Post on 28-Mar-2015
1
Unprecedented Accountability and Transparency of
Recovery Act Funds—Wave of the Future?
Toronto, Ontario ChapterProfessional Development Day
October 20, 2010
Jeff Hart, CGFM, CFE
AGA Past National President
2
AGENDA• Overview of American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and Impact on EPA Operations
• Job Creation/Saving
• Environmental Results
• Some Questions &
Key Points To Take Away
3
Some Questions For Today
How has this unprecedented level of accountability and transparency raised the bar for all US-EPA programs? Has it also raised the bar for all government programs? Has it raised the bar in Canada? Might it raise the bar around the world?
4
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
President Obama signed the $787 Billion
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, or Recovery Act) of 2009 into law on February 17, 2009 in Denver, CO
5
The Recovery Act’s 3 Goals
Create new jobs and save existing jobsSpur economic activity and invest in long-term growth, andFoster unprecedented levels of accountability and transparency in government spending.
6
ARRA Funding - $787 Billion
Tax Cuts
$288
Grants,
Contracts and
Loans
$275
Entitlements
$224
7
Where is The $787 Billion Going?
8
$275 Billion for Federal Contracts, Grants and Loans
300 different programs spanning dozens of Federal Agencies
EPA$7.22 Billion for 6 programs
$20 Million -- Inspector General
9
EPA’s ARRA Funding $7.22 Billion
CWSRF-$4B
DWSRF-$2B
SF-$600M
DERA-$300M
LUST-$200M
BF-$100M
OIG-$20M
CWSRFDWSRF
SF
DERALUSTBF
10
Region 8 ARRA Funding$384 Million
$371M in Grants and Contracts
$3.5M in ARRA Management and Oversight Funding
$9.5M in set-asides for R8 TribesThis funding is managed out of HQ
11
Current ProgressQ3 2010 Quarterly Report
15,764 jobs created or retained (36,092 to date)
935 in Region 8
57 % CWSRF funds spent74% in Region 8
62% DWSRF funds spent 74% in Region 8
12
Current ProgressQ3 2010 Quarterly Report
51 Superfund sites
initiated construction
9 in Region 8
8,500 diesel engines retrofitted, replaced or retired--reduced the lifetime emissions of carbon dioxide by 230,000 tons and particulate matter by 1,100 tons
268 in Region 8
649 LUST site assessments begun
55 in Region 8
263 Brownfields site assessments initiated
10 initiated in Q2 2010 in Region 8
13
Colorado’s “Top 10” Categories of $1.588 Billion ARRA FundsState Fiscal Stabilization Fund $760,242,539
IDEA Part B Grants to States $148,730,571
MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM $140,911,583
Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies
$110,905,813
Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income Persons (A)
$79,531,213
State Energy Program (A) $49,222,000
Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program Special Allocations
$35,545,846
EPA Drinking Water SRF $34,352,000
EPA Clean Water SRF $31,347,700
Tax Credit Assistance Program $27,349,670
14
Gene L. Dodaro , Acting Comptroller General , U.S. Government Accountability Office
“Experience tells us that the risk of fraud and abuse grows when billions of dollars are going out quickly, eligibility requirements are being established or changed, and new programs are being created.”
– GAO’s Role in Helping to Ensure Accountability and Transparency, March 9, 2009
15
A key objective of ARRA is to minimize fraud, waste, and abuse
– Even a 5% error rate places $40 billion of total program funding potentially at risk for fraud, waste and abuse
– The federal government expects States to embed anti-fraud, waste and abuse efforts into ongoing oversight of programs
– Existing systems and controls may not be capable of addressing increased expectations
– The public has zero tolerance for fraud, waste and abuse
– Additional funding for audits, law enforcement and inspector general oversight
16
OMB’s Recovery Act Guidance Stresses Accountability
o Funds awarded in a prompt, fair, reasonable manner
o Recipients and uses of funds transparent
o Funds used for authorized purposes and instances of fraud, waste, error, and abuse mitigated
o Unnecessary delays and cost overruns avoided
Achieve programmatic goals
17
Section 1512 Reporting : Data Elements
Data elements to be collected were published in Federal Register 4/1/09
Requires one report per award
There are five sections:
1. General Section:
– One report for each award that includes project period and awarding Federal agency
2. Section 1: Project & Activity - Cash Received & Disbursements
3. Section 2: Project & Activity - Outputs & Outcomes
– Status of Work Completed
– Jobs Created or Retained
4. Section 3: Subrecipient Information
– Cash Disbursed by Recipient
– Date of subaward and grant period
5. Section 4: Aggregate Awards - Total awards <$25,000
18
Certification and Maintenance of Effort
CertificationCertification elevated to the Governor, Mayor or other State officials
Upfront certification prior to spending
– Infrastructure investment has been reviewed
– Full responsibility is accepted as to the appropriate use of the taxpayers’ funds
Maintenance of EffortFederal funds cannot be used to supplant local funding
Must be used for additive projects, not applied to cut-backs
Governments will need to document current level of effort
19
Recovery Accountability and Transparency Act Board
coordinate and conduct oversight
quarterly reports
recommendations
may send Flash reports to the President and Congress problems that require immediate attention
established and maintains a user friendly website, Recovery.gov, to foster . accountability and transparency
20
Recovery Accountability and Transparency Act Board
The Honorable Earl E. Devaney, Chairman
The Honorable Phyllis K. Fong, Inspector General Department of Agriculture
The Honorable Todd J. Zinser, Inspector General Department of Commerce
The Honorable Gregory H. Friedman, Inspector General Department of Energy
The Honorable Daniel Levinson, Inspector General Department of Health and Human Services
The Honorable Richard L. Skinner, Inspector General Department of Homeland Security
The Honorable Glenn A. Fine, Inspector General Department of Justice
The Honorable Calvin L. Scovel, Inspector General Department of Transportation
The Honorable Eric M. Thorson, Inspector General Department of Treasury
The Honorable J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
Mary Mitchelson, Acting Inspector General Department of Education
21
Recovery.gov WebsiteDetailed data on contracts and grants
Progress reports on spending and accomplishments
Links to grant, loan, contract opportunities
Map-based view of where the spending is going
Subscription content to be informed with targeted changes
Ability for access to bulk data for individual analysis
Reports from GAO, IG, CEA
Vignettes on results/accomplishments
Responses addressing public feedback
22
23
24
EPA Oversight
Assistant Administrator---”Senior Accountable Official”--lead and coordinate all agency activities related to stimulus fundingSteering Committee--senior managers monitor stimulus project planning and implementation meets weeklyInspector General--$20 million for oversight Public can track EPA's distribution of stimulus cash on the agency's Web site
27
Development of the Stewardship Plan
Required broad participation
Plan addresses following areas: Grants management
Interagency Agreements
Contracts management and procurement issues
Payroll and human capital
Budget Execution
Performance reporting
Financial reporting
28
DRAFT RECOVERY ACT STEWARDSHIP PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
May 5, 2009
The Recovery Act Steering Committee established an Agency-wide Internal Controls Workgroup that was charged with creating the Recovery Act Stewardship Plan.
Subcommittees are made up of Program Office, administrative, and Regional representatives with an OIG advisor.
The Stewardship Plan is based on the five GAO Internal Control Standards: Control Environment, Risk Assessment, Control Activities, Information and Communication, and Monitoring. Risk mitigation strategies from the OMB 02/18/2009 and 04/03/2009 Recovery Act Guidance documents and the OIG’s “Initial Plan for Oversight of Recovery Act Funds” were addressed. Additionally, OIG Open Audit Issues, OEI’s Management Action Plan, other agencies’ best practices (DOJ, USPS, Commerce, DOI, and NSF), and the Agency’s Katrina Stewardship Plan were all considered during the development of the Recovery Act Stewardship Plan.
29
30
31
OIG Focus
IG focus on OMB accountability objectives
Evaluate the process for awarding funds
Review the quality of data systems
Assess performance
IG will conduct:
Performance audits
Financial audits
Investigations of fraud, waste, and abuse
32
Types of OIG Reviews
Forensic Audits
Performance Audits
Program Evaluations
Investigations
33
Forensic Auditsof Recipients and Subrecipients
34
Identifying Candidates
Unusual Patterns of Drawdowns
Prior Report Findings
Hotlines
Recovery Accountability and Transparency
Board Referrals
Prior Issues with Recipient or Subrecipient
35
What Does the OIG Review?
Construction Site
Progress/Materials
Individuals Working
Buy American Requirements
Davis Bacon Requirements
36
What Is OIG Reviewing?
Loan-Recipient Office
Procurement
Financial Systems
Project Oversight
Recipient Reporting
37
On-Going Performance AuditsCompetition for DERA Grants
Contractor Performance Evaluations
EPA and State Oversight of Clean Water SRF Projects
Implementation of Recovery Act Stewardship Plan for Superfund Remedial Program Contracts
38
On-Going Performance Audits
Resources for Recovery Act Oversight
Use of Interagency Agreements
Financial Reporting of ARRA
Effectiveness of EPA Data Quality Review Process
39
GAO Findings to DateMay 26, 2010--Clean Water Projects Are Underway, but Procedures May Not Be in Place to Ensure Adequate Oversight
Dec. 10, 2009—One Quarter of Recovery Act Funds Administered by States and Localities Has Been Paid Out
Nov. 19, 2009--Recipient Reports: Good Initial Efforts to Ensure Accurate Reporting but Significant Data Quality Issues Need Addressing
Sept. 23, 2009--Need for Recovery Act Accountability and Reporting Challenges to Be Fully Addressed
40
GAO Findings to DateMay 26, 2010--Clean Water Projects Are Underway, but Procedures May Not Be in Place to Ensure Adequate Oversight
June 22, 2010--EPA Submitted Accurate and Timely Recovery Act Financial Reports
September 27, 2010-- EPA Effectively Reviewed Recovery Act Recipient Data but Opportunities for Improvement Exist --Identified errors in 3 percent of recipient entries. EPA did not identify any of these errors as significant.
Several OIG site inspections revealed nothing that would require action.
41
GAO Findings to DateMay 26, 2010--Clean Water Projects Are Underway, but Procedures May Not Be in Place to Ensure Adequate Oversight
Dec. 10, 2009—One Quarter of Recovery Act Funds Administered by States and Localities Has Been Paid Out
Nov. 19, 2009--Recipient Reports: Good Initial Efforts to Ensure Accurate Reporting but Significant Data Quality Issues Need Addressing
Sept. 23, 2009--Need for Recovery Act Accountability and Reporting Challenges to Be Fully Addressed
42
Region 8 ARRA Monthly ReportSept. 2010 Outlay Rate and Jobs Reported
*Full Jobs Created number unavailable for Eureka IAG
Program(A) Amount
Awarded
(B) Total Outlays (thru
6/30/10)
(B/A) Cumulative
%
National Average
% Outlays
Reported Jobs (for
FY10 Q3)**
Drinking Water SRF $134,452,000 $99,708,207 74% 62% 357
Clean Water SRF $126,354,000 $93,932,258 74% 57% 363
604b $1,303,000 $761,574 58%
N/A (included in
CWSRF) 5
Superfund $64,150,180 $32,960,256 51% 56% 140
DERA $17,770,597 $12,551,798 71% 43% 45
LUST $9,773,000 $4,286,841 44% 38% 19
Brownfields $5,429,900 $2,009,292 37% 26% 6
Totals $359,232,677 $246,210,226 69% 57% 935
43
R8 Outlays Compared to AwardsCumulative through the end of May 2010
Amounts in millions
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
DWSRF CWSRF SF DERA LUST BF 604b
Awarded
Outlays
74% 74%
51%
71%
44% 37% 58%
44
Regional AccomplishmentsCumulative through FY10 Q3 (6/31)
Nearly $312M in CW and DW SRF projects have started construction.1 Superfund project achieved design completion. 1 Brownfields property has been cleaned up. 1,000 diesel engines have been retrofitted, replaced or retired.
25,000 tons of CO2-equivalent emissions have been avoided.
32 LUST assessments and 15 cleanups have been completed.
45
Selected 2010 Brownfields Accomplishments
City of Missoula, MT$25,000 -- asbestos abatement at former freight depotNow a community nutrition center + 17 low-income homesProvides fresh local food for neighborhood with household income level $7,000 below medianhouseholds receiving public assistance is twice as high as the city overall
46
Selected 2010 DERA Accomplishments
Sioux Falls, SD School DistrictReplacing 10 buses, new lower-emission models + installing 20 pre-heaters
New engines + idle reduction + fuel conservation programsHighest honor possible--Gold Level “Green Fleet Certification”
47
ARRA Success – Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), Decker, Montana
State of MT in partnership with Decker Coal Company
$700k to repower 4 high emissions oversized coal-hauling dump truck engines
Old engines used Ultra Low-Sulfur Diesel fuel but still emitted high levels of particulate matter and toxics
48
Jobs, Health, + 76% Return on Investment 9.29 mechanical and
administrative jobs created or retained in environmental justice community
$532k in health care cost savings associated with
premature mortalitychronic & acute bronchitisrespiratory symptomsasthma exacerbationnonfatal heart attackshospital admissionsemergency room visitswork loss days, and minor restricted activity days
Exceeded Original Pollution Reduction Goals by 114%
Actual Results Projected Results
Lifetime (tons) Annual (tons) Annual (tons)
N0x 2,136.86 118.71 24.8
PM 148.08 8.23 3
HC 78.66 4.40 3.3
CO 196.33 10.91 21.7
CO2 9,478.29 526.57 303.6
Total 12,038.22 668.82 356.40
49
50
Implications to EPA
ARRA significantly increased EPA’s Budget and Increases Risk of Error/Mistakes
With limited time to obligate funds and high priority from the Administration to spend funds quickly/accurately/well, stewardship of funds takes on a “higher profile”
Unprecedented transparency to public – EPA records/results open to increased scrutiny
51
Some Themes From PSMW-Halifax (June 2010)—Same in U.S.
Difficult Economy
Structural Deficits
Unsustainable
“Back to Balance”
Cut Services/Costs
Increased Public Pressure to Reduce Costs Yet Maintain/Increase Services
52
Implications of Increased Transparency & Accountability
Increased Scrutiny
Increased Risk & Decreased Tolerance for Mistakes & “Mismanagement”
Increased Demand for Improved Management/Results
Increased Demand for Quality Data/Info
Open Government Directive
December 2009, Office of Management and Budget
publish government information online,
improve information quality,
create and institutionalize an open government culture, and
create an enabling policy framework for open government.
53
54
High Note! Implications/Opportunities for Us
FM’s Role More Important Than Ever
Increased Attention on:Data/Info for Decision-making
Internal/Management Controls
ID & Mitigating Risks (financial & program)
Measuring/Improving Program Results
55
56
Recovery.gov opening book on open government
“Agencies at all levels of government must view this as not just a passing management phenomenon, but as a way to rethink how government communicates with the public.
…the new accountability and transparency movement will likely increase public expectations for real-time spending information.
57
October 17, 2010-- Jeffrey C. Steinhoff, executive director of KPMG Government Institute and managing director of KPMG LLP
“…government managers will be on the hot seat like never before.
Is government turning a new page in accountability, transparency and intergovernmental relations?
It will be up to everyone to find new ways to meet the goals of open government and satisfy a public that is more insistent than ever on knowing what it is getting for its tax dollars.”
58
59
Questions?
Jeff Hart
jeffshart@comcast.net
303-907-4664