$
<
73
\
Ml
r
ppo^
O
2
Lll
(J
T
A?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
2006-P-00037
September 26, 2006
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
Past Office of Inspector
General (OIG) audits of grants
identified problems with either
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) oversight or
grantee management of
earmark grants. For this
review, we looked at 17 prior
audit and investigation
products of earmark grants to
determine whether, based on
information in past reports,
EPA should take additional
actions to improve overall
management of earmark
grants.
Background
A congressional earmark is a
portion of an appropriation
designated by Congress to be
spent on a particular project.
We originally reported on
EPA's management of
earmark grants in a 1996
report. We found that
management of earmark
grants was not a high priority
for the Agency. Subsequently,
we identified similar issues
with EPA's oversight or
grantee management in
17 audits and investigations
of earmarks.
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.aov/oia/reports/2006/
20060926-2006-P-00037.pdf
EPA Needs to Emphasize Management
of Earmark Grants
What We Found
EPA has not managed earmark grants in accordance with Agency policy and
regulations. Although EPA has taken actions to improve grants management,
additional steps need to be taken related to earmark grants. In particular, we noted
that:
•	Some EPA employees and recipients held perceptions that since earmark
grants have already been approved by Congress, the Agency had limited
control over them; and
•	Agency policies do not provide specific options for EPA staff to follow to
address concerns with earmark projects.
EPA policies require that earmarks be managed the same as any other assistance
agreement. However, for earmark grants, past audits and investigations found:
•	Incomplete grant workplans;
•	Improper accounting and financial procedures;
•	Noncompliance with grant terms and conditions;
•	Noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations; and
•	Conflicts of interest.
EPA's insufficient management of earmark grants over the past 10 years led the
OIG to question nearly $73 million in Federal grant funding, and EPA was unable
to identify the environmental outcomes achieved from millions of additional
Federal dollars.
What We Recommend
We recommend that EPA issue a memorandum emphasizing the Agency's
policies on earmark grants that identifies actions program offices can take to
address problems encountered in awarding and overseeing earmark grants. We
also recommend that EPA incorporate the memorandum's guidance into future
training courses for staff that manage grants. The Agency concurred with the
recommendations and plans to implement them by December 29, 2006.

-------