^0 STAj.
*. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	11-P-0031
^ ftJK \ Office of Inspector General	December 20,2010

At a Glance
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
Workforce planning identifies
human capital required to meet
organizational goals. We sought
to determine whether the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has established
and effectively implemented
internal controls for
determining workforce levels
and effectively used workforce
planning in its strategic
planning process.
Background
The Government Performance
and Results Act requires
agencies to describe the human
resources needed to meet
strategic and performance
goals. For fiscal year 2009,
EPA's full-time equivalents
(FTEs) on board were
approximately 17,200 with
payroll costs representing
$22 billion of EPA's
$7.6 billion budget. The
Government Accountability
Office and EPA Office of
Inspector General have reported
on the importance of basing
workforce levels on workload.
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional,
Public Affairs and Management
at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2011/
20101220-11-P-0031.pdf
EPA Needs to Strengthen Internal Controls for
Determining Workforce Levels
What We Found
EPA's policies and procedures do not include a process for determining
employment levels based on workload as prescribed by the Office of Management
and Budget. Further, EPA does not determine the number of positions needed per
mission-critical occupation (MCO) using workforce analysis as required by the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). These conditions occurred because EPA
has not developed a workload assessment methodology and has not developed
policies and procedures that require identifying and reporting on the number of
positions needed per MCO. As a result, EPA cannot demonstrate that it has the right
number of resources to accomplish its mission. The Government Accountability
Office and EPA Office of Inspector General have reported instances in which
personnel resources were not adequately considered and, consequently, offices
encountered delays or did not meet mission requirements.
OPM noted that EPA's Human Capital Management Report shows evidence that
EPA's work is guided by human capital goals and objectives. However, EPA's
Office of Human Resources does not require that workforce planning results link to
EPA's strategic and performance goals. This condition occurred because the Office
of Human Resources has not clearly defined the reporting requirements needed. As
a result, there is no assurance that EPA's workforce levels are sufficient to meet the
workload of the Agency.
What We Recommend
We recommend that EPA's Chief Financial Officer amend guidance to require that
the Agency complete a workload analysis for all critical functions to support the
Agency's budget request for FTEs. We recommend that Office of Administration
and Resources Management amend its workforce planning guidance to require that
headquarters program offices and regions provide the number of positions needed
for each MCO, along with the applicable FTEs associated with each of EPA's
strategic goals and program areas. In addition, we recommend that Office of
Administration and Resources Management provide the Chief Financial Officer's
Office of Budget with the workforce planning results for each program and strategic
goal for inclusion in the budget. EPA disagreed with the recommendations in the
draft report. The recommendations in chapter 2 are unresolved and pending the
Agency's 90-day response. For recommendations in chapters 3 and 4, EPA
provided alternative recommendations and we accepted the recommendations with
one slight revision. We consider these recommendations open, and EPA should
provide estimated or actual completion dates for chapter 3 and 4 recommendations.

-------