U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   Office of Inspector General

                   At   a   Glance
                                                             11-R-0208
                                                          April 11,2011
                                                                 Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
The objectives of this
evaluation were to determine
the extent to which the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) American
Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)
funds were targeted to
economically disadvantaged
communities, and the extent to
which jobs were created and
results were achieved in those
communities. We also sought
to determine the constraints
I faced by EPA in targeting
funds and achieving results.

Background

The Recovery Act provided a
total of $7.2 billion for six
programs administered by
EPA. The programs funded
I projects related to the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund,
Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund, diesel
emissions reduction, leaking
underground storage tanks,
Brownfields, and Superfund.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional, Public Affairs
and Management at
(202)566-2391.

The full report is at:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2011/
20110411-11-R-0208.pdf
EPA Faced Multiple Constraints to  Targeting
Recovery Act Funds

 What We Found
After obligating over $7 billion in Recovery Act funds, EPA is unable, both on a
programmatic and national basis, to assess the overall impact of those funds on
economically disadvantaged communities or those most impacted by the
recession. Recovery Act funds were intended to create or save jobs, address
environmental and other challenges, and assist those most impacted by the
recession. EPA specifically sought to address location-specific, community-based
public health and environmental needs with its Recovery Act dollars. While EPA
was able to track financial expenditures, it considered but could not execute an
effort to track the distribution of its Recovery Act funds to economically
disadvantaged communities. The effort was hindered by the absence of
definitions, data, and measures.

Multiple constraints limited EPA's ability to target funds to preserve and create
jobs, as well as reach those most impacted by the recession. Short timeframes and
the resulting emphasis on "shovel ready" projects also contributed to targeting
challenges. Further, the development  and funding of potential new projects in
disadvantaged communities was hampered both by a lack of time and resources to
prepare applications as well as a lack  of priority for those economically
disadvantaged communities that have environmental needs. Moreover, among the
Recovery Act-funded programs at EPA, the states made the funding decisions for
86 percent of the funds.
 What We Recommend
We recommended that EPA establish a clear and consistent regime that can
address socioeconomic factors within the bounds of statutory and organizational
constraints. The Agency responded that it did not have the authority or mission to
target Recovery Act funds to disadvantaged communities and that these funds
have already been obligated. Nevertheless, EPA agreed that the recommendations
were consistent with its current efforts to improve the targeting and assessment of
low-income, tribal, and minority communities. We modified our recommendation
to focus on the achievement of Agency-wide objectives and priorities, and the
inclusion of environmental justice principles in EPA's decisions. We believe,
based on verbal representations, that the Agency agreed with our revised
recommendations, and we await its 90-day response to confirm that informal
communication.

-------