assistance to Tribes
with more critical needs and less on Tribes that are doing
well.
Between fiscal 1997 and 1999, Region 8 allocated
approximately twice the amount of travel funds to TAP
than for other regional programs based on the average funds
allocated per employee. Regional management has not
reevaluated whether TAP needed that level of travel
funding for building and maintaining Tribal relationships or
whether other program staff working with Tribes needed
additional funds. Two program staff stated that insufficient
travel funds prevented them from traveling to Tribes to
oversee the Tribes' progress and provide technical
20 Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
The ARA and Director Did
Not Comply With Flexiplace
Policy
travel funds prevented them from traveling to Tribes to
oversee the Tribes' progress and provide technical
assistance. Two additional program staff stated that Tribes
had requested technical assistance from them rather than
general assistance provided by Tribal Program Managers.
Because the Region has not evaluated Tribal needs, it
cannot determine whether Tribes were receiving the level
of technical assistance they needed through Regional
program staff site visits.
The ARA and the Director did not comply with EPA's
Flexiplace Policy 3180, dated December 23, 1997. EPA's
flexiplace policy states that prior to participation,
employees, including managers and supervisors, must have
a flexiplace agreement, application, and safety checklist in
place. The Director was not eligible to participate in the
program in 5 of 8 flexiplace days because they occurred
prior to obtaining her approved flexiplace application, work
agreement and safety checklist. Although the ARA
approved all days, both he and the Director should have
ensured that she met all flexiplace requirements. Other
staff perceived that the ARA favored the TAP Director. In
addition, when managers did not follow rules, it may have
caused others to believe it would be acceptable to do the
same thing.
Agency Comments and
OIG Evaluation
The Region agreed that it should reevaluate travel usage by
TAP but believes our report does not provide a balanced
view of the situation. It notes that the cost of travel to
Tribal localities is and will continue to be high. While we
understand that travel costs to remote localities is high, we
are primarily concerned that regional program staff mat also
need to visit Tribes to provide technical assistance are
unable to do so because TAP receives the majority of Tribal
travel funds. We do not recommend that the Region reduce
the level of support it provides Tribes. We do believe that
the Region should objectively analyze Tribal needs to
ensure limited travel dollars are allocated to those that can
provide the type of assistance most needed.
21
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
CONCLUSION
Region 8 senior leadership intentionally chose to
emphasize building relationships with Tribes, utilizing the
Director's skills and interests in working directly with
Tribes, developing national policy, and coordinating other
federal agencies' work with Tribes. While TAP
successfully focused on building external relationships and
developing Tribal policy, it did not provide effective grant
oversight or effective internal management. TAP's
management of Tribal grants was inconsistent and gave the
appearance that some grants were illegal.
We agree that TAP's advocacy role is important because of.
the unique relationship the federal government has with
Tribes, but not at the expense of good grant management
and strong internal working relationships. TAP's focus on
Tribal advocacy interfered with effective grant management
and building and maintaining relationships with some
program offices. TAP's strong advocacy resulted in the
appearance to some regional staff that it approved and
continued questionable grants. We believe the new grant
procedures established by the ARA and the Region, if fully
implemented, will address some of those concerns.
Most Tribes do not have the same level of capacity to
manage environmental programs as states. In addition,
Tribes within the Region have varying levels of capacity,
but the Region has not analyzed Tribal needs and
determined what assistance the-Region can provide to help
Tribes with greater needs. The Region has recently taken
actions to hold Tribes more accountable. We agree that it
is time to hold Tribes more accountable for not complying
with grant requirements. Awarding Tribes grants without
adequate work plans and allowing Tribes to expend grant
funds without timely and adequately reporting does not
help Tribes build capacity.
Although TAP received about twice the average per capita
travel budget as other programs, regional management has
not reevaluated whether Tribal relationship needs continue
to warrant that level of funding. As a result, the Region
cannot be sure it made the best use of limited travel
resources.
22
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend the Regional Administrator:
1. Improve Tribal grant management by:
A. Implementing the new Region 8
policy on grant roles and
responsibilities;
B. Balancing TAP's external focus so
that it does not interfere with
effective grant management;
C. Developing a systematic grant
review process that ensures:
(1) Grant specialists are given
adequate time to review
grants; and
(2) Technical staff are given
adequate time to review work
plans and that project officers
document the resolution of
technical staff comments;
D. Requiring that:
(1) Tribes submit timely reports
that include sufficient detail
to monitor financial and
programmatic
accomplishments,
(2) Tribes have accounting
systems that adequately
account for grant
expenditures,
(3) Tribes follow grant
requirements, and
(4) Appropriate action is taken
for noncompliance;
E. Requiring that grant work plans meet
all legal requirements;
F. Requiring that Tribal Program
Managers are adequately trained and
have the time to effectively complete
project officer responsibilities; and
G. Clarifying follow up responsibilities
for Management Assistance Program
issues.
23
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
2. Improve working relationships by:
A. Providing appropriate
communication or collaboration
skills training for TAP and Region 8
program staff who regularly interact
to provide the tools they need to
reach mutually acceptable
agreements and solutions;
B. Consider creating a position in TAP
to handle internal communication
and coordination;
C. Developing among TAP and
program staff a common
understanding and resolving
fundamental differences in managing
Tribal grants and working with
Tribes;
D. Continuing to provide Working
Effectively with Tribal Governments
training to all Region 8 staff;
E. Reevaluating the Region's travel
priorities to:
(1) Assess whether grant
specialists and technical
program staff need additional
funds to travel to Tribes to
provide technical assistance,
and
(2) Determine if Tribes with
more critical needs require
more frequent visits; and
F. Requiring that all Region 8 managers
comply with EPA flexiplace policy.
24
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
EXHIBIT 1
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Our ability to conduct our review was hampered by the unwillingness of employees
making the allegations to discuss allegations with us or give us specific examples of Tribal grants
to review or identify specific regional staff to interview.
EPA grant guidance does not clearly define what determines grant legality. As a result,
we compiled a list of criteria with input and consensus from Region 8 senior management, the
Office of Administration and Resources Management, and other EPA headquarters staff. We
used the criteria in determining grant legality. Exhibit II describes detailed methodology we used
to determine grant legality.
We reviewed the following Region 8 documents:
137 official Tribal grant files processed by Region 8's TAP between fiscal 1996
and 1999.
a judgmental sample of 33 Tribal work plans out of 127.
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act Assurance Letters between fiscal 1995
and 1999.
10 Tribal Management Assistant Program reviews between fiscal 1996 and 1999.
December 15, 1999 letter from William Yellowtail to recipients of the
December 7,1999 allegation letter.
TAP Director's and three Tribal Program Managers' time and attendance files.
December 20, 1999 TAP employees' letter of support for the TAP Office Director
to William Yellowtail.
EPA Region 8 Policy for Environmental Protection in Indian Country.
Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance distribution of travel funds
between fiscal 1997 and 1999.
Region 8's Progress and Priorities 1999 dated September 1999.
Memorandum from the ARA discussing processing grant applications in the
Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Authority dated June 6,2000.
We also reviewed Region 8's grant process and review procedures, various Region 8
delegations of authority, and the Region's travel fund allocation process.
We also reviewed the following documents:
December 7, 1999 anonymous letter alleging improprieties in TAP.
Final American Federation of Government Employees National Collective
Bargaining Agreement for Flexiplace dated November 25,1998.
EPA Flexiplace Policy 3180 dated December 23,1997.
Interim Final Guidance on the Award and Management of General Assistance
25 Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
Agreements for Indian Tribes dated June 1994.
OIG report dated January 23,1995, Better Planning and Organizational Changes
Could Improve Region 8's Tribal Program, report number
E1SMF4-08-0036-5100141.
Managing Your Financial Assistance Agreement, Project Officer Responsibilities
dated October 1996.
8 Single Audit reports conducted by various independent public accountants on
Region 8 Tribes between fiscal 1995 and 1998.
3 OIG Hotline complaints dated March 27, 2000; April 10,2000; and April 19,
2000.
We participated in meetings and conference calls with the following Region 8 staff:
Regional Administrator.
Deputy Regional Administrator.
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory
Assistance.
Assistant Regional Administrator, Technical and Management Services.
* Regional Counsel.
Other Region 8 staff.
The following EPA headquarters staff also participated in conference calls:
Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator.
Assistant Administrator, Office of Assistant Administrator for Administration and
Resources Management.
Director, Office of Grants and Debarment.
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources Management.
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Assistant Administrator for Water.
Director of the American Indian Environmental Office.
Staff in the Office of Civil Rights.
We informed OIG Counsel, Office of General Counsel, of various issues.
We conducted interviews with the following Region 8 staff:
TAP Director.
14 current and former TAP staff.
Water, Air, Enforcement, Pesticides, and Lead program staff.
Grants, Audit, and Procurement Program Director and staff.
ARA, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance.
Regional Counsel and Office of Regional Counsel staff.
26 Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
EXHIBIT 2
METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING
GRANT LEGALITY
1. Was the proper instrument used to accomplish the Agency mission, e.g., use a grant when
a contract was the correct instrument1?
We reviewed work plan activities to determine if a grant was the appropriate instrument.
For grants on which we had questions about eligibility of activities funded, we consulted
Regional Counsel and program staff to determine if activities were eligible. We believe
that one grant for water quality workshops should have been a contract, but we
determined the grant was not illegal.
2. Was the award authorized under appropriate statutory authority and was the correct
statutory citation used?
We reviewed the statutory and regulatory authorities cited on grant documents and work
plan activities. All grants cited correct statutory and regulatory authorities that authorized
Tribes to receive grant awards.
3. Was there proper delegation of authority to make the award?
We reviewed the signatures of the Award Official on grant documents and the Funds
1 Certifying Officer and Decision Official on Commitment/Award Certification documents.
To determine if signatures were valid we reviewed Region 8's Delegations of Authority
manual. For any questions we had, we followed up with the Assistant Regional
Administrator, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, and the Grants, Audit,
and Procurement Program Director. All grants were signed by staff having the proper
delegation of authority.
4. Was the recipient eligible for the award?
All 27 of Region 8's Tribes are federally recognized Tribes and are eligible to receive
grant awards. All Region 8 grants that we reviewed were awarded to eligible Tribes.
5. Was the correct funding source used?
We reviewed Commitment/Award Certification documents and found the Funds
Certifying Officer verified that funding sources were correct and funds were available.
27 Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
6. Were funds available to make the commitment and/or award?
We compared funds certifying dates to grant award dates. We also completed steps to
answer question number 4 above. Region 8 awarded all grants after the funds certifying
date.
7. Did the work plan include eligible, allowable activities and costs?
Although we questioned the appropriateness of some activities, we determined these
activities did not make the grant illegal. If Region 8 approved unallowable activities in
Tribal work plans, Region 8 has recourse, such as repayment or cancellation of a grant
award or amendment.
8. Were all legal administrative grant requirements met, i.e., was there a signature, proper
date, project period, etc. ?
We reviewed Application/Pre-Award Review Sheets and performed a review of grant
files to verify that Region 8 staff completed all legal administrative requirements. In each
case, Region 8 Grant Specialists completed a copy of the Application/Pre-Award Review
Sheet to ensure that grant recipients had submitted necessary documentation and Region
8 staff had completed necessary reviews. Region 8 met all legal administrative grant
requirements.
9. Was the match calculated correctly?
For each grant that required a recipient match, we calculated the amount of match and
compared our calculation to the amount on the grant document. We found two instances
where the match was not calculated correctly. However, the differences were immaterial.
28 Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
EXHIBIT 3
OTHER POTENTIAL ISSUES
The following is a summary of other allegations in the December 7,1999 letter that we
did not include in the body of the report.
Tribal Program Managers Appeared to Write Tribal Work Flans
Although EPA regulations prohibit federal employees from performing work for grant
recipients, one Tribal Program Manager appeared to write a work plan for a Tribe. In addition,
four regional staff stated that while they had no direct evidence, they had knowledge that former
and current Tribal Program Managers wrote work plans for Tribes. One Tribal Program
Manager, who appeared to write a work plan, sent a Tribe a copy of a work plan to use as an
example. Subsequently, the Tribe submitted a work plan that mirrored the Tribal Program
Manager's example except for a few minor changes. Finally, one former Tribal Program
Manager, prior to being transferred from a regional program to TAP, stated that he wrote one
work plan for a Tribe.
Refreshments at Tribal Meetings
We found no evidence to support that a Tribal consortium misappropriated federal funds
to provide refreshments to Tribal and regional officials during conferences and meetings. In one
instance, a Tribal consortium contracted with TAP for a conference held offsite. The contract
stated that the consortium was not to use federal funds for refreshments. In response to a Region
8 inquiry, the vendor stated that the consortium, did not use federal funds to pay for refreshments.
However, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, TAP has instituted a policy of no refreshments
at any future regional and Tribal staff meetings.
The EPA Comptroller released an interim policy dated February 25,2000, regarding light
refreshments at conferences. The policy allows for light refreshments for federal employees in
travel status, but can include other EPA or federal employees if more than 50 percent of
attendees are in travel status. The policy further states that appropriated funds may not be used to
purchase light refreshments for non-federal attendees unless they are on invitational travel orders.
29 Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
APPENDIX I
AGENCY RESPONSE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 8
999 18 STREET - SUITE 300
DENVER, CO 80202-2466
http://www.epa.gov/region08
Ref: 8TMS-G
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Draft Report: Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal
Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
Report No. 2000-M-000615-XXXXX
FROM: William P. Yellowtail
Regional Administrator
TO: Jeff Hart
Audit Manager
Denver Branch
Office of the Inspector General
We have reviewed your draft report Increased Focus on Grant Management and
Internal Relationships Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Program and we offer you these
comments in order to improve the report's accuracy and balance. As you know, your
involvement in this subject was initiated by me when I received an anonymous letter which
made very serious allegations on the part of the Tribal Assistance Program Director as well
as being extremely critical of the overall management of Tribal grants and the Tribal
Assistance Program (TAP) in general. I specifically requested the Inspector General's
assistance in investigating and determining the validity of the allegations. I am pleased that
you found no evidence of illegal acts on the part of the Tribal Assistance Program Director.
Similarly, I am pleased that none of the grants you reviewed were illegally awarded.
My overall conclusion from reading the draft is that the Region operates an effective
Tribal grants management program. In my view, this speaks well of the Region's
30
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
'Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
commitment to good grants management. Of course, improvement is always possible, and,
as you noted, the Region has already corrected the problems you identified with the grants
process on our own initiative. With that backdrop, our comments are as follows:
Comment 1. In several places, the report makes reference to internal relationship
problems
between TAP and some programmatic offices. You attribute these problems to the
external focus of TAP and the TAP Director's absence from the office. I agree with
your finding that such problems existed; however, I do not agree with your
conclusions that TAP was the major cause of those problems.
I believe relationships have and are continuing to become much more cooperative as
the education on our trust responsibilities, the President's consultation requirement,
and TAP's role in the Region take hold. I appreciate the amount of time and energy
your staff has devoted to this issue, as well as their willingness to discuss our
differing views at length. Nonetheless, I see this matter as much more of a two-way
street between TAP and other programmatic offices than that described in the
report.
Comment 2. Overall, the section concerning Tribal grants in the review we believe to be
accurate and that your conclusions are adequately substantiated. The most
important conclusion to us reflected in the new report was that all 137 Tribal grants
reviewed were awarded legally.
The review also concludes that several grants were questionable and that some
activities were not allowable. In some cases regarding these grants and activities, we
and your staff just simply disagree. Our interpretation of grant and program
policies are different than yours. Most importantly, from our perspective, the GAP
program does not have a bright, clear line in terms of allowable developmental
activities and unallowable implementation activities. There are also among the
grants and activities cited as questionable/unallowable situations in which we did
not document adequately the basis for awarding the grant or including the
activities. With better and more complete files, some of the questionable grants or
unallowable activities would probably be seen differently.
We will continue to train and inform our staff concerning grants management
responsibilities. Our Regional Counsel's office is involved frequently in helping us
determine and address situations when there are questions about the grant and/or
its activities. Further, we provided "refresher" training for project officers this
year, and the responsibilities of project officers was emphasized. Specifically, the
refresher training highlighted situations in which the project officers were
grappling with pressure to award a grant. We made it very clear that project
31 Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
officers must raise questions about grants or work plans to their management and
that their CONCURRENCE on the grant denotes that issues were resolved to their
satisfaction. Further, the training noted that the Grants Management Office will
use the mechanisms available to fully support project officers in resolving the
appropriateness of a grant or activity and for addressing issues like late reports and
so forth.
Comment 3. I agree with your overall conclusion that we should reevaluate travel usage
by
TAP; however, I believe that the report does not provide a balanced view of the
situation. First, because of the geographic isolation of Tribal localities, the need for
continued capacity building assistance to Tribes and the high level of consultation
needed on thorny jurisdictional issues, travel costs to Indian country by whomever,
will continue to be high. Second, Native American cultures place a very high
premium on face-to-face dealings as part of their relationships. This makes trips to
the Tribes an essential part of building and maintaining those relationships. Third,
TAP staff must attend the Regional Operations Committee meetings which are held
quarterly; and the TAP Director is expected to a participant at the Agency's Tribal
Operations Committee and other similar national groups.
Thank you again for all the hard work that went into the production of the draft
report. As I said earlier, I believe the final report will prove to be a very useful
management tool. I hope you will take my comments in that context.
cc: Pat Hull, 8TMS
Wayne Anthofer, 8TMS-G
Kerry Clough, 8P
Thome Chambers, 8P
32
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
APPENDIX II
ABBREVIATIONS
ARA
EPA
GAP
OIG
TAP
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory
Assistance
Environmental Protection Agency
General Assistance Program
Office of Inspector General
Tribal Assistance Program
33
Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
-------
Increased Focus on Grant Management and Internal Relationships
Would Improve Region 8's Tribal Assistance Program
APPENDIX III
DISTRIBUTION
Office of Inspector General
Inspector General (2410)
Deputy Assistant Inspector General for External Audits (2421)
Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Internal Audits (2421)
Headquarters Audit Liaison (2421)
Divisional Inspectors Generals for Audit
Headquarters Offices
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management (3101)
Agency Followup Official (271OA)
Agency Followup Coordinator (2724)
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (1301)
Deputy Associate Administrator for Office of State and Local Relations (1306)
Director for Office of Regional Operations (1108)
Associate Administrator for Communications, Education, and Media Relations (1701)
Director of Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability (2721)
Comptroller (2731 A)
Director, American Indian Environmental Office (4104)
Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of Administrator (1101)
Acting Director, Grants Administration Division (3903R)
Director, Office of Human Resources and Organizational Services (3610)
Headquarters Library
EPA Region 8
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance
Assistant Regional Administrator, Technical & Management Services
Assistant Regional Administrator, Communications and Public Involvement
Regional Counsel
Audit Liaison
Regional Offices
Regional Administrators
Regional Public Affairs Offices
34 Report No. 2000-P-000615-00021
------- |