```
Environmental Protection Agency: Difficulties in Comparing Annual Budgets
for Science and Technology (Testimony, 03/18/99, GAO/T-RCED-99-120).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) budget justification for its Science and
Technology account, and changes among the justifications for fiscal
years (FY) 1998, 1999, and 2000, focusing on: (1) difficulties
experienced in comparing EPA's Science and Technology budget
justification for FY 1999 with those of previous years; and (2) actions
that EPA planned and implemented in order to improve the clarity and
comparability of the FY 2000 justification, and items that need further
clarification.

GAO noted that: (1) EPA's budget justification for FY 1999 could not be
readily compared to amounts requested or enacted for FY 1998 and prior
years because the justification did not show how the budget would be
distributed among program offices or program components--information
needed to link to the prior years' justifications; (2) the Office of
Management and Budget does not require EPA to provide information to
compare the justifications when the format changes; (3) to facilitate
such comparisons, agency officials provided supplemental information to
congressional committees; (4) because EPA did not maintain financial
records by both program components and strategic goals and objectives
for all enacted Science and Technology funds for FY 1998, it could not
readily provide information for all amounts; (5) at GAO's request, EPA
estimated the 1998 enacted amounts so that the 1998 budget could be
compared with the FY 1999 request; (6) EPA implemented several changes
to its FY 2000 justification to solve problems experienced in comparing
the 1998 and 1999 budget justifications; (7) to improve the clarity of
its budget justification for FY 2000, EPA included tables that detail,
for each objective, how requested amounts are allocated among key
programs; (8) backup information is also available that shows the
program offices that will be administering the requested funds; (9) the
agency also implemented a new accounting system that records budget data
by goals and objectives, which enhances reporting financial data by
goals and objectives; (10) while the budget justification followed the
basic format reflecting the agency's strategic goals and objectives, EPA
made changes to the objectives without explanations or documentation to
link the changes to the FY 1999 budget justification; (11) for example,
funds were allocated from one objective to other objectives without
identifying the objectives or amounts, funds that included money
transferred from another account were shown as Science and Technology
funds, and changes were made to the number or wording of objectives
without explanations; and (12) as a result, the FY 2000 budget
justification cannot be completely compared with the FY 1999
justification without supplemental information.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-99-120
     TITLE:  Environmental Protection Agency: Difficulties in Comparing 
             Annual Budgets for Science and Technology
      DATE:  03/18/99
   SUBJECT:  Comparative analysis
             Strategic planning
             Budget administration
             Mission budgeting
             Appropriated funds
             Reporting requirements
             Financial records
             Future budget projections
IDENTIFIER:  EPA Planning, Budgeting, Analysis, and Accountability System
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

Cover
================================================================ COVER

Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on
Science, House of Representatives

For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
11:30 a.m.  EST
Thursday
March 18, 1999

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -
DIFFICULTIES IN COMPARING ANNUAL
BUDGETS FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Statement of David G.  Wood, Associate Director,
Environmental Protection Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-99-120

GAO/RCED-99-120T

(160478)

Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  EPA -

============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am here to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
budget justification for the Science and Technology account and
certain changes that we observed among the justifications for fiscal
years 1998, 1999, and 2000.  For fiscal year 2000, EPA seeks $642
million for the Science and Technology account, an amount
representing 9 percent of the agency's total budget request of $7.2
billion. 

Each year, EPA provides to the congressional appropriations
committees a budget justification for requested appropriations for
the forthcoming fiscal year.  This justification supplements the
President's budget submitted to the Congress by providing additional
details and shows funding levels for the previous fiscal year.  This
committee and others use the justification in deliberating EPA's
budget, programs, and activities.  EPA's budget justifications for
fiscal years 1999 and 2000 differed significantly from its
justifications for fiscal year 1998 and the prior year because they
were organized according to the agency's strategic goals and
objectives (e.g., Clean Air:  Reduce Emissions of Air Toxics).  These
goals and objectives were established in the strategic plan EPA
prepared to meet the requirements of the Government Performance and
Results Act.  In contrast, the fiscal year 1998 budget justification
was organized according to EPA's program offices and components
(e.g., Office of Air and Radiation:  Air Toxics). 

My statement today discusses the findings from our recent report on
EPA's Science and Technology funds requested for fiscal year 1999 and
on our limited review of EPA's fiscal year 2000 budget
justification.\1 Specifically, I will discuss (1) difficulties
experienced in comparing EPA's Science and Technology budget
justification for fiscal year 1999 with those of previous years and
(2) actions that EPA planned and implemented in order to improve the
clarity and comparability of the fiscal year 2000 justification, and
items that need further clarification.  In summary we found the
following: 

  -- EPA's budget justification for fiscal year 1999 could not be
     readily compared to amounts requested or enacted for fiscal year
     1998 and prior years because the justification did not show how
     the budget would be distributed among program offices or program
     components�information needed to link to the prior years'
     justifications.  The Office of Management and Budget does not
     require EPA to provide information to compare the justifications
     when the format changes.  However, to facilitate such
     comparisons, agency officials provided supplemental information
     to congressional committees.  This information included tables
     that linked the amounts for specific program components used in
     prior justifications to the agency's various strategic goals and
     objectives.  Because EPA did not maintain financial records by
     both program components and strategic goals and objectives for
     all enacted Science and Technology funds for fiscal year 1998,
     it could not readily provide information for all amounts.  At
     our request, EPA estimated the 1998 enacted amounts so that the
     1998 budget could be compared with the fiscal year 1999 request. 

  -- EPA implemented several changes to its fiscal year 2000
     justification to solve problems experienced in comparing the
     1998 and 1999 budget justifications.  To improve the clarity of
     its budget justification for fiscal year 2000, EPA included
     tables that detail, for each objective, how requested amounts
     are allocated among key programs.  Backup information is also
     available that shows the program offices that will be
     administering the requested funds.  The agency also implemented
     a new accounting system that records budget data by goals and
     objectives, which enhances reporting financial data by goals and
     objectives.  While the budget justification followed the basic
     format reflecting the agency's strategic goals and objectives,
     EPA made changes to the objectives without explanations or
     documentation to link the changes to the fiscal year 1999 budget
     justification.  For example, funds were allocated from one
     objective to other objectives without identifying the objectives
     or amounts, funds that included money transferred from another
     account were shown as Science and Technology funds, and changes
     were made to the number or wording of objectives without
     explanations.  As a result, the fiscal year 2000 budget
     justification cannot be completely compared with the fiscal year
     1999 justification without supplemental information. 

--------------------
\1 Environmental Protection:  EPA's Science and Technology Funds
(GAO/RCED-99-12, Oct.  30, 1998). 

   PRIOR DIFFICULTIES IN COMPARING
   BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

In 1998, we reported that difficulties in comparing EPA's fiscal year
1999 and 1998 budget justifications arose because the 1999 budget
justification was organized according to the agency's strategic goals
and objectives, whereas the 1998 justification was organized
according to EPA's program offices and components.  Funds for EPA's
Science and Technology account were requested throughout the fiscal
year 1999 budget justification for all 10 of the agency's strategic
goals and for 25 of its 45 strategic objectives.  As shown in table
1, two strategic goals--Sound Science and Clean Air--accounted for 71
percent of the funds requested for Science and Technology.\2

                                Table 1
                
                 Science and Technology Funds Requested
                  for EPA's 10 Strategic Goals and 25
                      Objectives, Fiscal Year 1999

                                            Number    Fiscal  Percenta
                                                of      year     ge of
                                          objectiv      1999     total
Strategic goal                                  es   request   request
----------------------------------------  --------  --------  --------
Sound science, improved understanding of         5  $312,955     49.4%
 environmental risks, and greater                       ,700
 innovation to address environmental
 problems
Clean air                                        4  137,154,     21.7%
                                                         200
Reduction of global and cross-                   1  67,406,5     10.6%
 environmental risks                                      00
Clean and safe water                             3  55,335,7      8.7%
                                                          00
Expansion of American's right to know            1  18,648,3      2.9%
 about their environment                                  00
Preventing pollution and reducing risks          3  14,383,6      2.3%
 in communities, homes, workplaces, and                   00
 ecosystems
Better waste management, restoration of          3  14,139,3      2.2%
 contaminated sites, and emergency                        00
 response
A credible deterrent to pollution and            2  8,760,70      1.4%
 greater compliance with the law                           0
Safe food                                        2  4,450,00      0.7%
                                                           0
Effectivement management                         1   226,000     pre>
```