Declining Resources: Selected Agencies Took Steps to Minimize Effects on Mission but Opportunities Exist for Additional Action
Released: 2016-12-20T00:00:00

Letter

Background

In 2011, Congress enacted the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), which amended the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA), to impose spending limits (or caps) on discretionary spending for fiscal years 2012 through 2021. These initial caps were intended to reduce projected spending by about $1 trillion. Because additional legislation to reduce the deficit by at least another $1.2 trillion through fiscal year 2021 was not enacted, additional deficit reduction procedures were triggered under BCA. This included further annual downward adjustments to discretionary spending caps through fiscal year 2021. Congress and the President have since amended BBEDCA to allow for increased discretionary appropriations in certain years. Looking forward, nominal discretionary spending under the statutory caps grows in future years. However, the Congressional Budget Office projects that when measured as a share of the economy, discretionary spending is projected to be lower in 2021 than at any point in the last 50 years (see figure 1).

As we have previously reported, state and local governments continue to face their own fiscal challenges. Our simulations of long-term fiscal trends for state and local governments suggest that they could continue to face gaps between revenue and spending during the next several decades that would require substantial policy changes to address. This suggests that the federal government’s fiscal challenges cannot be adequately met over the long term by shifting spending to state and local governments.

Amount of Funding Reductions Varied by Agency and Program

Our analysis of federal budget data shows that the overall amount of new discretionary resources (or budget authority) declined by roughly 12 percent from fiscal year 2010 to 2015. The amount of actual reductions or increases in discretionary resources for individual agencies and programs is determined through the annual appropriations process, in which policymakers make choices between competing national priorities. The agencies and programs we selected for review all experienced a decline of at least 9 percent in newly appropriated discretionary resources from fiscal year 2010 to 2015. Figure 2 compares declines at select agencies with the changes in newly appropriated discretionary resources for large cabinet-level departments and for the federal government overall during this period.

A number of other factors beyond changes in the amount of budgetary resources can also affect agencies’ ability to manage declining resources. This includes the enactment of laws that impose new requirements on the agency and changes in demand for services resulting from the expansion or contraction of the broader economy. For example, the number of new unemployment insurance claims increases during recessionary periods. This increases state workload, which is funded through appropriations from ETA’s State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Operations account. The appropriation allows for additional funds to be made available when workloads increase above those estimated in the budget. However, according to ETA, during the 2007-2009 recession and the slow recovery that followed, states faced challenges quickly expanding capacity to process a record number of claims. In contrast, ETA officials said that demand for foreign labor tends to increase during periods when the economy is expanding, which affects the volume of work at the Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC). ETA reported that OFLC’s overall application volumes were 84 percent higher in fiscal year 2015 than in fiscal year 2010. Agency officials attributed this increase in part to the recovering economy.

Missions of Selected ETA and EPA Programs

Table 1 provides an overview of the missions of selected programs at EPA and ETA. As described above, given its relatively smaller size, we included all FLETC activities in the scope of our review, and thus it is not shown in the following table.

Appendixes I through III provide more detailed information on each selected agency’s budget authority and certain performance measures.

Framework for Examining Agencies’ Efforts to Manage Declining Resources

The framework that we developed in 2012 for examining agencies’ efforts to effectively manage in an environment of declining resources outlines the following three key themes to guide agency officials in managing declining resources: 1. Top management should lead efforts to manage declining resources. 2. Data analytics should guide decision making. 3. Agencies should develop both short- and long-term, cost-cutting and cost-avoidance strategies.

Figure 3 below provides illustrative examples of activities that address each theme and subtheme. These themes are not mutually exclusive and in many ways help reinforce one another. For example, robust and reliable data analytics can inform top management’s efforts to lead transformations within agencies that result in cost avoidance. Further, the examples in this framework, while not exhaustive, can help guide agencies through budget challenges by providing strategies for leading from the top, using data analytics to guide decisions, and reducing costs now and in the future.

Selected Agencies’ Approaches Aligned with Key Themes from the Framework but Additional Opportunities Exist to Manage Declining Resources

Selected Agencies’ Approaches to Managing Declining Resources Aligned with Key Themes from the Framework

Key Theme: Top Management Should Lead Efforts to Manage Declining Resources

Agencies must continue to achieve their missions with declining resources. As outlined in our framework, to accomplish this, top management should lead agencies’ efforts to manage declining resources. For example, top management should take actions to ensure the agency maintains the capacity—including the agency’s workforce and physical capital such as infrastructure and IT—to achieve its mission. As part of this, they could consider clearly defining and communicating the key principles and priorities for guiding budget reductions. Top management should also reexamine the agency’s core mission. For example, they may want to reexamine programs and organizational structures to determine if the current environment still warrants continuing certain programs and activities. Top management should also consult with Congress and involved stakeholders and take into consideration how budget decisions align with congressional goals, constituent needs, and industry concerns.

As shown in figure 4, top management at selected agencies led efforts to achieve their respective missions with fewer resources in various ways at both the agency and program level. For example, top management at OFLC and EPA initiated comprehensive reviews of the workforce to identify skills gaps and reshape the workforce to align with evolving mission needs and budgetary limitations. FLETC’s Director and executive team clearly defined key principles and priorities for guiding budget reductions and communicated them to agency employees and stakeholders.

As described in our framework, when deciding how to implement reduced appropriations, data analytics should guide agency officials’ decision making. Data analytics involves turning data into meaningful information accessible to budget and program staff and agency leaders to help them make informed decisions. This should include activities such as reviewing operations to achieve additional efficiencies and assessing the availability and quality of data. As a part of this, agencies may want to consider using data analytics to set specific cost-savings goals and monitor progress toward achieving those goals. Agencies should also connect performance information to the budget. Linking strategic goals with related long-term and annual performance goals and with the costs of specific activities that contribute to those goals, for example, can help provide a basis for informed tradeoff decisions. As shown in figure 5, selected agencies used data analytics to help increase efficiency, manage workflow, or monitor the effects of cost-avoidance efforts on their respective missions.

As described in our framework, when facing declining resources, agencies should employ strategies that consider both short and long-term cost cutting and cost avoidance strategies. Cost savings are a reduction in actual expenditures below the projected level of costs to achieve a specific objective. Cost avoidance is an action taken in the immediate time frame that will decrease costs in the future. Cost-cutting and cost- avoidance strategies should encompass both short- and long-term solutions. Agencies may want to consider (1) instituting an employee- input cost saving incentive program, (2) using capital funds and other mechanisms to support upfront investments, (3) expanding the use of shared services for functions that can be shared within or among agencies, or (4) reducing the size and cost of real property through consolidation. OMB has initiated a number of efforts to help agencies cut and avoid costs.

Selected agencies reported implementing a broad range of short- and long-term strategies to cut or avoid costs. Balancing these strategies can provide agencies with the flexibility to weigh short-term needs and make adjustments towards achieving their long-term goals. Selected agencies reported taking short-term actions aimed at immediate cost savings. For example, given the limited resources available to hire additional permanent staff to process labor certification cases, ETA reported using temporary seasonal contract staff during peak filing periods to help address increases in filing volume in various temporary programs. In doing so, ETA reported that it saved $1 million compared to the cost of maintaining an equivalent staffing level year-round. Selected agencies also reported implementing a broad range of long-term strategies to avoid costs, such as reducing their real estate footprint and strategically sourcing goods and services. Figure 6 provides illustrative examples of selected agencies’ cost-cutting and cost-avoidance initiatives.

Opportunities Exist for Selected Agencies to Further Apply the Themes of the Framework to Manage Declining Resources

Opportunities Exist at Selected Agencies for Top Management to Take Additional Actions to Ensure Agencies Maintain Capacity to Achieve Their Missions

While top management at the selected agencies have taken some steps to manage declining resources consistent with our framework, additional actions could address anticipated future challenges and help ensure that agencies continue to have the capacity to achieve their missions.

FLETC. Top management at FLETC identified long-term strategies for better managing resources but have not developed or finalized plans with specific goals and resources needed to implement some of these strategies. Some actions could help ensure that the agency avoids longer-term costs and maintains capacity to achieve its mission. FLETC anticipates increased training requests for fiscal year 2017 and beyond but has not strategically planned for this surge. According to FLETC officials, in the near term, the anticipated increase is in part due to pent up demand following sequestration in fiscal year 2013 and budget cuts from previous fiscal years. Partner organizations are expected to increase law enforcement hiring and therefore demand for training. Looking out further, according to FLETC officials, demand for training is expected to increase to address the anticipated retirement of the large cohort of law enforcement officers hired in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. However, FLETC has not planned strategically for how it will address the anticipated surge. A multi-year strategic plan that articulates the fundamental mission of the agency and lays out its long-term goals for implementing that mission, including the resources needed to reach these goals, for example, could help FLETC continue to have the capacity to fulfill its mission of providing law enforcement training and address increased demand for training.

FLETC’s most recent strategic plan covered fiscal years 2008 through 2013. FLETC officials told us that its expired strategic plan, while dated, was relevant and useful to the agency. Nonetheless, FLETC reported that, in March 2016, the agency began revising this plan and in August formed a Strategic Planning Working Group to complete a strategic plan covering fiscal years 2016-2018 by December 31, 2016. However, fiscal year 2016—which represents one-third of the strategic plan—has already elapsed, and fiscal year 2017 is already underway. Further, a strategic plan that extends through fiscal year 2018 can assist the agency in formulating its 2018 budget but will be less useful for assessing longer-term resource needs. OMB’s guidance for implementing the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, contained in Part 6 of its Circular No. A-11, states that strategic goals and objectives should be established for a period of not less than 4 years forward from the fiscal year in which it is published. Although the act’s requirements apply at the departmental levels, we have previously reported that they can serve as leading practices at other organizational levels, such as component agencies, offices, and programs. Finally, it is unclear based on the excerpts that FLETC provided to what extent the revised strategic plan addresses the anticipated surge in training needs.

In addition, FLETC is in the process of developing an Online Campus that can provide distance learning opportunities for federal law enforcement officers and supplement the in-person training they receive at FLETC campuses. Consistent with our framework, the Online Campus represents a potential long-term cost avoidance strategy that could help the agency maintain capacity to provide the necessary law enforcement training, potentially at a reduced cost to both FLETC and its partner organizations. FLETC officials noted that when complete, the Online Campus could reduce the travel and lodging costs associated with in-person training and help FLETC meet growing demand for training in the future.

While the Online Campus initiative is included in the six overall priority areas established by the FLETC Director and executive team, FLETC has not finalized a plan for the Online Campus initiative that clearly identifies the steps needed to achieve its goals. In October 2016, FLETC provided us with a draft plan that outlines some activities and milestones for the Online Campus initiative as well as some broad cost savings goals. According to FLETC officials, the agency plans to complete the plan by December 31, 2016, as part of its larger strategic planning effort. The first year of this strategic plan has passed, but FLETC did not provide evidence that the agency achieved milestones, including the cost savings and enrollment goals, established for that year. Furthermore, it is unclear where FLETC will identify the necessary resources to fund the Online Campus initiative within its existing budget. FLETC has funded the Online Campus initiative with annual appropriations and has in the past used funding from its other cost avoidance efforts to support this initiative. FLETC officials reported that they are currently working on a funding model for the Online Campus initiative. A final, up-to-date plan could allow FLETC management to monitor progress toward these activities and milestones and ensure that the Online Campus initiative helps FLETC avoid longer-term costs and maintain capacity to achieve its mission.

ETA. Top management at ETA has begun to take actions to help ensure that the UI program maintains capacity to achieve its mission with reduced resources, such as reengineering the UI program’s accountability and performance measurement process (as previously described in figure 4). While ETA officials and stakeholder organizations raised concerns about the Unemployment Insurance program’s capacity to adequately respond to the next recession, ETA reported that it routinely communicates with states through meetings hosted by ETA's Regional Offices and participates in national conferences and that these and other efforts helped inform a number of cost-neutral proposed reforms to the UI program included in the President’s Budget for fiscal year 2017. These reforms are intended in part to make the UI program more responsive to economic downturns. For example, the President’s Budget proposed a new Extended Benefits program to provide up to 52 weeks of additional federally- funded benefits for states seeing increased and high unemployment, with the number of weeks tied to the state's unemployment rate.

Although ETA has taken steps to communicate with states, ETA’s data collection efforts have not focused on systematically identifying lessons learned from the most recent recession to help ensure the UI program maintains capacity in response to a future economic downturn and related issues, such as the states’ ability to manage changes in workload. In addition to regular communications with the states, ETA officials said that they regularly monitor program activities through a wide array of data collection, and that these efforts have helped the agency identify lessons from the effects of the most recent recession on the federal-state Ul system. Officials, however, also noted that lack of capacity and competing priorities have prevented the agency and state UI programs from systematically gathering lessons learned by states from this recession. ETA officials said that they intend to support states gathering and sharing lessons learned in the future when their workload stabilizes.

Systematically evaluating the challenges that states faced in administering the UI program during the recent recession—such as rapidly ramping up staffing at the start of the recession and ramping down as the economy recovered—and identifying and incorporating any lessons learned from this experience into a longer-term strategy could help further prepare the program for the next economic downturn. ETA officials reported that as the economy recovered and federal funding for state administration of the program declined following the recession that began in 2007, states reduced the number of employees, many with extensive knowledge and experience that state offices will have difficulty replacing in the future. ETA reports that many state employees with extensive knowledge have already left state unemployment insurance offices. If actions are not taken promptly, opportunities to gather key lessons from the most recent recession may be missed to help ensure capacity is maintained in the next economic downturn.

In addition to OFLC workforce efforts underway, ETA identified two broad strategies for maintaining OFLC’s capacity over the longer- term. Both would require congressional action (see text box). While these legislative proposals, if enacted, would provide OFLC with additional funding, in an era of declining resources, agencies cannot rely solely on increased funding to continue to achieve their mission. ETA officials noted that efforts to reorganize and cross-train OFLC workforce (described in figure 4) should help the agency maintain capacity with existing resources.

Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Legislative Proposals for Maintaining the Office of Foreign Labor Certification’s (OFLC) Capacity Proposed legislative changes for new fee. As part of the President’s Fiscal Year 2017 budget request, ETA requested authority to collect user fees from employers in an amount that would cover the costs of operating the H-2A, H-2B, permanent labor certification, and prevailing wage programs. According to ETA, transitioning to a fee- based funding structure would improve case-processing services by creating a market- structure that links the supply of resources with the demand for case-processing services. ETA noted that the H-1B program administered by OFLC is already supported by user fee collections and has experienced no backlogs despite a reported 76 percent increase in applications between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2015. ETA further noted that the Citizenship and Immigration Services also already has the authority to collect user fees for its operational role in each of the programs for which OFLC is requesting similar authority. OFLC has developed a pricing structure conceptually similar to the existing Citizenship and Immigration Services user fee system that, according to ETA, would replace the need for annual appropriations into the future within several years of receiving enabling authority. Congressional action would be needed to authorize OFLC to collect and use (obligate) this new user fee. ETA officials said that they had received technical inquiries from Congress about the proposal, but that they had not received indication of congressional support from the current Congress to know whether the proposed user fee proposal constituted a viable long-term plan. Proposed one-time funding. ETA reported that another strategy for managing resources over the longer-term is a proposal for an additional $20 million in one-time funding to be made available for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 to process foreign labor certifications. According to ETA, these funds would be used to support processing in the H-2B and H-2A programs by investing in infrastructure and human capital to help meet expanding service requirements in future filing cycles. ETA noted that in fiscal year 2016, Congress responded to a backlog in another program—permanent foreign labor certifications—by providing $13 million in additional budget authority specifically to process these certifications. According to ETA, these additional resources helped the OFLC reduce the backlog by 51 percent as of September 26, 2016.

EPA. Our work found that EPA top management also had opportunities to better manage declining resources by further addressing our prior recommendations. For example, in 2012 we reported that the way EPA measures the effectiveness of states’ NPS pollution programs has not consistently ensured that EPA select projects likely to yield measurable water quality outcomes. We recommended at the time that EPA emphasize measures that (1) more accurately reflect the overall health of targeted water bodies (e.g., the number, kind, and condition of living organisms) and (2) demonstrate states’ focus on protecting high-quality water bodies, where appropriate. In a July 2016 report, we noted that EPA officials said that the agency is planning to add one of the measures we recommended but has not yet had the time and resources to do so. EPA officials said the agency plans to begin developing a new measure for the protection of healthy water bodies this year and to establish a workgroup focused on this measure in fiscal year 2017.

We found that funding for Section 319 NPS pollution grants declined by more than 20 percent from 2010 to 2015. EPA officials said that it would be difficult to isolate the effects of declining resources on environmental outcomes using existing performance measures for the Section 319 NPS pollution program. According to EPA officials, there are many activities that contribute to the restoration of polluted waterways and improve water quality. Some of these are EPA programs, others are state programs, and yet others may be other federal programs. In addition, EPA officials said that there is a time lag between changes to funding for Section 319 NPS grants and when effects from the changes take place. Implementing our prior recommendation could provide top management with an opportunity to better connect performance information to the budget, which could help the agency understand how resource constraints affect program outputs to guide decision making in the future.

We testified earlier this year that, as of May 23, 2016, we had identified 51 open recommendations related to management and operations that we made to EPA since 2006 that had not been fully addressed and another 36 open recommendations related to water issues such as nonpoint source pollution. Implementing these recommendations could help EPA improve efficiency and avoid costs to better manage their limited resources. For example, in 2008, we identified an error in EPA’s calculation of reimbursable indirect costs for hazardous waste cleanup. EPA acknowledged the error and published revised indirect cost rates. As a result, we estimated, in 2010, that EPA had recovered or would recover $42.2 million.

Selected Agencies Have Ongoing Efforts to Expand Use of Data Analytics and Further Identify and Protect Upfront Investments

Data Analytics

Selected agencies reported using data analytics to some extent and have identified additional opportunities to improve or expand their use of data analytics to better manage resources. As outlined in our framework, to use data analytics effectively, it is important for agencies to know what data are available within the agency. Agencies then can determine if those data are sufficiently granular, reliable, timely, accessible, and transparent. For example, FLETC has made initial investments in data analytics and is planning to further expand its use of data analytics. As discussed above, one of the FLETC Director and executive team’s top priorities is to enable FLETC to make data-driven decisions. FLETC officials reported that as the amount of data available about FLETC operations and training continues to grow, the skills required to process and analyze those data become more critical. FLETC’s overall goals for data analytics include unifying data sources to ensure data integrity, standardizing registration processes to ensure consistent data, establishing governance structures and processes to identify and share business data, and expanding use of business analytics in organizational decision making. FLETC’s data analytics team is in its early developmental stage. Thus far, the agency has dedicated two positions to begin both the strategic and operational work of understanding what questions can realistically be answered with the agency’s data and how those answers should be communicated. According to FLETC officials, the team is focusing initially on training-related activities. FLETC plans to use data analytics to assist in scheduling instructor leave and professional development during periods of lower instructional workload.

These efforts could help the agency identify opportunities to better manage its existing resources through further efficiencies and cost avoidance.

IT Investments

Selected agencies also have ongoing efforts to further identify and protect upfront investments in areas such as IT to increase efficiency and avoid longer-term costs. We have previously reported that IT investments across the federal government are becoming obsolete and the legacy systems that many agencies still use may become increasingly more expensive to maintain. Protecting investments in new IT systems can help agencies avoid longer-term costs. For example: ETA. ETA officials and stakeholders reported that OFLC could achieve increased efficiencies and functionality through modernizing IT investments. For example, stakeholders noted that OFLC does not have a reliable system for tracking the status of visa and immigrant applications as its other federal partner agencies do. According to ETA, OFLC has used its existing funds to make incremental improvements in existing systems while planning to replace its two aging electronic case processing systems. For example, the requirement to scan documents into OFLC’s integrated case processing system (iCERT) significantly adds to workload and until recently was the only way to ensure that analysts could work from home without taking paper files to their residence in the current telework environment. According to ETA, earlier this year, OFLC enabled employer applicants to upload some documents into the iCERT system directly, saving the time and effort required for OFLC staff to scan those documents into the system.

OFLC is also in the early stages of an electronic case processing transformation plan that it recently initiated with the long-term goal of replacing the current antiquated and unreliable electronic case processing applications with a single, integrated solution for all labor certification programs. As an early step, ETA evaluated the current state of OFLC’s case processing systems and developed recommendations for how to reduce processing times, improve processing efficiency, improve decision quality and consistency, and increase ease of use. ETA acknowledged that creating and installing a single replacement platform will require significant funding. OFLC said that it has contingency plans that will enable the organization to continue this IT development at a slower pace without substantial additional funding but did not provide specific information on how this would be accomplished.

EPA. In 2013, we reported that EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) faced a challenge in managing and tracking key information related to conditional registrations of pesticides, in part because reviewing each pesticide registration file is time-consuming and, depending on the pesticide, may take from a few hours to a few days to complete. We recommended that EPA complete plans to automate data related to conditional registrations to more readily track the status of these registrations and related registrant and agency actions and identify potential problems requiring management attention. During our review, agency officials reported that EPA had begun developing new IT infrastructure but more work is needed before a functional tracking system is in place. Currently, most of the work to review conditional registrations is done by employees who review large volumes of printed materials that are tracked through Excel spreadsheets. EPA expects that completing automation will create efficiencies by decreasing the number of hours needed to review applications.

The Timeliness and Level of Service to the Public for Some Programs at Selected Agencies Declined, According to Agency Officials and Stakeholders

Agency Officials and Stakeholders Reported that Declining Resources Affected the Timeliness of Services for Some Programs at Selected Agencies

Despite agencies’ ongoing efforts to manage declining resources through cost avoidance initiatives, improved efficiency, and other strategies, some agency officials and some stakeholder organizations told us that declining resources and the actions that agencies took to manage them, among other factors, affected the timeliness of some services. In some instances, stakeholder organizations commended the selected agencies for their efforts to continue to meet their missions with fewer resources. However, they also noted that it took agencies longer to provide certain services, which negatively affected individuals, businesses, state operations, and other federal agencies.

ETA Office of Foreign Labor Certification. According to ETA, OFLC’s overall application volumes were 84 percent higher in fiscal year 2015 than in fiscal year 2010, while the amounts appropriated to process these applications decreased by roughly 9 percent. ETA officials said that this—along with other factors such as new requirements and temporary court-ordered work stoppages—affected OFLC’s ability to meet timeliness measures for processing applications. For example, under an Interim Final Rule released in April 2015, OFLC is required to issue either a Notice of Deficiency or, if the application is complete and meets requirements, to issue a Notice of Acceptance within 7 business days of receiving the H-2B application. According to ETA data, as of September 2016, the average processing time for H-2B applications with no deficiencies in 2016 thus far was roughly 69 days and even longer for applications with deficiencies. One stakeholder organization representing employers who use the H-2B program to meet seasonal employment needs—including for landscaping, forestry, and housekeeping— conducted an informal survey of its members. Members reported that delays in processing H-2B applications resulted in companies: turning away work that they normally would have accepted or postponing their scheduled opening date; and delaying starting work, resulting in some instances in the loss of business contracts or challenges in meeting agreed upon deadlines on existing contracts.

Employers estimated that delays cost them thousands of dollars in missed work or increased overtime and, in some instances, cost them hundreds of thousands in missed contract opportunities.

EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. Annual appropriations for OPP declined by more than 14 percent from fiscal year 2010 through 2015. Despite these declines, according to EPA officials, there was no decline in the program’s outputs and outcomes for pesticide programs because Congress made collections from Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2013 (PRIA) user fees available to supplement OPP’s annual appropriations. Specifically, in 1988, Congress enacted annual registration maintenance fees to support the review of existing pesticide registrations. In 2004, Congress enacted pesticide registration fees, which are paid by registrants for some registration actions, such as registering new uses of pesticides, to help pay for registration costs. According to EPA, these fees were established to both create a more predictable evaluation process for affected pesticide decisions and to couple the collection of individual fees with specific deadlines for pesticide registration decisions. Further, as noted earlier, OPP reported improving the efficiency of some processes, such as through Lean Six Sigma process improvements.

We found that data for pesticide registration decisions from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2015 show both increases and decreases in registration decision times depending on the category. Overall, the average annual percentage of decisions completed on time has decreased slightly during the period of our review from 99.7 percent in fiscal year 2010 to 98.4 percent in fiscal year 2015. In fiscal year 2014, the average annual percentage of decisions completed on time did drop to 85 percent, which EPA attributed to the October 2013 government shutdown.

Stakeholders that we spoke with noted that annual appropriations for OPP fell below a minimum appropriation threshold established by statute. Pesticide registration service fees may not be assessed for a fiscal year unless Congress provides at least a set amount of annual appropriations for certain OPP functions for that year. Nonetheless, Congress has at times authorized EPA to assess pesticide registration service fees for a given fiscal year notwithstanding the minimum appropriations provision. One stakeholder organization told us EPA management has done an outstanding job implementing PRIA despite funding challenges. Nonetheless, this stakeholder organization told us that reductions in annual appropriations affected overall staffing levels at OPP and that average processing times increased for certain types of registration decisions. For example, based on EPA data, the average decision time for an application that proposes to use a new food use active ingredient increased 214 days from an average of 703 days in fiscal year 2011 to an average of 917 days in fiscal year 2015. The average decision time for an application for amendments for conventional agricultural products requiring scientific review increased 67 days, from an average of 276 days in fiscal year 2011 to an average of 343 days in fiscal year 2015. According to one stakeholder organization we spoke with, the pesticide industry relies heavily upon timely and predictable registration decision time frames. This allows manufacturers to effectively market their new products to growers before their respective growing seasons. According to this stakeholder organization, slower timelines have resulted in uncertainty and slowed innovation and growth for industry and can ultimately result in lost revenue for the manufacturers of particular products if they are not ready to be released until after the growing season.

FLETC. According to FLETC officials, FLETC’s capacity to accommodate the increased demand for training in recent years is reaching its limit and could increase waitlists and delay training for partner organizations. FLETC serves as an interagency law enforcement training organization for more than 90 federal partner organizations as well as international, state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies. According to FLETC officials, an improved budget outlook for partner organizations increased law enforcement hiring and therefore demand for training in recent years. FLETC expects that demand for training will further increase in future years to address the anticipated retirement of the large cohort of law enforcement officers hired in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attack. According to FLETC officials, capacity constraints resulted in longer waiting lists for training or some partner organizations being given less flexibility to make changes in their training schedule later in the fiscal year. FLETC officials said that the agency has used unobligated balances carried forward from prior fiscal years in which actual training enrollment fell short of partner organizations’ projections, to help manage increased demand. Partner organizations that we spoke with credited FLETC’s recent efforts to accommodate the increased demand in training by, for example, shifting the training from one campus to another or honoring short- notice training support requests for additional classes. However, if budgetary trends persist, FLETC officials said that the agency will have fewer unobligated balances and therefore less flexibility to manage future surges in training given the depletion in balances.

Declining Resources Affected the Level of Services for Some Programs at Selected Agencies According to Some Agency Officials and Stakeholders

In part due to declining resources, selected agencies provided states with less funding to administer and implement joint federal-state programs, such as unemployment insurance (UI) and Section 319 nonpoint source (NPS) pollution. While federal agencies are responsible for monitoring and overseeing these programs, states generally have some discretion in how they implement reductions. As a result, the actions taken by individual states can vary and the effects of those actions are difficult to isolate. In addition, some states may choose to use other sources of funding to offset a decline in funding for federal programs such as unemployment insurance and nonpoint source pollution. This includes both state resources and other federal sources. However, according to agency officials and stakeholder organizations, the use of state funding to supplement federal funding varied considerably. Some states provided no resources for these programs while others established dedicated revenue streams. For example, based on an annual survey of state workforce agencies by the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, states have provided between roughly $100 million and $362 million in supplemental funding for state administration of the UI program between 2010 and 2015.

EPA Section 319 NPS pollution grants. Declining resources for Section 319 NPS pollution grants to states coincided with fewer projects to improve water quality in impaired waters. As of August 2016, a total of 671 projects were funded by Section 319 NPS grants awarded in fiscal year 2014, compared to 883 projects in 2010. While EPA regional offices administer the Section 319 NPS grants to states and are responsible for grant and programmatic oversight, states set their overall program priorities and devise processes for selecting projects. One stakeholder organization that represents local water conservation districts told us that the decreased funding for Section 319 NPS grants puts more pressure on local government entities and conservation districts to implement the program. This stakeholder expressed concerns that there has not been an overall commitment to funding the Section 319 program and other programs to reduce hypoxia in areas such as the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico watershed. Hypoxia can cause harmful algal blooms. For example, in August 2014, Lake Erie experienced a harmful algal bloom near the intake to the drinking water treatment plant serving the city of Toledo, Ohio. Toledo issued a “do not drink or boil advisory” that affected nearly 500,000 customers due to the presence of the harmful substance cyanotoxin that exceeded the safe drinking water threshold recommended by the World Health Organization.

ETA’s Unemployment Insurance Program. The UI program is under a statutory objective requiring states to have methods of administration that ensure the full payment of unemployment compensation when due. Although the number of new initial claims filed has declined steadily since late 2009, according to ETA performance data, the percentage of first payments made within the first 21 days has remained below 87.5 percent—the target for fiscal year 2015. It averaged roughly 82 percent from 2010 to 2015. ETA attributed states’ inability to meet the performance goal partially to staff layoffs associated with reduced administrative funding caused by lower workloads. According to ETA, workloads were lower because temporary federal programs expired and the economy improved. Figure 7 shows the percentage of first unemployment benefits paid within 21 days.

Two stakeholder groups that we spoke with said that declining federal funding contributed to increased wait times to process UI claims, which can lead to delays in claims being paid on time and lower customer satisfaction. This is consistent with our prior work, which indicates that states are experiencing customer service challenges related to insufficient staff, outdated IT systems, and limited funding.

State UI programs rely extensively on IT systems funded through annual appropriations to administer the UI program and to support related administrative needs. As we have previously reported, states face challenges modernizing their IT systems to operate more efficiently. These challenges include limited funding for modernization efforts and limited resources for operating legacy systems while implementing modernized systems. The majority of the states’ existing systems for UI operations were developed in the 1970s and 1980s. However, it can be difficult to isolate effects of declining resources from other factors such as limited staff with the technical and project management expertise to manage system modernization efforts. According to ETA, current appropriations to fund state administration do not provide sufficient funding to enable states to modernize UI information technology infrastructure, which can cost many millions of dollars for each state. To address this challenge with limited additional funding, ETA has invested available resources to support consortia of states to jointly modernize their systems with the goal of sharing development and ongoing maintenance costs.

FLETC. While the partner organizations that we spoke with reported no decline in the overall quality of FLETC training, some did note that the quality and availability of housing and other on-campus accommodations declined somewhat during this period. Specifically, two partner organizations that we spoke with noted that lodging capacity issues had resulted in some of the trainees being housed outside of the FLETC campus in Glynco, Georgia—sometimes over 30 miles away. One partner organization said that this increased their portion of the cost of training. Another partner organization noted that trainees housed off site may miss out on the added benefits— such as getting acclimated to the agency culture—that come with trainees being located together in the dormitories. Agency officials at this partner organization described these added benefits as an important part of the training experience.

Activities without a Statutory Deadline or Dedicated Fees Were Disproportionately Affected, According to Agency Officials and Stakeholders

Management at selected agencies reported that they prioritized activities with a statutory deadline or activities where the agency had the authority to collect and obligate user fees. As a result, they said that activities without statutory deadlines or dedicated fees were disproportionately affected by declining resources at these agencies.

ETA’s Office of Foreign Labor Certification. Delays and backlogs in processing applications have increased more for ETA’s permanent labor certification program than other applications for temporary labor programs. Unlike other programs administered by OFLC, the permanent labor certification program does not have a statutory deadline dictating how long OFLC has to process applications. Based on ETA data, the average processing time for permanent labor certification applications not selected for integrity review in fiscal year 2015 was 195 days. The number of permanent labor certification applications remaining to be processed at the end of the fiscal year 2015 increased almost 100 percent from 29,553 applications in 2010 to 58,926 applications. In comparison, ETA reported that 100 percent of H-1B applications were processed within the target goal of 7 days from the filing date in fiscal year 2015. Meanwhile, the backlogs for processing H-2A and H-2B applications in 2015 were considerably less than the backlog for the permanent labor certification program at 180 and 341 applications, respectively. However, overall application volumes for these temporary visa programs were also considerably less. According to representatives from an organization comprised of immigration attorneys who represent employers and permanent labor applicants, delays and backlogs in the permanent labor certification program delayed businesses from hiring workers and adversely affected business operations.

EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs. EPA officials said that those activities beyond the core pesticide registration work that Congress has not authorized the agency to fund through user fees are most likely to be affected by declining discretionary resources. Stakeholders that we spoke with also provided examples of activities that are not funded through user fees and, as a result, they said were significantly delayed. For instance, EPA has not updated 18-year-old testing guidelines addressing public health pests, such as bed bugs, which one of the stakeholders we spoke with identified as a significant problem in the United States. These guidelines specify methods for generating the necessary data to submit to EPA for registering a pesticide or setting a tolerance level (i.e., the maximum pesticide residue allowed) or tolerance exemption for pesticide residues. One stakeholder who represents an industry trade group said that it is vital for these efficacy guidelines to be finalized so that industry can know how and what to test for to ensure EPA accepts the study the first time it is submitted. The representative also said that uncertainty has slowed innovation for developing new products and renewing registrations of existing, effective products. This uncertainty also affects the availability of products. The need for some pesticides is seasonal, and if the product development timeline is slowed down by the need to repeat a study, manufacturers may miss the target window for a particular season.

Conclusions

In response to declines in discretionary resources since 2010, the selected agencies that we reviewed took a number of actions to continue carrying out their respective missions that aligned with our framework. These actions mitigated service disruptions and offer illustrative examples that may help other agencies address their own budget challenges. It is difficult to isolate the effects of budget reductions on the programs from other factors, including overall program management, and even more difficult to know what the direct consequences are for individuals, businesses, and states and localities. Reduced timeliness and service levels for some programs indicate that agencies may need to take additional actions to manage their budgetary resources.

Building and maintaining a longer-term focus on managing declining resources can help agencies’ top management ensure that they continue to maintain the capacity to address emerging challenges and achieve their mission. FLETC has been relying on a strategic plan that expired in fiscal year 2013. FLETC began efforts this year to draft a strategic plan that covers fiscal years 2016-2018, which it plans to complete by December 2016. However, fiscal year 2016—which represents one-third of the strategic plan—has already elapsed and fiscal year 2017 is already underway. A strategic plan that extends through fiscal 2018 can assist the agency in formulating its 2018 budget but will be less useful for assessing longer-term resource needs. Longer-term strategic planning could help FLETC maintain capacity to accommodate the anticipated increase in demand for law enforcement training in the coming years to avoid any delays for partner organizations in hiring or training the new law enforcement officers that they need to achieve their missions.

Consistent with our framework, FLETC’s Director and executive team have led efforts to manage declining resources in part by clearly communicating key priorities for managing the agency’s budget to both internal and external stakeholders. Some of these priorities, such as investing in data analytics and developing an Online Campus, also align with other key themes from our framework. For example, the Online Campus represents a potential long-term cost avoidance strategy that could help the agency maintain capacity to provide the necessary law enforcement training, potentially at a reduced cost to both FLETC and its partner organizations. However, FLETC has not yet finalized its plan for the Online Campus with steps and timeframes needed to ensure it successfully implements this priority action. Moreover, it is unclear where FLETC will find the necessary sources within its existing budget. Without a final plan, it may be difficult for management to monitor progress toward these activities and milestones and ensure that the Online Campus initiative helps FLETC avoid longer-term costs and maintain capacity to achieve its mission.

During the period of our review, the UI program was still addressing the implications of the most recent recession, which tested the program’s capacity to rapidly increase its workload. States experiences managing through this recession and its aftermath may offer important lessons learned for making the program more resilient and better managing its workload with existing resources. ETA officials said that they would help share such lessons when workloads stabilize. The recession officially ended in 2009, and temporary emergency unemployment benefits expired in 2013. Given that ETA reports that many state employees with extensive knowledge have left state unemployment insurance offices, ETA should move promptly to systematically identify any lessons learned from this experience that could help the agency maintain the program’s capacity to respond to changes in workload during a future economic downturn.

While we are not making any new recommendations to EPA as part of this report, our work found that EPA top management also had opportunities to better manage declining resources by further addressing our prior recommendations. These recommendations could help the agency improve efficiency and avoid costs to better manage its limited resources. For example, completing plans to automate data related to conditional pesticide registrations could make the staff-intensive review process more efficient.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making three recommendations to help FLETC and ETA better manage declining resources.

To help ensure that FLETC builds and maintains capacity to achieve its mission with existing levels of resources over the longer-term, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Director of FLETC to 1. complete a revised strategic plan that encompasses the agency’s long-term goals and objectives to address emerging challenges; and 2. as part of its strategic planning process, finalize the plan, including the steps and time frames, needed to further implement its Online Campus initiative.

To help ensure that ETA continues to have the capacity to achieve its mission and manage changes in demand for services resulting from changes in the broader economy, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct the Administrator of ETA to systematically gather and evaluate information on the challenges that states faced administering the unemployment insurance program during the recession that began in 2007—such as rapidly ramping up staffing at the start of the recession and ramping down as the economy recovered—and identify and build upon any lessons learned from this experience that could be broadly shared to help the program respond to any changes in workload during a future economic downturn.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to DHS, Labor, and EPA for review and comment.

In written comments reproduced in appendix IV, DHS concurred with our two recommendations for FLETC to (1) complete a revised strategic plan that encompasses the agency’s long-term goals and objectives to address emerging challenges and (2) as part of its strategic planning process, finalize the plan needed to further implement its Online Campus initiative. DHS discussed FLETC’s commitment to strategically planning how it will manage its resources to address emerging challenges such as anticipated surges in federal law enforcement training needs. DHS indicated that FLETC is on target to complete a multi-year strategic plan by December 31, 2016, and then implement a quarterly review process to monitor progress toward achieving the plan’s goals and objectives. DHS also reported that as part of FLETC’s forthcoming strategic plan, FLETC plans to finalize objectives, strategies, and milestones for its Online Campus that align with its anticipated resources. If implemented as described, DHS’s actions would meet the intent of our recommendations.

A draft of this report contained a recommendation to the Secretary of Labor to direct the Administrator of ETA to develop alternative options to ensure OFLC’s workload demands can be met with existing resources in the absence of legislative changes. In an email response to the draft report, ETA provided additional documentation that included specific steps and timeframes for its ongoing and planned efforts to improve the efficient use of OFLC’s current resources, such as the reorganization and cross-training of staff and replacement of its current electronic case processing applications. Moreover, in oral comments on the draft report, a Deputy Assistant Secretary for ETA provided additional information about how these efforts could potentially help OFLC meet its workload demands with existing resources in the absence of legislative changes. We agree that these steps and planned actions constitute alternative options. Therefore, we removed the recommendation and revised the report accordingly.

A draft of this report also contained a recommendation to the Secretary of Labor to direct the Administrator of ETA to gather and evaluate information on the challenges that states faced administering the unemployment insurance program during the recession that began in 2007 and identify any lessons learned from this experience that could be applied to help the program respond to any changes in workload during a future economic downturn. In oral comments on the draft report, the Administrator of the Office of Unemployment Insurance provided additional information regarding how ETA uses its routine communication with states to identify lessons learned from the most recent recession. We revised the report to further acknowledge the routine communication that ETA has with states through conferences and its program monitoring activities, which ETA says has helped the agency identify lessons learned and informed the proposal for UI included in the President’s Fiscal Year 2017 budget request. In addition, to better distinguish the purpose and intent of our recommendation from the more routine communications and data gathering that ETA performs, we revised our recommendation to (1) emphasize the need for information to be gathered systematically, (2) clarify the focus on challenges that states could face in maintaining capacity as a result of an economic downturn, such as rapidly ramping up staffing at the start of the recession and ramping down as the economy recovered, and (3) emphasize the need for lessons to be shared broadly. We provided ETA with revised wording of our recommendation, which appears in this report.

In written comments, reproduced in appendix V, ETA did not state whether it concurred or not with this recommendation. ETA stated that it believed the recommendation does not fully recognize its work with states to identify lessons learned from the most recent recession. However, as ETA notes, previous data collection efforts have not focused specifically on the states’ ability to manage changes in workload during an economic downturn. We continue to believe that a systematic approach to gathering and sharing lessons learned from the most recent recession would further help the program maintain capacity in response to a future economic downturn.

EPA’s National Coordinator for the Clean Water Section 319 Grants Reporting and Tracking System also provided us with comments in an e- mail regarding open recommendations from our May 2012 report on Section 319 NPS grants, which we cite in this report. The National Coordinator stated that, since 2012, EPA has invested substantially in reforming overall program guidance and oversight. According to the National Coordinator, these reforms will serve to strengthen the strategic use of Section 319 funds in NPS program management. In our July 2016 report, we noted that EPA has taken a number of actions since our 2012 report, in part to respond to our recommendations. EPA has not made changes to the program's measures of effectiveness, but Office of Water officials confirmed in September 2016 that EPA is still planning to do so. We will continue to monitor EPA's efforts on this and other recommendations.

FLETC, ETA, and EPA also provided technical comments that we incorporated, as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Labor, the Administrator of EPA, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on our website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or krauseh@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Appendix I: Overview of Employment and Training Administration and Select Programs’ Budget and Performance Measures

New discretionary appropriations for the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) declined by roughly 14 percent from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2015. Meanwhile, new discretionary appropriations for selected programs declined by between 9 percent and 16 percent.

The Unemployment Insurance (UI) State Administration program funds grants to states for the administration of UI programs in accordance with Section 302(a) of the Social Security Act. ETA uses a combination of national claims-related workload projections and other factors to develop the request for UI administrative funding for states. After Congress appropriates funds, the Department of Labor uses a formula based in large part on workload estimates ETA develops, as well as other information provided by states, such as cost accounting information to allocate “base” funding to states. Base resources attempt to provide 80 to 90 percent of total “need” for workload processing with the remaining funding for workload related activities provided after the conclusion of each quarter when states report workload activity in excess of the “base” workload. This approach is intended to address forecast error in the original estimates. Since available funding is calculated in large part on claims-related workloads, the federal funding available for states is sensitive to changes in total claims, with more funding available when claims increase and less when they decrease.

Foreign Labor Certification Federal Administration funds most of the administrative costs of the immigration programs overseen by the Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC). This includes salaries and expenses, IT systems development, case adjudication support, rent, equipment, and supplies. OFLC is responsible for reviewing employer requests for the certification of a foreign worker to work in the United States to ensure that hiring a foreign worker will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of American workers, and that no qualified American workers are willing or available to fill a given vacancy. OFLC oversees the labor certifications for a number of visa programs, including the Permanent Labor Certification, H-2A, H-2B, and H-1B programs.

Table 3 highlights select agency performance measures, showing the annual targets and results for each measure during the relevant timeframe. Years where results fell below the agency’s target are highlighted in gray. According to ETA budget and performance documents, ETA was unable to reach its target for some performance measures in part because of resource constraints. For example, ETA cited state staff layoffs, high state staff turnover, and technology issues as a few reasons for the states’ inability to achieve their target for the first payment timeliness measure.

Appendix II: Overview of Environmental Protection Agency and Select Programs’ Budget and Performance Measures

New discretionary appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declined by roughly 21 percent from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2015, while new discretionary appropriations for selected programs declined by between approximately 15 and 21 percent.

EPA awards Section 319 nonpoint source (NPS) pollution categorical grants for implementing state NPS management programs. From fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2014, the most recent years for which complete data on awarded projects were available, states awarded approximately 4,000 projects under the Section 319 NPS program. The two most common categories of nonpoint source water pollution targeted by these projects were agricultural runoff and urban and stormwater runoff.

The Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account supports a broad range of activities involved in EPA developing pollution control regulations and standards, and enforcement of these requirements across multiple environmental media, such as air quality and water quality. For the purposes of this report, we focused on three of the EPM budget activities related to pesticides. These support the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) activities that protect human health and the environment from pesticide risk, as well as activities to realize the value of pesticide availability. In addition to receiving annual appropriations, OPP has the authority to collect and obligate Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (PRIA) fees. Specifically, in 1988, Congress enacted annual registration maintenance fees to support EPA reviewing existing pesticide registrations. In 2004, Congress enacted pesticide registration fees, which are paid by registrants for some registration actions, such as registrations for new uses of pesticides, to help pay for registration costs. According to EPA, the goals of the PRIA fee system are to both create a more predictable evaluation process for affected pesticide decisions and to couple the collection of individual fees with specific decision review periods. Pesticide registration service fees have a minimum appropriation threshold established by statute. Pesticide registration service fees may not be assessed for a fiscal year unless Congress provides at least a set amount of annual appropriations for certain OPP functions for that year. Nonetheless, Congress has at times authorized EPA to assess pesticide registration service fees for a given fiscal year notwithstanding the minimum appropriations provision. PRIA fees, which include both discretionary budget authority and mandatory budget authority from offsetting collections, can supplement OPP’s annual appropriations. PRIA fees totaled roughly $44 million in fiscal year 2015.

Table 5 highlights select agency performance measures, showing the annual targets and results for each measure during the relevant timeframe. Years where results fell below the agency’s targets are highlighted in gray. Currently, EPA is unable to effectively track the effects of declining resources on some performance measures. There are many activities that contribute to restoring polluted waterways and reducing nonpoint source pollution. Some of these are EPA programs, others are state programs, and yet others may be other federal programs. In addition, EPA officials said that there is a time lag between changes to funding for Section 319 NPS pollution grants and when effects from the changes take place. Further, we previously recommended that EPA revise Section 319 guidelines to states to emphasize measures that more accurately reflect the overall health of targeted water bodies (e.g., the number, kind, and condition of living organisms) and demonstrate states’ focus on protecting high-quality water bodies, where appropriate. EPA agreed that different measures would better represent Section 319 NPS pollution program progress, and, according to EPA, the agency will undertake work on a new measure for protecting unimpaired waters.

Appendix III: Overview of Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers’ Budget and Performance Measures

Newly enacted appropriations for FLETC declined by roughly 11 percent from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2015.

FLETC’s annual appropriation is available for necessary expenses for Salaries and Expenses, including materials and support costs for federal law enforcement basic training, and public awareness and enhancement of community support of law enforcement training. According to FLETC officials, the projected cost of partner organizations’ basic training budgets is included in FLETC base appropriations except for the cost of instructors. The cost of instructors is split evenly between FLETC and partner organizations. Partner organizations have 3 options to cover their portion of the costs: provide 50 percent of the instructors from their own agency; provide the funding necessary for FLETC to hire instructors; or provide a combination of instructors and funding.

Amounts appropriated for Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements and Related Expenses are available for the acquisition of necessary additional real property and facilities; construction; and ongoing maintenance, facility improvements, and related expenses of FLETC.

Table 7 shows one of FLETC’s primary performance measures for monitoring the quality of its training programs and the annual targets and results from fiscal years 2011 to 2015. Years where results fell below the agency’s target are highlighted in gray.

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix V: Comments from the Employment and Training Administration

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Carol M. Henn, Assistant Director; Thomas J. McCabe, Analyst-In-Charge; Ulyana Panchishin; Michelle Sager; and Elise Vaughan Winfrey made major contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Ann L. Czapiewski, Hilary R. Kelly, Julie Matta, Angie Nichols-Friedman, Michele Mackin, Diana Maurer, Eleni Orphanides, Sabine Paul, Barbara Patterson, Amanda Postiglione, Andrew Sherrill, Stewart W. Small, Anne Stevens, and Cynthia Saunders.