tf£D sr^
/ \ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	2007-P-00024
?	^	Hffiro nf Incnortnr Perioral	May 22, 2007
0*	U ¦ O • L. I I V11 Ul IIIICI I Lul a I UlCvll
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
PRO"*^
Why We Did This Review
Based on a congressional
request, we reviewed
congressional earmark grants
awarded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Specifically,
the requestor asked us to
determine the total number
and dollar amount of earmark
grants, including EPA's
associated costs. The
requestor also asked us to
determine what impact
earmarks had on advancing
EPA's mission and goals.
Background
For this report, we define a
congressional earmark as a
numbered line item within a
House Conference Report
specifying a dollar amount,
recipient, and a particular
project. Since 2003, earmarks
have represented about 4 to 6
percent of EPA's annual
budget. While EPA awards
the majority of earmark grants
to States and local
governments, it also awards
earmark grants to universities
and non-profit organizations.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Number of and Cost to Award and Manage
EPA Earmark Grants, and the Grants' Impact on
the Agency's Mission
What We Found
Between January 1, 2005, and March 31, 2006, EPA awarded 444 earmark grants
totaling $454 million. Those earmarks accounted for about 13 percent of the grant
dollars EPA awarded. During this same time, EPA spent about $4.9 million to
award and manage the 444 earmark grants.
Our review of work plans for 86 earmark grants found that 82 were for projects
aimed at contributing to EPA's Strategic Plan mission and goals. Thus, we
considered them to be helping to advance EPA's mission and goals. Grant work
plans for the other four grants did not demonstrate how the projects would
promote EPA goals:
•	A non-profit organization used about half its grant funds to purchase
computers for a high school and support student trips between the
United States and U.S. Virgin Islands.
•	A university studied noise levels from parked, idling trains.
•	A local government did not identify how two of the earmark grants were
going to achieve the objectives stated in the work plans or how the
projects would impact the environment.
We are not making any recommendations in this report.
In responding to the draft report, EPA noted that the Office of Inspector General
found that most earmarks have the potential to contribute to EPA's mission.
Further, EPA believes that two of the four earmark grants we questioned (for the
non-profit and the university) contributed to the Agency's mission. In comparing
the work plans to the Agency's goals, we did not agree that the earmark grants
contributed to the Agency's mission. EPA is conducting a compliance review of
one of the grants to ensure funds were not used for unallowable activities. For the
two grants to the local government, EPA is working with the recipient to revise the
work plans.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2007/
20070522-2007-P-00024.pdf

-------