tf£D sr^
/ \ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	2007-P-00033
?	nffironflncnorW^onoral	September 12, 2007
0*	U ¦ O • L. I I V11 Ul IIIICI I Lul a I UlCvll
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
PRO"*^
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
To examine management
controls, we reviewed the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's)
performance using the Office
of Management and Budget's
Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART). We specifically
sought to determine (1) how
EPA scored overall, and (2) if
there are areas that require
management attention.
Background
PART is a diagnostic tool
designed to assess the
management and performance
of Federal programs. It is
used to evaluate a program's
overall effectiveness and drive
a focus on program results.
PART examines performance
in four programmatic areas:
1.	Program Purpose and
Design
2.	Strategic Planning
3.	Program Management
4.	Program Results/
Accountability
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2007/
20070912-2007-P-00033.pdf
Using the Program Assessment Rating Tool
as a Management Control Process
What We Found
PART is a good diagnostic tool and management control process to assess
program performance and focus on achieving results. However, as currently
designed, programs can be rated "adequate" with a PART score of just 50 percent.
As a result, EPA programs with low scores in the Program Results/Accountability
section are receiving overall passing or adequate scores. This heightens the risk
that actual program results may not be achieved, and detracts from PART's
overall focus on program results.
Currently, EPA does not have a management control organizational element with
overall responsibility for conducting program evaluations. Also, EPA has not
allocated sufficient resources to conduct evaluations on a broad scale. PART
results show that for nearly 60 percent of its programs, EPA did not conduct
independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality on a regular basis to
evaluate program effectiveness and support program improvements. With the
difficulty EPA faces in measuring results, coupled with the absence of regular
program evaluations, there is a heightened risk that programs may not be
achieving their intended results.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) modify the
Performance Improvement Initiative criteria to provide an ongoing incentive for
program managers to raise Program Results/Accountability PART scores. We
also recommend that OMB increase the transparency of PART results scores to
demonstrate the relationship between results scores and the overall PART ratings.
OMB provided oral and written comments on an earlier discussion draft of the
report. Their comments were incorporated into this report. OMB did not provide
a written response to the official draft report.
We recommend that the EPA Deputy Administrator increase the use of program
evaluation to improve program performance by establishing policy/procedures
requiring program evaluations of EPA's programs. We also recommend that the
Deputy Administrator designate a senior Agency official responsible for
conducting and supporting program evaluations, and allocate sufficient
funds/resources to conduct systematic evaluations on a regular basis. On
August 23, 2007, EPA responded that it agreed with the recommendations.

-------