Report GAO-23-105795, American Rescue Plan Act Implementation — Government Accountability Office

Summary

A Government Accountability Office report to congressional requesters, GAO-23-105795, dated April 26, 2023, on how the Economic Development Administration (EDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) implemented American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 provisions. The report states that ARPA provided $3 billion to EDA, $100 million to EPA and $105 million to FWS, and that as of the first quarter of fiscal year 2023 EDA had obligated nearly 100 percent, EPA 67 percent and FWS 49 percent. It examines how the agencies allocated the funds, their award procedures and their monitoring plans, drawing on a nongeneralizable sample of 13 grant files. GAO finds the agencies largely using existing procedures with some modifications, and notes that awards exceeding $750,000 are subject to financial and compliance audits.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2023

AMERICAN RESCUE
PLAN ACT
Implementation of
Economic
Development,
Environment, and
Wildlife Provisions

GAO-23-105795


April 2023

AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT
Implementation of Economic Development,
Environment, and Wildlife Provisions
Highlights of GAO-23-105795, a report to
congressional requesters

Why GAO Did This Study

What GAO Found

Under ARPA, Congress provided a
total of $3.205 billion to EDA, EPA, and
FWS. These funds were to be used by
EDA to help communities and regions
respond to economic injury, by EPA to
address health outcome disparities in
underserved communities, and by
FWS to prevent zoonotic diseases and
to care for animals in zoos and
aquariums. These funds were to be
used by the end of fiscal year 2022 for
EDA and are available until expended
for EPA and FWS.

In the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), Congress sought to help
address public health and economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic by
providing $3 billion to the Economic Development Administration (EDA), $100
million to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and $105 million to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). EDA allocated its appropriation largely
toward grants intended to create jobs. EPA funded activities addressing public
health harms, and FWS expanded agency services for such things as wildlife
disease research and trafficking enforcement. As of the first quarter of fiscal year
2023, EDA had obligated nearly 100 percent, EPA 67 percent, and FWS 49
percent of their appropriations.
Status of American Rescue Plan Act Appropriations, by Selected Agency, as of End of First
Quarter Fiscal Year 2023

GAO was asked to review these
agencies’ implementation of ARPA
provisions and expenditure of ARPA
funds. This report examines how the
agencies allocated ARPA
appropriations, their procedures for
making grant and reimbursement
awards, and their plans to monitor
these awards.
GAO reviewed agencies’ budget data
for fiscal years 2021 and 2022 and the
first quarter of fiscal year 2023. GAO
also reviewed agency spending plans,
funding announcements, and agency
plans to monitor and audit grant
recipients. GAO selected a
nongeneralizable sample of 13 grants
in total (selected to reflect various
funding amounts and project
characteristics) and reviewed their files
to determine how agencies
documented their evaluation of
applicants. GAO also interviewed
agency officials and compared each
agency’s grant-making and monitoring
procedures against federal
requirements.

View GAO-23-105795. For more information,
contact William B Shear at (202) 512-8678 or
ShearW@gao.gov or J. Alfredo Gómez at
(202) 512-3841 or GomezJ@gao.gov.
United States Government Accountability Office


The agencies are largely using their existing procedures to distribute ARPA
appropriations to external organizations, with some modifications. For example,
for one initiative, EDA established a new prescreening process intended to limit
time spent assessing less competitive applications. This change was made to
streamline the review process and accommodate the larger volume of
applications. EPA conducted legal reviews of ARPA applications earlier than
usual in its review process to expedite eligibility determinations. This allowed
EPA to identify when certain activities of a proposed project were not eligible for
ARPA funding. FWS created a reimbursement program for zoos and aquariums
and established procedures to ensure recipients did not receive payment for the
same activity under more than one COVID-19 relief program.
To mitigate risks, such as fraud or poor performance, the agencies applied their
standard assessment procedures for assessing ARPA applicants. For example,
they used government-wide databases to obtain information about applicants’
eligibility and past performance using federal funds. For applicants without prior
federal funding, the agencies obtained information on applicants’ financial
management, organizational capacity, and other factors.
Once funds are awarded, all three agencies plan to monitor ARPA awards using
their existing procedures. These monitoring activities are based on relevant
regulations and require such activities as periodic financial and performance
reporting. Awards exceeding $750,000 are subject to financial and compliance
audits. In addition, the inspectors general that oversee EDA and EPA plan to
oversee awards that used ARPA funds.


Contents

Letter

1
Background
EDA Allocated Its Appropriation toward New Programs and
Established Some New Evaluation Criteria
EPA Funded Multiple Initiatives and Adjusted Some Selection
Procedures
FWS Allocated Its Appropriation to Some New Programs and
Plans to Use Existing Monitoring Procedures
Agency Comments

Appendix I

Appendix II

5
9
21
33
42

EPA Total Obligations and Expenditures for the American
Rescue Plan Act

43

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

44

Tables
Table 1: EDA’s Planned Allocation of Its American Rescue Plan
Act (ARPA) Appropriation
Table 2: EPA’s Planned Allocation of Its American Rescue Plan
Act (ARPA) Appropriation
Table 3: FWS’s Planned Allocation of Its American Rescue Plan
Act (ARPA) Appropriation
Table 4: Status of EPA’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
Appropriations, as of January 3, 2023

10
23
36
43

Figures
Figure 1: Typical Processes for Grants Awarded by Federal
Agencies
Figure 2: EDA’s Planned Allocation of Its American Rescue Plan
Act Appropriation, by Spending Type
Figure 3: Status of EDA’s American Rescue Plan Act
Appropriation, as of December 31, 2022
Figure 4: EPA’s Planned Allocation of Its American Rescue Plan
Act Appropriation, by Spending Type
Figure 5: Status of EPA’s American Rescue Plan Act
Appropriation, as of January 3, 2023

Page i

8
9
13
22
26

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


Figure 6: FWS’s Planned Allocation of Its American Rescue Plan
Act Appropriation, by Spending Type
Figure 7: Status of FWS’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
Appropriation, as of December 31, 2022

Page ii

35
38

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


Abbreviations
ARPA
AZA
EDA
EPA
FWS
OMB

American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
Association of Zoos and Aquariums
Economic Development Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Office of Management and Budget

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Page iii

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


Letter

441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548

April 26, 2023
The Honorable Shelley Moore Capito
Ranking Member
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate
The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Chair
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Bruce Westerman
Chair
Committee on Natural Resources
House of Representatives
The Honorable Sam Graves
Chair
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives
The COVID-19 pandemic had profound public health and economic
effects in many areas of life in the United States. For example, Americans
suffered more than 1 million deaths attributable to the disease and
experienced widespread job losses. To help address these effects,
Congress enacted the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). 1 The
act greatly expanded some agencies’ previous funding levels, allowing
them to increase capacity in existing programs and create new programs.
Among the agencies that received these funds were the Economic
Development Administration (EDA), the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Specifically:
•

EDA. ARPA provided $3 billion to the Department of Commerce that
was utilized by EDA, a bureau within Commerce that focuses primarily
on investing in regions experiencing long-term economic distress or
sudden economic dislocation. This appropriation is intended, in part,
to help communities and regions prevent, prepare for, and respond to
economic injury as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

1Pub. L. No. 117-2.

Page 1

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


•

EPA. ARPA provided $100 million to EPA, an agency that focuses on
protecting human health and the environment. This appropriation is to
be used to identify and address disproportionate environmental or
public health harms and risks in minority populations or low-income
populations and to improve air quality monitoring.

•

FWS. ARPA provided $105 million to FWS, an office within the
Department of the Interior that focuses on conserving, protecting, and
enhancing fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. This appropriation is
intended, in part, to help prevent future pandemics related to wildlife
and address the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on facilities
providing care for captive species, such as zoos and aquariums.

You asked us to review these three agencies’ implementation of ARPA’s
provisions and expenditures of ARPA funds. This report examines the
extent to which (1) EDA, (2) EPA, and (3) FWS allocated, obligated, and
expended appropriations to meet the requirements under ARPA, the
factors they considered in awarding competitive grants, and how they
plan to monitor awards made with ARPA appropriations. 2
To examine the extent to which the agencies allocated and obligated their
appropriations to meet the requirements under ARPA, we reviewed and
analyzed documents prepared by EDA, EPA, and FWS, including
spending plans, grant announcements, and other agency documents
such as quarterly performance reports. We also interviewed officials at
each agency to understand the process and factors they used to allocate
their ARPA appropriations, any challenges they faced, and steps they
took to mitigate any challenges.
In addition, we analyzed each agency’s spending data for fiscal years
2021 and 2022 and the first quarter of fiscal year 2023 to describe the
agencies’ obligations and expenditures as of the end of calendar year
2022. 3 Due to the large number of grants EDA awarded, we also
summarized the number and dollar amount of grants EDA awarded to
certain grantee types, such as states, territories, and nonprofit
organizations. We assessed the reliability of the data by reviewing related
2Throughout this report, we refer to federal competitive and noncompetitive grants and

cooperative agreements jointly as “grants.” Agencies’ grant-making programs may use
grants, cooperative agreements, or both.

3Obligation refers to a definite commitment that creates a legal liability of the government

for the payment of goods and services ordered or received, or a legal duty on the part of
the United States that could mature into a legal liability by virtue of actions on the part of
the other party beyond the control of the United States. Expenditure refers to the actual
spending of money, also known as an outlay.

Page 2

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


documentation, interviewing knowledgeable agency officials, and
conducting data testing for missing data, outliers, and obvious errors. We
found the data sufficiently reliable for the purposes of describing agency
obligations and expenditures for fiscal years 2021 and 2022 and the first
quarter of fiscal year 2023.
To examine the factors these agencies considered in making their ARPA
award decisions, we reviewed notices of funding opportunity for all
programs receiving ARPA funds. 4 For EDA and EPA, we compared these
ARPA funding opportunities to non-ARPA funding opportunities that
targeted similar outcomes to determine if any of the selection factors were
different. Specifically, we reviewed the agencies’ notices published in
fiscal years 2019 through 2021. We selected all 17 funding opportunities
prepared by EDA during that period and the 10 funding opportunities
prepared by EPA that targeted environmental or health harms or air
quality monitoring outcomes. We reviewed the three ARPA funding
opportunities prepared by FWS, but we did not perform this comparison
for FWS grant programs because they were new efforts that targeted new
outcomes, and thus there were no previous programs with which to
compare.
We examined each notice of funding opportunity for key information,
including selection factors and their relative weights, intended outcomes,
and monitoring procedures. Two analysts independently reviewed and
coded each notice of funding opportunity, then compared the results of
their analyses and met to resolve any disagreements. We then analyzed
the data obtained to identify key characteristics of the notices of funding
opportunity. We also compared ARPA funding opportunities to earlier
funding opportunities for EDA and EPA.
In addition, we reviewed selected files for ARPA grants to assess whether
they reflected the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB)
requirements, referred to as the Uniform Guidance, and each agency’s
policies for evaluating the risks and merits associated with applicants and

4A notice of funding opportunity is a formal announcement of the availability of federal
funding through a financial assistance program from an awarding agency. It provides
information on the award, who is eligible to apply, the evaluation criteria for selection of an
awardee, required components of an application, and how to submit the application.

Page 3

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


proposed projects. 5 These files contained the grantee’s application,
certain documents agency officials used to review the applications, and
various documents formalizing the awarding of the grant. We selected a
nongeneralizable sample of 13 files for competitive grants that used
ARPA appropriations. We selected these files to reflect various amounts
that each agency awarded under both new and existing programs and
various project locations. 6 This sample of 13 files included six from EDA,
five from EPA, and two from FWS.
To conduct the assessment, we identified key required steps and
assessed the extent to which the files indicated that the agency
completed each of the steps that are required before awarding grants. 7
We reviewed each of the 13 files for documentation that each agency did
the following: reviewed grantees’ proposed budgets, assessed proposals
against agencies’ evaluation criteria listed in the relevant notice of funding
opportunity, reviewed the applicants’ past performance with managing
grant funding, and provided grantees with grant terms and conditions,
including performance reporting requirements. For EPA grants, we also
reviewed several EPA legal compliance reviews and identified typical
factors the agency considered to determine whether a proposed effort
was consistent with ARPA legal requirements.
To determine how the agencies plan to monitor grants made with ARPA
appropriations, we obtained and reviewed documentation from EDA,
EPA, and FWS about their policies and procedures for monitoring
grantees. We also interviewed officials from each agency about their
planned post-award monitoring activities, such as conducting site visits or
reviewing performance reports. We compared each agency’s policies and
procedures against OMB requirements for awarding federal grants.

5Office of Management and Budget, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost

Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (codified at 2 C.F.R. pt. 200),
effective for all federal grants awarded starting in December 2014. We identified these
requirements by reviewing OMB and agency guidance and discussing the requirements
with agency officials.

6We selected competitive grants for review so that we could assess agencies’ compliance

with required evaluative review procedures, which involve assessing grant proposals
against specific criteria. Such procedures are not required for noncompetitive grants.

7Throughout this report, we refer to these steps collectively as a “pre-award” process. The

files only contained information on the agencies’ pre-award processes because our review
took place before agencies were scheduled to complete post-award monitoring activities.

Page 4

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


We conducted this performance audit from February 2022 to April 2023 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Background
Agency Missions and
Appropriations

Economic Development Administration. EDA awards grants and
cooperative agreements to states, territories, and local organizations such
as nonprofit organizations, local government agencies, and institutions of
higher education. These awards fund economic development, including
strategic planning activities, technical assistance, project financing, and
the construction or rehabilitation of public infrastructure. Projects are
eligible for certain EDA grants if they are located in a region that meets
certain economic distress criteria, which are an elevated unemployment
rate, a below-average per capita income, or a special need as determined
by EDA. 8 Due to the widespread impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, all
communities nationwide were eligible to apply for ARPA assistance under
EDA’s special need criteria. EDA’s total annual appropriation for fiscal
year 2022 was approximately $375 million. 9
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA, among many activities,
develops regulations to meet environmental laws, works with states and
Tribes to enforce national environmental standards, and conducts
research on environmental issues. EPA also awards grants and
cooperative agreements, enters into contracts, and provides technical
assistance to state and local governments, federally recognized Tribes,
U.S. territories, and community-based organizations to improve the
environment and public health conditions of underserved communities.

842 U.S.C. § 3161 and 13 C.F.R. Parts 300 and 301 allow EDA to determine a special

need exists for economic disaster recovery investments based on certain unemployment
or economic adjustment problems, such as in the event of a natural disaster.

9EDA received supplemental funds in addition to its annual appropriation in prior fiscal

years. For example, EDA received $1.5 billion in CARES Act funds in fiscal year 2020, as
well as $600 million in both fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to respond to major disasters.

Page 5

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


EPA’s total annual appropriation for fiscal year 2022 was approximately
$9.56 billion. 10
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS enforces wildlife laws and
regulates wildlife trade, including by inspecting wildlife imports to prevent
introduction or transmittal of zoonotic diseases and conducting monitoring
activities to detect, diagnose, respond to, and prevent future disease
outbreaks. 11 FWS’s total annual appropriation for fiscal year 2022 was
approximately $1.65 billion.

Types of Federal Grants,
Requirements, and Award
Processes

Federal agencies award grants on a competitive or noncompetitive basis,
or enter into cooperative agreements. Competitive grants require potential
recipients to submit an application for funding that agencies review and
score or assess against criteria. Agencies establish a process for
assessing applications in each notice of funding opportunity, which is
required to describe all criteria and specify the relative percentages or
weights. Agencies may also distribute noncompetitive grants to eligible
recipients. For example, some agencies, including EDA, distribute
noncompetitive grants according to a formula or by providing each
recipient with the same amount. Cooperative agreements differ from
grants by providing for substantial involvement of the federal awarding
agency in carrying out the activities described by the grant. For example,
EDA’s cooperative agreements may involve collaboration between EDA
and the grantee on the scope of work, selection of key personnel, and
monitoring during the project to ensure compliance with statutory
requirements.
OMB’s Uniform Guidance describes steps federal agencies must take in
their pre- and post-award process for awarding grants and cooperative
agreements. 12 A federal agency’s pre-award process must (1) establish a
merit review process with clear and explicit criteria communicated in the
funding notice, (2) develop a framework to assess the risks posed by
applicants, and (3) review information about applicants available in
10Grants make up almost half of the EPA’s budget, or about $4 billion annually. The

majority of EPA grant dollars are awarded noncompetitively through formula grants, with
grantees and dollar amounts determined by statute or regulation. Roughly 11 percent of
EPA grant dollars, or about $500 million annually, are awarded through discretionary
grants, for which EPA has the discretion to determine grantees and dollar amounts.

11Zoonotic diseases are caused by pathogens that spread between animals and people.
The virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, is a zoonotic virus.
122 C.F.R Part 200.

Page 6

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


government-wide databases. 13 A federal agency’s post-award processes
must (1) adjust award requirements based on recipient risk, as applicable;
(2) communicate terms and conditions to award recipients, including how
performance will be reported and assessed; and (3) monitor the results of
a single audit, as applicable. These requirements establish a four-stage
framework used by most agencies to award grants (see fig. 1).

13Some agencies may include additional steps in the pre-award process prior to

conducting a merit review. For example, EPA typically screens all applications against
threshold eligibility criteria identified in the relevant funding opportunity before the
applications are considered eligible and reviewed for merit under the evaluation criteria.
Government-wide databases include (1) the System for Award Management, which is
used to ensure applicants have maintained an active registration to do business with the
U.S. government and to confirm applicants have not been debarred, suspended, or
otherwise excluded by agencies; (2) the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity
Information System, which is the system OMB designated for maintaining information
about any civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings; and (3) the Federal Audit
Clearinghouse, which is the system OMB designated for nonfederal entities to transmit
their single audit information in cases where they have exceeded the threshold for
completing these audits. A single audit is an organization-wide financial statement and
federal awards audit of a nonfederal entity that expends $750,000 or more in federal funds
in 1 year.

Page 7

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


Figure 1: Typical Processes for Grants Awarded by Federal Agencies

Page 8

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


EDA Allocated Its
Appropriation toward
New Programs and
Established Some
New Evaluation
Criteria
EDA Funded New Grant
Initiatives and Has
Obligated Nearly All of the
Funds

ARPA provided $3 billion to EDA and allowed EDA to use up to 2 percent,
or $60 million, for expenses associated with administering the remaining
funds. This portion of the appropriation is available for obligation through
September 30, 2027. The rest of the appropriation—at least 98 percent,
or $2.94 billion—was for competitive and noncompetitive grants and
available for obligation through September 30, 2022. 14 Figure 2 shows the
allocation of EDA’s appropriation. Our analysis of EDA’s planned efforts
indicated that they were consistent with ARPA requirements.
Figure 2: EDA’s Planned Allocation of Its American Rescue Plan Act Appropriation,
by Spending Type

14Congress generally appropriates budget authority to an agency for use during a specific
period, referred to as the period of availability. In this period, the agency may incur new
obligations and charge them against the appropriation. At the end of the period of
availability, the appropriation expires, meaning the agency may not use it to incur new
obligations.

Page 9

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


EDA divided the grant-making portion of the appropriation among six new
initiatives intended to promote economic recovery from the COVID-19
pandemic and increase resilience to future economic disasters. The six
initiatives are all within EDA’s existing Economic Adjustment Assistance
program. 15 One initiative focused on the travel, tourism, and outdoor
recreation sectors to address the statutory requirement that 25 percent of
the appropriation, or $750 million, be used to support communities
affected by the decline in these industries during the pandemic. According
to EDA’s spending plan, to quickly provide support to these industries,
EDA allocated approximately two-thirds of these funds, or $510 million, to
noncompetitive grants for each state and territory. 16 EDA divided the
remaining 73 percent of the appropriation among five other initiatives.
Table 1 describes each of the six initiatives.
Table 1: EDA’s Planned Allocation of Its American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Appropriation
Allocation, dollars
in millions
(percentage of total)

ARPA initiative

Description

Build Back Better
Regional Challenge

Competitive grants to communities and regions for geographically clustered groups
of three to eight projects typical of EDA’s prior grants.a Clustered projects aim to
promote regional economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, build economic
diversity, and increase resilience to future economic disasters. EDA planned to
award larger amounts than its typical grants and to award coal communities $100
million under this initiative.

$1,000 (33.3%)

Travel, Tourism, and
Outdoor Recreation

Noncompetitive grants to states and territories for activities related to travel and
tourism, such as infrastructure, workforce support, and support for Destination
Marketing Organizations.b EDA allocated each state and territory different amounts
based on these industries’ prepandemic percentage of state gross domestic
product and their employment and gross domestic product loss in the travel and
tourism sectors during the pandemic.

$510
(17.0%)

15EDA’s Economic Adjustment Assistance program includes a portion of the agency’s

normal programming and all of its disaster-related programming, such as the grants made
using EDA’s CARES Act funding. EDA created these six ARPA initiatives under the same
authority as its normal programs. OMB also followed its usual process for reviewing new
programs by approving EDA’s ARPA spending plan and reviewing each ARPA initiative’s
notice of funding opportunity, according to EDA officials.
16Noncompetitive grantees included the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau. EDA used a formula to
calculate the amount of each grant based on the employment and gross domestic product
losses in each state’s and territory’s travel, tourism, and outdoor recreation industries as
defined by North American Industry Classification System categories 71 and 72.

Page 10

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


ARPA initiative

Allocation, dollars
in millions
(percentage of total)

Description
Competitive grants to communities and regions intended to rebuild and strengthen
the travel, tourism, and outdoor recreation industries through construction and
nonconstruction projects.

$240
(8.0%)

Good Jobs Challenge

Competitive grants to communities and regions for projects, with a focus on
workforce development. Grants aim to develop and strengthen regional
partnerships that generate well-paying jobs and advance workforce training. EDA
planned to award larger amounts than typical EDA grants.

$500
(16.7%)

Economic Adjustment
Assistance

Competitive grants typical of EDA’s prior awards to communities and regions for a
variety of construction, nonconstruction, and strategy development projects
intended to address the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and foster
long-term economic recovery and resilience. EDA planned to award coal
communities $200 million under this initiative.

$500
(16.7%)

Indigenous Communities
Challenge

Competitive grants to Indigenous communities for a broader range of projects than
EDA’s Economic Adjustment Assistance program typically funds, such as facilities
for vocational and higher education and community health. Grants aim to respond
to the specific economic development needs and priorities of these communities.

$100
(3.3%)

Statewide Planning,
Research, and Networks

Noncompetitive grants of $1 million to each state and territory to develop
coordinated plans for economic development.

$59
(2.0%)

Competitive grants to stakeholders for research projects tracking results and best
practices from other ARPA programs and to establish communities of practice for
groups of EDA grantees, including from the Build Back Better Regional and Good
Jobs Challenges.

$31
(1.0%)

Administrative costs

ARPA permitted EDA to use up to 2 percent of its appropriation for costs
associated with administration of the funds until September 30, 2027.

$60
(2.0)

Source: GAO analysis of Economic Development Administration (EDA) information. | GAO-23-105795
a
Competitive grants require potential grantees to submit an application for funding that is reviewed
and scored or assessed against evaluation criteria.
b
Noncompetitive grantees included the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the
Republic of Palau.

In accordance with EDA’s investment priorities, officials said they took
several steps intended to support an equitable economic recovery, which
refers to serving economically distressed communities that have had
difficulty accessing federal assistance programs in the past. 17 EDA
17EDA awarded ARPA funds in fiscal years 2021 and 2022. During this time, its
investment priorities were (1) equity, (2) recovery and resilience, (3) workforce
development, (4) manufacturing, (5) technology-based economic development, (6)
environmentally sustainable development, and (7) exports and foreign direct investment.
EDA’s equity investment priority includes economic development planning or
implementation projects that directly benefit (1) one or more traditionally underserved
populations or (2) underserved communities such as Tribal Lands, Persistent Poverty
Counties, and rural areas with demonstrated historical underservice.

Page 11

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


officials said the six new initiatives included both larger- and smaller-scale
initiatives to ensure that ARPA grants could be accessed by communities
with and without prior experience as EDA grantees. Larger-scale
initiatives provided an opportunity to implement regional strategic
planning efforts that were completed using EDA’s CARES Act grants,
while smaller-scale initiatives could reach communities without such plans
in place, according to officials. In addition, EDA designed specific
programs for underserved Indigenous and coal communities. EDA
allocated approximately 3 percent of its competitive ARPA grants to
Indigenous communities and 10 percent to communities affected by the
decline of the coal industry, and hired outreach directors to help
Indigenous, coal, and rural communities to apply for ARPA grants. 18
Our review of EDA’s data showed that EDA had obligated nearly 100
percent of the $3 billion appropriation as of December 31, 2022. Of the
portion of its appropriation that expired at the end of fiscal year 2022,
EDA had obligated all $2.94 billion to competitive and noncompetitive
grants. 19 In addition, EDA had expended 2.6 percent of the amount
obligated to grants as of December 31, 2022. EDA officials said they
asked grantees to plan to finish expending the grants several months
before the end of fiscal year 2027 so that any issues can be resolved
while the obligations remain available. EDA’s data also showed that the
agency had obligated 80 percent of the $60 million allocated to
administrative expenses, such as salaries, and expended most of the
obligated funds as of December 31, 2022. 20 Figure 3 shows the amounts
EDA had obligated and expended for each of the six ARPA initiatives and
administrative expenses as of December 31, 2022.

18Similar to EDA’s other disaster programs, the ARPA initiatives also expanded

accessibility by funding a larger portion of project costs and lowering the amount of
required matching funds. Specifically, EDA’s ARPA initiatives contributed at least 80
percent of project costs and up to 100 percent depending on whether the grantee’s region
met other thresholds for elevated need based on its relative economic distress. For its
existing grant programs, EDA typically funds 50 percent of project costs, or a maximum of
80 percent in certain circumstances.

19An expired appropriation account generally remains available for 5 years, during which
time an agency may use it to record, adjust, and make disbursements to liquidate
obligations that were properly chargeable to the account. A time-limited appropriation
account closes at the end of the 5-year period, unless an exception is made in law, and
any remaining obligated and unobligated balances are canceled. The closed appropriation
account may not be used for obligation or expenditure for any purpose.
20The remaining 21 percent of these funds will remain available for obligation until the end
of fiscal year 2027.

Page 12

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


Figure 3: Status of EDA’s American Rescue Plan Act Appropriation, as of December
31, 2022

EDA officials said they were able to obligate the large ARPA
appropriation during its period of availability by creating operational
efficiencies and adding staff. Specifically, EDA officials said that making
some larger-than-normal grants allowed them to benefit from economies
of scale in grant administration activities. For instance, EDA made grants
between $25 million and $65 million each under the Build Back Better
Regional Challenge. In addition, EDA officials said they structured some
ARPA initiatives to be similar to existing grant programs for consistency
with EDA’s previous efforts. For example, the Economic Adjustment
Assistance initiative used ARPA funds to award grants for projects similar
to those supported by the existing program of the same name. The Good
Jobs Challenge supported regional initiatives intended to increase job
growth and advance workforce training using tools developed under
EDA’s existing Build to Scale program. 21
Finally, EDA used its special hiring authority provided under the CARES
Act to add approximately 100 term staff (employees hired for a specified
21According to EDA’s website, the Build to Scale program aims to build regional

economies by furthering technology-based economic development initiatives that
accelerate high-quality job growth, create more economic opportunities, and support the
future of the next generation of industry-leading companies.

Page 13

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


period of time) to manage its CARES Act and ARPA appropriations,
according to officials. EDA distributed the workload for implementing the
new initiatives among its headquarters and regional offices. EDA officials
also said the agency established a team of 13 headquarters staff
dedicated to managing the ARPA portfolio, which is a structure unique to
these initiatives.
Overall, EDA awarded 780 grants across its six ARPA initiatives in fiscal
years 2021 and 2022. 22 In accordance with its spending plan, EDA’s data
showed that it obligated $569 million to 118 noncompetitive grants to
support states’ and territories’ travel, tourism, and outdoor recreation
industries and economic planning efforts. EDA also obligated $2.37 billion
to 661 competitive grants across its ARPA initiatives, as planned. EDA’s
data showed that together, nonprofit organizations, local government
agencies, and institutions of higher education received most of the
competitive grants (440 of 661) and approximately 70 percent of the total
amount EDA awarded competitively. 23 Nonprofit grantees included
organizations such as museums, hospitals, educational institutions, and
economic development organizations. They represented a mix of new
grantees and grantees that had previously received EDA funding in fiscal
year 2021.
As noted in table 1 above, EDA planned to award coal communities $300
million through two ARPA initiatives. 24 EDA’s competitive grants for coal
communities differed from the spending plan in two ways. First, these
communities received nearly twice the planned amount of funding.
Second, this funding was distributed under each of the six ARPA
initiatives rather than the two initiatives described in EDA’s plan. These
22Grants represented in the data discussed here sum to 779 rather than 780 because one

grant was deobligated, EDA officials told us. Overall, ARPA grants continue to total 780
because among the 779, one grantee received two grants that EDA consolidated in these
data. EDA has mjprovided an interactive map of ARPA grantees at
https://www.eda.gov/funding/programs/american-rescue-plan/impact. Additional
information, including each grant’s amount and project location, can be found at
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-23-105795.

23Grantees can be categorized as more than one type, according to EDA officials, and the
data summarized here reflect grantees’ self-identified type in some cases and the
judgment of EDA staff in others.
24For information about counties defined as areas with high concentrations of direct coalsector jobs, see Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and
Economic Revitalization, Initial Report to the President on Empowering Workers Through
Revitalizing Energy Communities (Washington, D.C.: April 2021).

Page 14

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


grants totaled approximately $550 million awarded through 146
competitive grants. According to EDA, funding for coal communities
exceeded the planned amount due to high demand for funding among
these communities.

EDA Used New and
Existing Evaluation
Criteria and Procedures to
Select Grants and Identify
Risks

The ARPA initiatives funded by EDA generally used evaluation criteria
similar to those of other EDA programs. We reviewed the 17 EDA
programs that awarded grants in fiscal years 2019 through 2021. The six
programs that were ARPA initiatives established criteria for evaluating
competitive grant applications that were similar to the criteria of the other
11 EDA programs. 25 Several evaluation criteria were consistent across
most of the programs we reviewed. For example, nearly all of the
programs evaluated the proposed projects’ feasibility and sustainability.
Most of the programs also required reviewers to assess applicants’
organizational capability. Each of these evaluation criteria is among those
that EDA’s grants manual lists as typical of its notices of funding
opportunity.
EDA added evaluation criteria related to economic distress and equity for
most of its ARPA initiatives. Specifically, four of the six ARPA initiatives
included the project area’s relative economic distress among their
evaluation criteria. 26 Eligibility for EDA grants is typically based on certain
measures of a geographic region’s economic distress; however, for

25Our analysis included all 17 programs EDA used to award grants during this period: six
ARPA initiatives, eight grant programs that distributed EDA’s annual appropriations, and
three grant programs that distributed other disaster-related supplemental appropriations.
EDA programs that distributed disaster-related supplemental appropriations in this time
frame were the (1) fiscal year 2019 disaster recovery program, (2) fiscal year 2020 Public
Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance, which was amended to distribute CARES
Act funds as well as annual appropriations, and (3) fiscal year 2020 Scaling Pandemic
Resilience through Innovation and Technology (SPRINT) Challenge, which distributed
CARES Act funds.
26Two of EDA’s ARPA initiatives did not include this evaluation criterion. Specifically, the
Good Jobs Challenge provided EDA grants officers with the option to consider relative
economic distress when making final award selection decisions, and the Statewide
Planning, Research, and Networks initiative did not consider relative economic distress in
its award decisions. As noted in table 1, the latter program awarded noncompetitive and
competitive grants intended to track results and best practices from the other five ARPA
initiatives and establish communities of practice for networks of new and existing EDA
grantees.

Page 15

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


EDA’s ARPA initiatives, all regions were eligible to apply. 27 In addition,
four of EDA’s ARPA initiatives included an evaluation criterion on the
extent to which applicants had a plan for ensuring that the proposed
project’s benefits were shared among the community. This criterion
encouraged efforts to reach historically underserved areas, rural areas,
minority populations, and women. According to a White House report on
agencies’ use of ARPA funds, this was a new criterion for EDA grants. 28
EDA officials said the agency used its standard application review
procedures for competitive grants under the six ARPA initiatives, with
modifications for some programs. EDA’s standard procedures include the
following steps: (1) program staff assess applications for completeness
and eligibility, (2) application reviewers consider the extent to which the
proposed projects meet the evaluation criteria, (3) these reviewers make
recommendations to grants officers, who are responsible for making final
award decisions, and (4) grants officers consider additional selection
factors, such as geographic diversity, and award grants. In addition to
these standard procedures, EDA made the following modifications for its
initiatives:
•

Prereview screening step. In the notice of funding opportunity for the
Economic Adjustment Assistance initiative, EDA described a new
prereview screening step intended to limit time spent assessing less
competitive applications to this initiative. 29 As part of this screening,
two reviewers assessed whether the proposed project was consistent
with EDA’s investment priorities and funding guidelines. Applications

2742 U.S.C. § 3161. Regions are eligible for EDA grants as a result of an elevated
unemployment rate, a below-average per capita income, or a special need as determined
by the Secretary of Commerce. EDA determined that economic injury from the COVID-19
pandemic constituted a special need, and that areas’ eligibility could be established on
that basis without reference to the other economic distress criteria.
28The White House, Advancing Equity Through the American Rescue Plan (Washington,
D.C.: May 2022), 129.
29The Economic Adjustment Assistance initiative did not require a specific focus area for
proposed projects or restrict the types of eligible applicants, and adding this screening
step helped EDA award funds more efficiently and accommodate the larger volume of
applications, according to officials. EDA did not require staff to conduct this
competitiveness review for proposed construction and nonconstruction projects, which do
not include the preparation or revision of a community economic development strategy.
EDA did not conduct this review for proposals related to the preparation or revision of a
community economic development strategy.

Page 16

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


received further consideration only if the reviewers agreed the project
met these criteria. 30
•

Consultations with subject-matter experts. EDA officials said that
the need to consult with agencies varies among its different types of
grant programs, and that while some programs will consult with other
agencies when it adds value, it is not a standard practice. EDA
officials also said they consulted subject-matter experts within other
agencies more frequently when reviewing applications to the Good
Jobs Challenge and the Build Back Better Regional Challenge, which
received more complex proposals than other ARPA initiatives. For
example, officials said more than half of the 50 application reviewers
for both programs were from other agencies, such as the
Departments of Labor and Education.

•

Grants awarded in two stages. EDA implemented its Build Back
Better Regional Challenge, the ARPA initiative that distributed the
most funding, in two stages. At the end of the first stage, EDA
awarded grants of approximately $500,000 for technical assistance to
each of the 60 applicants selected as finalists. EDA officials said
these awards were intended to support the finalists’ applications for
the second phase, such as completing environmental studies for
proposed construction projects. EDA officials also said that before
awarding the final grants, EDA worked with external reviewers who
were knowledgeable about the types of proposed projects to evaluate
finalists’ applications. At the end of the second phase, EDA selected
21 grantees. Officials said EDA has used a two-stage review process
before, although it is not typical. EDA officials said that awarding
grants in two stages ensured that finalists who were not ultimately
selected were still able to benefit from the technical grants, which
were intended to foster economic development in finalists’
communities.

As part of the application review for all programs, EDA officials said they
used the agency’s standard process by applying a checklist to identify
potential risks posed by applicants prior to awarding ARPA grants, such
as fraud or poor performance. According to EDA’s grants manual and
officials, EDA assesses applicants by considering the following factors:

30Competitiveness review criteria also included factors such as the availability and
committed nature of matching funds, the project’s alignment with a regional or other EDAaccepted economic development strategy, and the likelihood of the project starting
quickly.

Page 17

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


•

Budget. EDA reviews applications for clear budget information and
determines whether the costs listed are allowable per the grant
program and OMB’s Uniform Guidance.

•

Federal debt. EDA verifies on a government-wide database that the
applicant is not delinquent on any federal debt.

•

Past performance. EDA considers the applicant’s experience with
federal or state grants and other agreements, such as contracts,
including by reviewing government-wide databases and consulting
with other agencies that have prior experience with applicants.

•

Capacity. If the applicant does not have a single audit on file, EDA
gathers information from the applicant about its organizational
capacity to manage the grant, such as staff experience or financial
management practices.

EDA officials said their standard applicant review allows them to prioritize
capable grantees for funding. They said that when the review process
identifies issues with promising potential grantees, EDA may take steps to
mitigate those issues. For example, a grantee with a history of
commingling money might be asked to set up a separate bank account.
EDA officials also said they may reimburse some higher-risk entities or
activities rather than disbursing funds in advance. 31
We reviewed the files for six ARPA grants and found that EDA generally
completed the steps of its application review process for each grant.
Based on our review, the files for all six grants indicated that EDA had
reviewed budget information, such as project cost estimates, and
documented that the applicants were not delinquent on any federal debt.
Further, each file we reviewed showed that EDA reviewers had evaluated
applicants’ past performance by retrieving available information from each
government-wide database, as required.
Based on our review, the grant files indicated that EDA had evaluated the
grantees’ capacity. New or less experienced grantees may not have
records in government-wide databases. Files for two of the six grants we
reviewed showed that in the absence of these records, EDA reviewers
considered other documentation. For example, EDA reviewed these
31The White House, Advancing Equity, 124–25. According to a White House report, EDA
grants are intended to make it easier for businesses to start and grow, particularly in
underserved or economically distressed communities. Officials said that to achieve this
goal, EDA awards some grants to entities that have limited experience with federal or
state grants and other agreements, such as contracts, and are considered higher risk as a
result.

Page 18

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


grantees’ independent auditor reports on financial statements and
descriptions of key personnel experiences. Files for four of the grants
related to grantees with prior experience managing EDA or other grants.
For these grants, EDA used the information on file in government-wide
databases to confirm that single audits and other performance reporting
did not indicate elevated risk.

EDA Plans to Monitor
Awards Using Existing
Procedures

According to officials, EDA plans to use existing procedures to monitor
ARPA awards. 32 These procedures are as follows:
Communicate requirements. EDA grantees must sign agreements to
comply with the Department of Commerce’s Standard Terms and
Conditions, which require grantees to submit financial and performance
reports at regular intervals. 33 EDA grantees undertaking nonconstruction
projects report this information semiannually. Grantees completing
construction projects report at 3, 6, and 9 years after a construction
award. For the Build Back Better Regional Challenge and the Good Jobs
Challenge, EDA will require grantees to report on additional metrics by
responding to newly created questionnaires. 34
According to EDA’s grants manual, grants officers may also create
special award terms and conditions that are specific to a particular grant,
in consultation with the Regional Counsel. These terms and conditions
may establish more frequent reporting requirements or stipulate that EDA
will reimburse certain types of expenditures. Grantees are to attend an
orientation session to learn about these requirements. According to EDA
officials, grantees must also develop specific grant requirements using a

32The Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General received $3 million in ARPA

funds for its oversight of EDA’s pandemic relief efforts. According to the office, these funds
will be used for monitoring and to identify possible misuse of funds.

33EDA grantees complete these financial reports using standard federal post-award
reporting forms, including the Federal Financial Report (SF-425), Request for Advance or
Reimbursement (SF-270), and Outlay Report and Request for Reimbursement for
Construction Programs (SF-271). Grantees complete these performance reports using
EDA’s standard forms, such as the Semiannual Program Outputs Questionnaire (ED-916)
and the Annual Capacity Outcomes Questionnaire (ED-917 and ED-918). These forms
collect and report on performance measures in compliance with the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993, as amended by the GPRA Modernization Act of
2010.
34In addition, according to EDA officials, several research organizations received ARPA

grants to assist EDA with tracking and evaluating Build Back Better Regional Challenge
grants because this program is different from traditional EDA programs.

Page 19

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


grant management plan. These plans identify key personnel and propose
a project implementation schedule and financial plan.
Monitor progress. EDA officials said that staff review and compare
grantees’ financial and performance reports to identify any discrepancies
and assess whether grantees’ spending appears to align with their
reported progress. Grantees typically complete semiannual reports that
compare actual accomplishments against the objectives established for
the reporting period. They also must provide reasons for not meeting
established goals, as applicable, with a description of any actions taken to
resolve the situation. In addition, grantees complete annual performance
reporting related to specific outcomes listed in the award. For example,
for projects with workforce development outcomes, grantees report on
new skills gained by participants and the number of participants using
those new skills.
In addition, EDA officials said they have conducted site visits for all
grantees of the Build Back Better Regional Challenge and the Good Jobs
Challenge. For the other four ARPA initiatives, EDA plans to conduct site
visits on a random basis or when EDA suspects a problem, similar to
EDA’s typical grant programs, according to officials. During these visits,
EDA staff monitor and document project progress and take steps to
resolve any issues or expedite delayed projects. 35
Review single audits. In cases where grantees’ expenditures meet or
exceed the threshold for completing single audits, officials said EDA
monitors the results of these audits. Single audits are performed by an
independent auditor, and the results allow EDA to monitor grantees’ plans
to correct any deficiencies identified in their financial practices and
reporting. In 2022, OMB’s guidance for independent auditors who conduct
single audits included updates related to audits of EDA’s ARPA
grantees. 36 For example, the guidance notes that some grants made

35For construction projects, the EDA engineer or construction manager is responsible for
conducting site visits.
36Office of Management and Budget, 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix XI: Compliance

Supplement (Washington, D.C.: April 2022).

Page 20

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


under the Good Jobs Challenge allow participant support costs, whereas
typical EDA grants do not allow such costs. 37
EDA officials said they had sufficient resources to effectively monitor
ARPA grantees. They said EDA’s recently hired contractors and staff
included those with workforce expertise relevant to the Good Jobs
Challenge. EDA also hired an environmental contractor to mitigate
potential risks related to processing construction loans on a strict timeline,
EDA officials said. In addition, EDA officials said they expect an increase
in single audits and plan to provide additional training for staff in 2023 on
single audit requirements.

EPA Funded Multiple
Initiatives and
Adjusted Some
Selection Procedures
EPA Funded Multiple
Initiatives, Including New
and Existing Grants, and
Has Obligated More Than
Half of the Funds

ARPA directed EPA to allocate its $100 million appropriation for two
purposes:
•

$50 million for grants, contracts, and agency activities that identify and
address disproportionate environmental or public health concerns in
minority populations or low-income populations, 38 and

372 C.F.R § 200.1 defines participant support costs as direct costs for items such as
stipends or subsistence allowances, travel allowances, and registration fees paid to or on
behalf of participants or trainees (but not employees) in connection with conferences or
training projects.
38Section 6002 of ARPA requires that EPA use legal authority under section 103(b) of the
Clean Air Act, section 1442 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, section 104(k)(7)(A) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, and
sections 791-797 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to implement the allocation of $50
million to disproportionate environmental or public health harms and risks in minority or
low-income populations. We refer to initiatives that address disproportionate
environmental or public health harms and risks in minority or low-income populations as
programs that address “environmental or public health harms.”

Page 21

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


•

$50 million for grants and agency activities that are authorized under
sections 103(a) through 103(c) and section 105 of the Clean Air Act. 39

EPA created a spending plan consistent with these requirements and
allocated its appropriation to a mixture of grants, rebates, administrative
expenses, and agency services, among other things (see fig. 4). 40 Our
analysis of EPA’s planned efforts indicates that they were consistent with
ARPA requirements.
Figure 4: EPA’s Planned Allocation of Its American Rescue Plan Act Appropriation,
by Spending Type

39ARPA also directed EPA to use 2 percent of the $50 million appropriated for health
outcome disparities and 5 percent of the $50 million provided for air quality monitoring
funds for administrative costs. Sections 103(a) through 103(c) of the Clean Air Act
authorize EPA activities related to research and development for air pollution prevention
and control and air pollutant monitoring, analysis, and modeling research. Section 105 of
the Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to make grants to air pollution agencies to
support air pollution planning and control programs. We refer to initiatives that address air
quality monitoring and enforcement authorized under sections 103(a) through 103(c) and
105 of the Clean Air Act as “air quality monitoring.”
40Environmental Protection Agency, “Environmental Justice Funding under the ARP” (Mar.
31, 2022), accessed May 16, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/arp/environmental-justicefunding-under-arp. For the purposes of this report, contracts are included under agency
services. EPA also made competitive grants, which were awarded based on competitive
grant competitions, and noncompetitive grants or awards, which EPA refers to as direct
awards. For the purposes of this report, we refer to direct awards as noncompetitive
awards.

Page 22

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program
The Environmental Protection Agency used its
American Rescue Plan Act appropriation to
allocate funds toward a new program, the
2021 American Rescue Plan Electric School
Bus Rebates program. Rebate programs are
incentive programs where consumers receive
a monetary incentive to cover a cost.
The program specifically targets eligible
underserved public school districts, tribal
schools, and private fleets serving those
schools. It funds the replacement of old diesel
school buses with new electric school buses
that meet current emissions standards.
The new program runs concurrently with the
existing Diesel Emissions Reduction Act
School Bus Rebates program.

EPA’s spending plan allocated $50 million toward addressing
environmental or public health harms by providing funding to 12
initiatives, such as Safe Drinking Water Act programs, Brownfields
projects, and the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program (see table 2).
EPA also allocated $50 million toward air quality monitoring primarily
through $42.5 million to a State and Local Air Quality Management
program for categorical grants to support state and local partners. 41
Based on its spending plan, EPA split the $42.5 million into two types of
grants: (1) $22.5 million to noncompetitive awards for state and local air
quality management and (2) $20 million for a new competitive grant
program, Enhanced Air Quality Monitoring for Communities.

Source: GAO. I GAO 23 105795

Table 2: EPA’s Planned Allocation of Its American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Appropriation

ARPA initiative

Allocation, dollars
in millions
(percentage of total)

Description
(legal authority)

Activities that identify and address disproportionate environmental or public health harms and risks in minority or lowincome populations
Environmental Justicea

Funding supports several environmental justice efforts, including
noncompetitive state and competitive small grants for environmental justice
projects, the Puerto Rico Drinking Water Systems capacity assessment, and
the Appalachia Initiative for Revitalization. Funding also supports enhancing
community involvement in tribal environmental management; technical
assistance in communities with environmental justice concerns; and training in
environmental science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (commonly
known as STEM) for youth with environmental justice concerns.
(Clean Air Act Sec. 103(b) and Safe Drinking Water Act Sec. 1442)

$18.25 (18.3%)

Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act Programb

Funding provides rebates for electric school buses to reduce emissions from
diesel fleets in underserved communities.
(Energy Policy Act of 2005 Sections 791 through 797)

$7 (7.0%)

Brownfields Projects

Grant funds support economic and environmental revitalization in
overburdened communities.
(Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 Sec. 104(k)(7))

$5 (5.0%)

41See GAO, Air Pollution: Opportunities to Better Sustain and Modernize the National Air
Quality Monitoring System, GAO-21-38 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12, 2020). The new
program awards grants to eligible entities, which include states, Tribes, and public or
private nonprofit organizations, among other entities, to conduct ambient air monitoring of
pollutants of greatest concern in communities with environmental and health outcome
disparities stemming from pollution and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Page 23

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


ARPA initiative

Allocation, dollars
in millions
(percentage of total)

Description
(legal authority)

Children and Other
Sensitive Populations

Funding supports the Children’s Healthy Learning Environments Grant and
Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units, as well as efforts to build
capacity in environmental justice communities to reduce environmental
exposure in child settings and mitigate COVID-19 environmental health risks
for children. Funding will also enable EPA to incorporate children’s health
disparities and susceptibility into risk assessments and policy development.
(Clean Air Act Sec. 103(b) and Safe Drinking Water Act Sec. 1442)

$4.85 (4.9%)

Civil Enforcement

Funding supports monitoring in communities with environmental justice
concerns for air toxics, hazardous metals, and drinking water sources, as well
as analysis of oil and gas production and refining.
(Clean Air Act Sec. 103(b) and Safe Drinking Water Act Sec. 1442)

$4.83 (4.8%)

Drinking Water Programs

Funding supports efforts under the Safe Drinking Water Act to provide
assistance, including research, training, and technical assistance, to Tribes
and underfunded drinking water systems.
(Safe Drinking Water Act Sec. 1442)

$2.65 (2.7%)

Integrated Environmental
Strategies

Funding supports efforts to enhance community-driven solutions to water and
air issues in environmental justice communities, as well as to align school
reopening investments with clean air and neighborhood cooling shelter needs.
(Clean Air Act Sec. 103(b) and Safe Drinking Water Act Sec. 1442)

$2.15 (2.2%)

Compliance Monitoring

Funding enables technical assistance for small and underserved public water
facilities, as well as integration of environmental justice considerations into
EPA’s permit-writing process.
(Safe Drinking Water Act Sec.1442)

$2.05 (2.1%)

Environmental Justice
(administrative
expenses)c

Funding supports administrative costs pursuant to the 2 percent reserved in
the law for this purpose.
(ARPA Sec. 6002(b)(1))

$1 (1.0%)

Regulatory/Economic
Management and
Analysis

Funding supports the development of the Environmental Justice Analysis Tool,
a multisite report tool, and other environmental justice resources.
(Clean Air Act Sec. 103(b) and Safe Drinking Water Act Sec. 1442)

$0.72 (0.7%)

Climate Protection
Program

Funding supports data analytics to identify environmental-justice-related
cumulative burden and better incorporate environmental justice into regulatory
analysis and policy modeling.
(Clean Air Act Sec. 103(b) and Safe Drinking Water Act Sec. 1442)

$0.7 (0.7%)

Federal Stationary Source Funding supports environmental justice impact analysis of oil and gas
Regulations
emissions and related outreach.
(Clean Air Act Sec. 103(b))

$0.5 (0.5%)

Criminal Enforcement

$0.3 (0.3%)

Funding supports increased efforts to identify victims of environmental crimes
and support investigations.
(Clean Air Act Sec. 103(b) and Safe Drinking Water Act Sec. 1442)

Subtotal

$50 (50.0%)

Page 24

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


ARPA initiative

Allocation, dollars
in millions
(percentage of total)

Description
(legal authority)

Clean Air Act activities
Categorical Grant: State
and Local Air Quality
Management

Funding supports state and local implementing partners in monitoring and
addressing air concerns in communities.
(Clean Air Act Sec.105)

Federal Support for Air
Quality Management

Funding helps to build regional capability to meet short-term community
monitoring needs.
(Clean Air Act Sec.103(b))

$42.5 (42.5%)

$5 (5.0%)

Federal Support for Air
Funding supports administrative costs pursuant to the 5 percent reserved in
Quality Management
the law for this purpose.
(administrative expenses) (ARPA Sec. 6002(b)(2))

$2.5 (2.5%)

Subtotal

$50 (50.0%)

Total

$100 (100.0%)

Source: GAO analysis of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) information. | GAO-23-105795
a
According to EPA, “environmental justice” is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all
people regardless of race, color, culture, national origin, income, and educational level with respect to
the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
b
Since the publication of the spending plan, EPA officials stated that they moved $100,000 originally
allocated to Diesel Emissions Reduction Act funding into the Enhanced Regional Capacity for Short
Term Community Monitoring Needs program within the State and Local Air Quality Management
initiative. EPA officials stated that they still used this funding for activities that meet ARPA’s
environmental or health harms requirements.
c
This was not included in the list of 12 initiatives but the money was set aside for the purpose of
administrative expenses.

To determine its ARPA allocations, EPA officials said they reviewed
statutory requirements to guide implementation of the requirements. In
addition, EPA officials said EPA counsel analyzed ARPA language to
determine congressional intent to inform agency priorities. This analysis
also identified specific legal authorities EPA would use for each planned
initiative using ARPA funds to ensure that EPA was in accordance with
the statute’s requirements, officials said.
To further inform its ARPA allocations, EPA asked state, local, and tribal
governments to identify their air quality monitoring priorities for EPA’s
noncompetitive awards related to air quality. According to EPA officials,
EPA solicited stakeholder feedback in August 2021 through four feedback
sessions with the following groups: (1) National Association of Clean Air
Agencies, (2) Association of Pollution Control Agencies, (3) Tribal
Nations, and (4) any organizations and groups interested in community
air quality monitoring. Officials said EPA’s regional offices reported each
region’s air quality monitoring priorities and needs to EPA’s Office of Air

Page 25

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


and Radiation, which helped inform the scope of EPA’s three ARPA air
quality monitoring initiatives. 42
EPA had obligated approximately 67 percent of its ARPA appropriations
as of January 3, 2023. 43 This included 83 percent of the funds allocated to
environmental or health harms and 52 percent of the funds allocated to
clean air monitoring (see fig. 5). Of these obligated funds, expenditures
were 8 percent. See appendix I for additional information on EPA’s
obligations and expenditures for ARPA.
Figure 5: Status of EPA’s American Rescue Plan Act Appropriation, as of January 3,
2023

EPA officials said they addressed potential challenges associated with
budgeting for a larger-than-usual appropriation by leveraging ongoing
grant programs and meeting with stakeholders including state, local, and
tribal governments. EPA obligated much of the ARPA appropriation within
42EPA awards and manages its grants at multiple levels across the agency, including its
headquarters and 10 national program offices. The Office of Grants and Debarment in its
headquarters office develops national grant policies and guidance, awards some grants,
and oversees EPA’s grants management agency-wide. Headquarters program offices
implement national policies for their grant programs. Both headquarters program offices
and regional offices award and manage grants, including by providing technical and
program-specific oversight of their grants.
43Funds provided under ARPA are available until expended by the agency.

Page 26

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


the first year using existing procedures and ongoing grant programs. 44
EPA officials said EPA awarded ARPA funds through ongoing competitive
grant programs by extending the open period for competition and
adjusting the requirements to align with ARPA. EPA was able to fund
additional existing high-scoring proposals from state, local, and tribal
governments if their proposals contained an environmental harm and
COVID-19 nexus, as required under ARPA. In addition, EPA officials
noted that they helped Tribes apply for grants under ARPA, such as by
aligning ARPA grant deadlines with the other tribal grant cycles in fall
2022.

EPA Adjusted Existing
Evaluation Criteria and
Procedures to Review
Applications and Identify
Risks

EPA primarily used existing procedures with minor changes to evaluate
applications and award grants under ARPA, according to our review of 10
EPA programs that awarded competitive grants in fiscal years 2019
through 2021. EPA’s Policy for Competition of Assistance Agreements
states that these procedures include the following steps: (1) reviewing
and assessing all applications against eligibility criteria and (2) reviewing
and assessing eligible applications for technical merit against evaluation
criteria through panels. 45 EPA then completes an additional pre-award
review to ensure selected applications meet programmatic and
administrative grant requirements by reviewing self-reported applicant
information and government-wide databases. We reviewed all files for
three judgmentally selected competitive grants and found that EPA
completed all of these existing procedures for evaluating applications for
awarding grants. 46
EPA officials cited three key areas where EPA modified its existing
procedures to meet specific needs under ARPA—a required legal
44Additional information, including each grant’s amount and project location, can be found

at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-23-105795.

45Environmental Protection Agency, Policy for Competition of Assistance Agreements,
Order No. 5700.5A1 (Jan. 11, 2005). For the first step, EPA headquarters screens each
application for the grant program’s threshold eligibility criteria to determine which
applications meet all the identified criteria and can move to the merit evaluation step.
During the evaluation step, EPA officials organize review panels that review and score the
remaining applications based on evaluation criteria identified in the funding announcement
for each grant program. For the final selection process, review panels present a list of their
preliminary funding recommendations for the highest scoring applications to the EPA
selection official. The selection official then makes the final selections for the awards.
46We selected these files to reflect grants made under new and existing programs and a
range of funding amounts and project locations.

Page 27

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


compliance review, new evaluation criteria, and an adjusted risk review to
accommodate new applicants:
•

Legal compliance review. According to EPA officials, to ensure
projects’ eligibility, EPA required a legal compliance review for all
applications for ARPA grant programs earlier than is typical. Officials
said that while the agency always has the option to consult its
attorneys for an additional legal compliance review before final
selection, these reviews are typically done later, near the final
selection. According to our analysis of EPA legal compliance reviews,
EPA completed these reviews for competitive and noncompetitive
grant programs under ARPA both during the initial review of proposals
and after final selection to ensure compliance. 47
During these reviews, EPA’s attorneys typically (1) identified potential
legal compliance issues, such as projects that included ineligible
activities, and (2) determined actions to resolve these concerns, if
any. As a result of these reviews, EPA officials determined in some
cases that EPA could partially fund some projects using the ARPA
appropriation, specifically for eligible activities identified in
proposals. 48 For example, one Technical Assistance to Brownfields
grantee file we reviewed showed that EPA awarded project funding
under both ARPA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act Section 104(k)(7) to assist
communities. 49

•

New evaluation criteria. EPA primarily used existing competitive
grant programs with minor modifications to make awards under ARPA
but increased the importance of environmental justice, consistent with

47EPA officials said EPA also conducted legal compliance reviews for its contracts
awarded under ARPA.
48EPA officials also worked with applicants to clarify or adjust activities to ensure their
legal compliance under ARPA or awarded projects using non-ARPA appropriations if the
selected project was not eligible under ARPA but was eligible under other appropriations
identified in the funding announcement.
49The Technical Assistance to Brownfield Communities grant program solicited
applications from eligible entities to provide technical assistance to support communities in
assessing, cleaning up, and preparing brownfield sites for redevelopment. EPA defines
“brownfield sites” as real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may
be complicated by the presence or potential presence of hazards, such as pollutants. The
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Section 104(k)
provides federal financial assistance authorities for brownfields revitalization.

Page 28

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


EPA’s interpretation of Section 6002 of ARPA. 50 We found that EPA
used similar evaluation criteria for most of these competitive grant
programs. According to EPA officials, to align with EPA authorities
under ARPA, proposals included requirements different from typical
requirements. For example, ARPA grant proposals had to address
disproportionate environmental or public health harms and risks in
minority or low-income populations. Additionally, the Enhanced Air
Quality Monitoring for Communities competition included a new
evaluation criterion focused on environmental justice and underserved
communities. 51
EPA officials said “environmental justice and underserved
communities” was a selection factor in some non-ARPA grants, but
had higher importance in selecting ARPA grants. 52 Previously, EPA’s
selection official could optionally consider this selection factor when
making final award selections from only the highest-ranking
applications. This was the first time EPA used environmental justice
and underserved communities as a top consideration for making
awards, officials said.
•

Adjusted risk review to accommodate new applicants. According
to EPA officials, EPA adjusted its risk review of applicants’ past
performance in managing grants in anticipation of the number of new

50EPA defines “environmental justice” as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
all people regardless of race, color, culture, national origin, income, and educational level
with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.
51EPA used this criterion for this grant program to evaluate applications based on the
quality and extent to which the project benefits people/communities of color, low-income
populations, or tribal and Indigenous populations that have been or are currently affected
by disproportionate health outcomes from pollution and the COVID-19 pandemic.
52Environmental Protection Agency, Policy for Competition of Assistance Agreements.
EPA’s selection official can consider additional selection factors when making funding
recommendations for the award among high-ranking applications, but EPA does not use
additional factors when scoring applications. According to EPA officials, the selection
official’s primary responsibility is to ensure that the applications selected for award are for
eligible projects with technical merit, based on the terms of the announcement. According
to EPA’s competition policy, the selection official cannot depart from the rankings of the
review panel on the basis of undisclosed selection criteria, personal preference, or
information that is not reasonably related to the evaluation factors in the announcement.

Page 29

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


grant applicants under ARPA. 53 EPA gave new applicants the option
to state in their past performance review that they had no prior
experience managing federal grants. In these cases, EPA would
consider the new applicants’ past performance managing non-federal
grants, such as local grants from foundations, EPA officials said. One
grantee file we reviewed had an applicant that had no prior
experience managing federal grants. EPA’s documentation showed
that it assessed the applicant’s non–federally funded grant
management history based on the information provided by the
grantee.
After the final selection of applications for awards under ARPA, officials
said EPA conducted its standard pre-award review procedures to identify
risks prior to making awards official. EPA’s Comprehensive Administrative
Review outlines these procedures, which include consideration of the
following factors when screening grantees:
•

Budget. EPA is to review applications for clear budget information,
such as cost estimates, to determine whether the costs listed are
allowable per the grant program and OMB’s Uniform Guidance.

•

Federal debt. EPA is to verify that applicants are not delinquent on
any federal debt by collecting self-reported documentation from the
applicant.

•

Past performance. EPA is to consider the applicant’s experience with
managing federal and other grants by reviewing government-wide
databases.

•

Capacity. If the applicant does not have a single audit on file, EPA is
to gather information from the applicant about its organizational
capacity to manage the grant, such as staff experience or financial
management practices.

53According to EPA officials, EPA received many new applicants for its competitive grants
under ARPA because EPA set aside money specifically for small nonprofit organizations.
For example, EPA’s Environmental Justice Small Grants program set aside half of its
funding ($3.6 million) with the intent of promoting environmental justice funding to
communities and grassroots organizations with the most need. Officials said for the
Environmental Justice Small Grants program, small nonprofit organizations had to prove
they had 10 or fewer full-time equivalent staff to be considered for the set-aside money.

Page 30

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


•

Risk evaluations. EPA is to conduct an additional risk evaluation
using a grants screening checklist before the selected recipient is able
to draw down the funds. 54

Files for all five grants we reviewed indicated that EPA completed its preaward review process. 55 For all five grants, EPA notified applicants of the
information it used to assess their ability to properly manage grants prior
to making awards. Our review of grant files also indicated that for all five
grants, EPA reviewed certain financial information, such as project cost
estimates, and documented that the applicants were not delinquent on
any federal debt. The files also showed that EPA reviewers retrieved
available information about applicants’ past performance from the
applicable government-wide database, as required.

EPA Plans to Monitor
Awards Using Existing
Procedures

According to officials, EPA plans to use existing procedures as described
in its Policy on Compliance, Review and Monitoring to monitor ARPA
awards and mitigate any identified risks. 56 Since EPA has not begun
monitoring ARPA grants, it is too early to review its monitoring activities. 57
Its monitoring procedures are to include the following:
Set and communicate requirements. EPA officials said the responsible
program office is to ensure that grantees meet grant milestones and
complete project work. Specifically, EPA’s monitoring policy directs
54Additionally, EPA typically conducts a pre-award certification and capability assessment

review for nonprofit applicants that receive more than $200,000. EPA officials explained
that nonprofit organizations have a history of being high risk. For example, EPA’s Office of
Inspector General identified instances where nonprofit recipients had inadequate
administrative systems to manage EPA funds or lack of capability to successfully perform
the project scope of work. This review includes examining if applicants’ written policies
and procedures comply with OMB guidance and if administrative and financial
management systems are sufficient for managing and documenting federal grant
appropriations. EPA officials said this review is required before the recipient can draw
down any funds.
55We reviewed five grants: two noncompetitive grants and three competitive grants. All

five grants involved projects derived from ARPA funds. Of the three competitive grants we
reviewed, all three were cooperative agreements. EPA officials said such agreements
require substantial involvement from the EPA project officer in the form of regular
meetings and approval of draft deliverables as part of the pre-award process.
56Environmental Protection Agency, Policy on Compliance, Review and Monitoring, Order
No. 5700.6A2 CHG 2 (Sept. 24, 2007).
57Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Fiscal Year 2023
Oversight Plan (Jan. 9, 2023). EPA’s Office of Inspector General plans to conduct two
audits to provide oversight of EPA’s awards and distribution of ARPA funds, in accordance
with Section 6002 of ARPA.

Page 31

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


project officers, the points of contact for grantees, to review grantees’
progress in and compliance with an award’s scope of work, terms and
conditions, and regulatory requirements at least annually. According to
officials, EPA makes grantees aware of their reporting and audit
requirements when they agree to the terms and conditions placed on the
award.
Monitor progress. EPA’s monitoring policy requires EPA officials to
periodically review grantees’ progress in meeting the requirements of
their scope of work. In addition, EPA is to monitor compliance with
awards’ specific terms and conditions and any applicable regulatory
requirements. It can do so by determining if grantee progress reports
adequately address progress in achieving agreed-upon outputs and
outcomes. Under this policy, EPA also may conduct in-depth reviews of
grantees’ progress, management, and expectations either on-site or offsite.
According to award files we reviewed, grantees may be required to report
on the status of the project, project expenditures of federal dollars, and
any significant discrepancies from outcomes identified in the project’s
proposal. For example, one grantee was required to report on activities
related to several outcomes, such as improved air quality in early learning
environments for children.
EPA communicates any findings from its monitoring activities, including
unallowed costs, to grantees. It then works with grantees to address any
need for corrective actions, EPA officials said. For example, officials said
they may provide technical assistance to a grantee if documentation
shows potential use of funds for unallowable costs. If such concerns are
not rectified, EPA may move the grantee to a reimbursement limitation
model rather than paying grant funds in advance of costs. 58 EPA officials
said that if the agency identifies cases of incorrect use or insufficient
documentation, grantees must repay grant funds.
Review single audits. According to EPA officials, EPA did not modify its
single audit review instructions in response to ARPA. EPA officials said
they are currently revising their audit procedures, as EPA transferred the
58EPA defines “reimbursement limitation” as EPA financial obligations to a recipient that
are limited by the amount of federal funding awarded to date as reflected on the award. If
the recipient incurs costs in anticipation of receiving additional funds from EPA, it does so
at its own risk.

Page 32

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


responsibility of being the single audit coordinator to the Office of Grants
and Debarment. 59 For ARPA, EPA officials said EPA initially used its
typical procedure by reviewing the results of the single audit, as
applicable, and working with grantees on a corrective action plan to
address any issues.
EPA officials told us they expect to complete these revisions in the
second quarter of 2023, and they will apply to single audits for all grants,
including ARPA. The single audit coordinator refers any issues identified
to EPA’s grant management officers and respective agency audit followup coordinators, officials said. 60 These officers and coordinators are to
establish internal controls to ensure projects implement corrective action
plans for the identified issues. EPA officials said the officers and
coordinators are then responsible for ensuring that there are no repeat
audit findings in subsequent years.

FWS Allocated Its
Appropriation to
Some New Programs
and Plans to Use
Existing Monitoring
Procedures

59According to EPA officials, a single audit coordinator is responsible for reviewing the
Single Audit Clearinghouse for any single audits with adverse federal award findings that
affect EPA programs or dollars. EPA officials said that until September 2022, the EPA
Office of the Inspector General served as EPA’s single audit coordinator. EPA transferred
this responsibility so that the EPA Office of Inspector General could maintain its
independence from the project.
60EPA grants management officers are responsible for all business management
associated with the review, negotiation, award, and administration of grants, including
audit resolution. EPA audit follow-up coordinators are responsible for coordinating and
maintaining records of audit management activities within their organizations.

Page 33

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


FWS Funded New
Programs and Expanded
Services and Has
Obligated Almost Half of
the Funds

ARPA directed FWS to allocate its $105 million appropriation as follows:
•

$20 million for wildlife inspections, interdictions, and investigations
and to other activities addressing wildlife trafficking;

•

$30 million for the care of species listed under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, rescued/confiscated species, or federal trust
species in facilities that lost revenue due to COVID-19; 61

•

$45 million for research and other activities to improve early detection
and response to wildlife disease outbreaks and wildlife health
monitoring; and

•

$10 million for enforcement of the Lacey Act provisions controlling
injurious species. 62

To address these requirements, FWS developed a spending plan that
included a mix of agency services, reimbursements, and grants (see fig.
6). Our analysis of these planned efforts indicates that they were
consistent with ARPA requirements.

61Pub. L. No. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884 (1973) (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-

1544).

6218 U.S.C. § 42(a); 16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-3378. The Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, as

amended, provide that the Secretary of the Interior designate injurious wildlife and ensure
the humane treatment of wildlife shipped to the United States; prohibit importation,
exportation, transportation, sale, or purchase of fish and wildlife taken or possessed in
violation of state, federal, tribal, and foreign laws; and provide for enforcement of federal
wildlife laws and federal assistance to the states and foreign governments in the
enforcement of nonfederal wildlife laws.

Page 34

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


Figure 6: FWS’s Planned Allocation of Its American Rescue Plan Act Appropriation,
by Spending Type

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Table 3 describes the 11 initiatives to which FWS allocated its ARPA
appropriation. FWS allocated approximately 44 percent of funds toward
the expansion of agency services. For example, in part due to ARPA’s
requirement to address wildlife trafficking, FWS created a Zoonotic
Disease Task Force and a wildlife health information-sharing reporting
system. FWS also created a program to reimburse zoos and aquariums
for losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic (accounting for 29 percent of
the agency’s ARPA allocations). FWS also created grant programs for
states and Tribes to address ARPA’s direction to improve detection and
response to wildlife disease outbreaks (accounting for 26 percent of the
agency’s ARPA allocations). 63

63Additional information, including each grant’s amount and project location, can be found

at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-23-105795.

Page 35

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


Table 3: FWS’s Planned Allocation of Its American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Appropriation

ARPA initiatives

Allocation, dollars
in millions
(percentage of total)

Description

Wildlife Trafficking Enforcement
Zoonotic Disease
Taskforce

Funding supports the development of a pandemic prevention framework to identify
imports of species at risk for carrying zoonotic disease. Implementation of the
framework will require personnel, training supplies, contracts for laboratory testing,
and a shared database, and the framework will facilitate processing of permit
applications related to zoonotic disease research.

$17.75 (17%)

National Fish and Wildlife
Forensics Laboratory

Funding supports the development of emerging technology to detect species
contained in sea containers through air sample testing without the need to inspect
the containers.

$1.5 (1.4%)

Digital Evidence Recovery Funding supports hardware and software enhancements to enable cloud-based
and Technical Support
access to forensic data for certain investigators.
Subtotal

$0.75 (0.7%)
$20 (19%)

Care of Captive Species
Support for Care of
Captive Species

Funding reimburses zoos, aquariums, and other facilities that lost gate revenue
due to COVID-19 restrictions. Qualifying expenses relate to the care of species
covered under the Endangered Species Act or held on behalf of FWS and include
food, medicine, veterinary care, life support systems, transportation, certain
utilities, and holding space improvements related to the pandemic. FWS entered
into a cooperative agreement with the Association of Zoos and Aquariums to
administer this program.

Subtotal

$30 (28.6%)

$30 (28.6%)

Wildlife Disease Research
Zoonotic Disease Initiative Grant program that makes competitive awards to state, tribal, and territorial fish
and wildlife agencies to conduct surveillance, research, management, and
education to protect the public against zoonotic disease outbreaks. FWS
announced these awards under two grant programs: (1) grants to states and
territories and (2) grants to Tribes.

$27 (25.7%)

National Wildlife Refuge
System

Funding to enhance the capabilities of the National Wildlife Refuge System’s
Wildlife Health office to respond to wildlife disease emergence, including by
securing an adequate stock of response supplies, monitoring wildlife refuges, and
developing wildlife disease response playbooks.

$10 (9.5%)

Wildlife Health Information Funding to enable the U.S. Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center
Sharing Partnership event Diagnostic Laboratory to expand and refine the Wildlife Health Information Sharing
reporting system
Partnership event reporting system, a public database for information about
current and past wildlife disease events that acts as the interface for requests for
diagnostic and epidemiologic assistance.

$6.5 (6.2%)

MENTOR-Bat Award

Grant program that makes one competitive award establish an interdisciplinary
teams of conservation leaders who work together to problem solve wildlife
problems. This award is to support international efforts to address the role of bats
in potential disease transmission between wildlife and humans. Qualifying
activities include improving habitats and reducing high-risk interactions between
humans and bats, including by reducing commercial bat trade and raising
awareness of disease risks.

Page 36

$1 (1%)

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


Allocation, dollars
in millions
(percentage of total)

ARPA initiatives

Description

Wildlife Disease
Coordinator

Funding provides grant funds to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and
other entities to hire Wildlife Disease Coordinators to support the organization’s
National Fish and Wildlife Health Initiative by working with federal and state
agencies and the Fish and Wildlife Health Committee.

Subtotal

$0.5 (0.5%)

$45 (42.9%)

Lacey Act Enforcement
International Wildlife
Trade Program

Funding enables FWS’s Fisheries and Aquatic Conservation program to identify
species at risk of becoming invasive, promulgate injurious wildlife rules listing the
highest-risk species that may threaten human health and develop economic
analyses to support those rules, and manage national and international pathways
that enable injurious species to become established in the United States.

$6.5 (6.2%)

International Affairs
Program

Funding facilitates processing of injurious wildlife permit applications for certain
species and expansion of risk assessment capacity.

$3.5 (3.3%)

Subtotal

$10 (9.5%)

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) information. | GAO-23-105795

As of the end of calendar year 2022, FWS had obligated 49 percent of its
total ARPA appropriation. 64 The amount FWS had obligated and
expended varied by ARPA initiative (see fig. 7). The majority of these
obligations were made through the Care of Captive Species program.
FWS obligated all $30 million that had been allocated to this program
through a cooperative agreement with a nonprofit organization. According
to agency officials, while all $30 million had been obligated, approximately
$18 million had been awarded to eligible recipients, and another award
announcement was planned to award the remaining funds in fiscal year
2023. 65

64The ARPA funds provided to FWS are available to the agency until expended.
65According to FWS officials, the Care of Captive Species program was structured as a

single award to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), which then administers
awards to eligible recipients, such as zoos. AZA subsequently announced the award
program, and in the first rounds, the total amount that could be awarded to any one facility
was limited to $1 million. According to FWS officials, FWS will consider allowing additional
funding for facilities whose eligible expenses exceeded the these limits, and additional
awards are planned in fiscal year 2023.

Page 37

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


Figure 7: Status of FWS’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Appropriation, as of
December 31, 2022

According to agency officials, FWS expects to obligate the remaining
funds over the next 5 years. FWS officials said they encountered few
challenges in obligating their ARPA appropriation, in part because the
$105 million appropriation was small relative to the agency’s $3.7 billion
fiscal year 2022 budget.

FWS Established
Evaluation Criteria and
Used Existing Procedures
for Award Applications and
to Identify Risks

FWS used ARPA funds dedicated to the Care of Captive Species
program to establish a reimbursement program and used ARPA funds
dedicated to wildlife disease research to establish three grant programs.
Reimbursement program. FWS established the Care of Captive
Species program to reimburse zoos and other eligible recipients, such as
aquariums, for expenses incurred in caring for certain animal species
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The program operates through a
cooperative agreement with the Association of Zoos and Aquariums
(AZA), which administers the program. 66 Because this program is a new
effort for the agency, FWS officials said they took steps to mitigate
potential risks before awarding funds. FWS worked with AZA and the
National Marine Fisheries Office to identify the information they should

66AZA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the advancement of zoos and aquariums in
the areas of conservation, education, science, and recreation and an independent
credentialing body for wildlife exhibitors.

Page 38

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


collect from applicants and to determine reimbursable losses. 67
Subsequently, FWS and AZA developed an outreach plan to inform
potential beneficiaries of availability of funding. They created a webpage,
sent targeted emails, and issued a joint press release to publicize the
opportunity. FWS said these efforts included outreach to non-AZA
institutions to make clear they were also eligible to apply for funding.
FWS’s cooperative agreement with AZA stated that AZA would evaluate
applicants’ eligibility, including confirming that they had not been
reimbursed by other federal COVID-19 relief programs (such as those of
the Small Business Administration). According to FWS officials, AZA
reviewed receipts and other documentation provided by applicants and
made recommendations to FWS about whether to fund a request. FWS
officials stated they subsequently reviewed these recommendations and
verified funding calculations before authorizing reimbursements.
Grant programs. FWS officials stated that they created three new grant
programs using $28 million in ARPA funds that targeted outcomes
different from those of any of the agency’s previous grants. Two Zoonotic
Disease Initiative grant programs are to provide funding to state and tribal
wildlife agencies, respectively. A MENTOR-Bat award is to provide
funding to one recipient to help prevent transmission of bat-borne
diseases.
FWS officials said they created an implementation plan for the Zoonotic
Disease as required by OMB. 68 Among other things, OMB asked that the
plan document steps for ensuring payment integrity. As a result, FWS
included in the plan its existing internal control framework, which has
steps such as risk assessments and merit review panels. FWS officials
told us that creating the implementation plan resulted in a longer award
process than usual but also increased the new initiative’s quality.
We reviewed the three grant programs and FWS’s evaluation criteria for
making award decisions. The majority of the criteria related to how
proposed projects would help recipients achieve their mission. All the
67The National Marine Fisheries Office is a component of the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce and manages living
marine resources, including federal marine fisheries and certain protected species.
68OMB required FWS to create an implementation plan for the Zoonotic Disease Initiative
because it is an entirely new effort using ARPA funds. OMB requires federal agencies to
develop implementation plans to encourage accountability and transparency of federal
government spending provided by ARPA.

Page 39

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


programs also had criteria related to the applicants’ proposed
implementation plans and the sustainability of the project after grant
funding has ended. In addition, the Zoonotic Disease Initiative grants
require applicants to demonstrate how they will support equity, diversity,
environmental justice, and accessibility of services.
FWS selection officials are also to review applications for potential
overlap or duplication with other FWS projects. If duplication is found,
officials are to either request modifications or not provide funding,
according to FWS’s instructions.
FWS officials said the agency’s ARPA grant programs are following
FWS’s typical policies and procedures for awarding grants. 69 These
include a number of steps designed to mitigate potential fraud or
performance issues and are documented in FWS’s Recipient Risk
Assessment Guidance document. For example, FWS staff are to check
government-wide databases to identify whether the applicant or any
associated key personnel have been debarred from working with the
federal government. They are also to complete a pre-award risk
assessment for each applicant, which includes reviewing any past audit
results or performance issues. Our review of funding documents for the
three grant programs found that each contained information about
planned verification and monitoring efforts that were consistent with FWS
policies and procedures.

FWS Plans to Monitor
Awards Using Existing
Procedures

According to FWS officials and documentation, FWS plans to use existing
procedures to monitor ARPA awards and respond to applicant risks.
These procedures include the following:
Risk assessment. FWS officials said they conduct recipient risk
assessments on an annual basis. FWS uses these risk assessments to
assign recipients to low, medium, or high risk categories.
Monitoring plan. Using the results of the risk assessments, FWS officials
are to create a monitoring plan tailored to each recipient based on FWS’s
Recipient Risk Assessment Guidance. This guidance instructs officials to,
among other things, review an entity’s single audit findings, if available,
69These policies and procedures are documented in several guidance documents. These

include Financial Assistance Business Processes: Financial Assistance Responsibilities
(Jan. 26, 2022), which outlines FWS office roles and responsibilities for the grant process,
and Financial Assistance Business Process: Recipient Risk Assessment Guidance, which
outlines the risk assessment process.

Page 40

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


and use these findings to identify additional potential steps for the risk
monitoring plan to address previously identified deficiencies.
Risk mitigation. According to FWS officials, if they determine a recipient
to be high risk, FWS officials are to take additional steps to mitigate these
risks. For example, they may ask for written documentation of
procurement procedures or internal controls. FWS officials may also
conduct periodic on-site reviews of projects. 70 Officials said they will
conduct on-site visits for some Zoonotic Disease Initiative grant
recipients. They will not conduct such visits for Care of Captive Species
because that program reimburses recipients for expenses already
incurred, and there would therefore be no programmatic actions to
review.
Required reporting. FWS’s primary post-award monitoring tools are
financial and performance reports, according to officials. According to
FWS guidance on award administration, these reports must include (1) a
comparison of actual accomplishments with the objectives of the award
established for the reporting period; (2) the reasons why established
objectives were not met, if appropriate; and (3) analysis and explanation
of cost overruns or high costs, when appropriate 71 In addition, recipients
are subject to regular audits—for example, FWS performs audits of its
state fish and wildlife agency grant recipients on a 6-year cycle, according
to officials.
According to FWS guidance, these reports must be reviewed for
completeness and to track that the recipient is on pace to meet the
project’s goals and objectives. In addition, these reports should be used
to identify potential issues or concerns that may require follow-up with the
recipients, such as significant delays. For example, Zoonotic Disease
Initiative grant recipients provide information on 13 metrics to help gauge
impact. These metrics include resources available to investigate disease
outbreaks, dedicated wildlife health staff, and access to diagnostic
services as part of recipients’ reporting requirements. FWS guidance
states that all awards are subject to at least annual financial and

70According to FWS officials, the site visit selection criteria had not yet been determined

for grants derived from ARPA funds at the time of our review.

71U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Chapter 1: Monitoring Financial and Performance

Reporting for Financial Assistance 516 FW 1,” Fish and Wildlife Service: Federal Financial
Assistance (July 9, 2018).

Page 41

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


performance reports. FWS may require more frequent reporting if it
identifies additional risks during the risk assessment process.

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to EDA, EPA, and FWS for review and
comment. EPA provided us with technical comments that we incorporated
where appropriate. EDA and FWS did not provide comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees and the Secretary of Commerce, Administrator of the EPA,
and Secretary of the Interior. In addition, the report is available at no
charge on the GAO website at https://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
William B. Shear at 202-512-8678, ShearW@gao.gov or J. Alfredo
Gómez at 202-512-3841, GomezJ@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this
report are listed in appendix II.

William B. Shear
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment

J. Alfredo Gómez
Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Page 42

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


Appendix I: EPA Total Obligations and
Expenditures for the American Rescue Plan
Act
Appendix I: EPA Total Obligations and
Expenditures for the American Rescue Plan
Act

Table 4 provides a summary status of the Environmental Protection
Agency’s appropriations for the American Rescue Plan Act as of January
3, 2023.
Table 4: Status of EPA’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Appropriations, as of January 3, 2023
ARPA initiative

Planned
allocation

Total
obligations

Percentage
obligated

Total
expenditures

Percentage
expended

These EPA initiatives include activities that identify and address disproportionate environmental or public health harms and
risks in minority or low-income populations.
Environmental Justice

$18,250,000

$14,660,525

80.33%

$2,452,782

13.44%

Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant
Program

$7,000,000

$6,900,000

98.57%

$600,000

8.57%

Brownfields Projects

$5,000,000

$5,000,000

100.00%

$991,067

19.82%

Children and other sensitive populations

$4,850,000

$4,849,028

99.98%

$251,409

5.18%

Civil Enforcement

$4,830,000

$3,172,465

65.68%

$652,761

13.51%

Drinking Water Programs

$2,650,000

$2,299,915

86.79%

$732,636

27.65%

Integrated Environmental Strategies

$2,150,000

$747,436

34.76%

$82,692

3.85%

Compliance Monitoring

$2,050,000

$2,048,810

99.94%

$849,251

41.43%

Environmental Justice (Administrative)

$1,000,000

$462,539

46.25%

$179,057

17.91%

Regulatory/Economic Management and
Analysis

$720,000

$342,506

47.57%

$195,939

27.21%

Climate Protection Program

$700,000

$510,227

72.89%

$186,476

26.64%

Federal Stationary Source Regulations

$500,000

$334,511

66.90%

$88,057

17.61%

$300,000

$300,000

100.00%

$300,000

100.00%

$50,000,000

$41,627,962

83.42%

$7,562,127

15.12%

Criminal Enforcement
Subtotal

These EPA initiatives include Clean Air Act activities (Sections 103 and 105).
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air
Quality Management

$42,500,000

$22,285,298

52.44%

$312,336

0.77%

Federal Support for Air Quality
Management

$5,000,000

$2,148,089

42.96%

$240,517

4.81%

Federal Support for Air Quality
Management (Administrative)

$2,500,000

$1,329,907

53.20%

$855,950

34.24%

Subtotal

$50,000,000

$25,763,294

52.44%

$1,408,803

2.82%

Total

$100,000,000

$67,391,256

67.39%

$8,970,930

8.97%

Source: GAO analysis of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data. | GAO-23-105795

Page 43

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

William B. Shear, (202) 512-8678 or ShearW@gao.gov
J. Alfredo Gómez, (202) 512-3841 or GomezJ@gao.gov

Staff
Acknowledgments

In addition to the contacts named above, Kay Kuhlman (Assistant
Director), Chad Gorman (Assistant Director), Robert Lowthian (Analyst in
Charge), Kala Amos, Alexandra Edwards, Natalie Hurd, Jill Lacey,
Elizabeth Leibinger, Evan Leiter-Mason, Jessica Sandler, Jennifer
Schwartz, Rebecca Shea, and Jena Sinkfield made key contributions to
this report.

Page 44

GAO-23-105795 American Rescue Plan Act


GAO’s Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative
arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the
federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public
funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government
is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through our website. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence. You can also subscribe to
GAO’s email updates to receive notification of newly posted products.

Order by Phone

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and
distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether
the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering
information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard,
Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or Email Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs

Contact FraudNet:
Website: https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/fraudnet
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700

Congressional
Relations

A. Nicole Clowers, Managing Director, ClowersA@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, Washington,
DC 20548

Public Affairs

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548

Strategic Planning and
External Liaison

Stephen J. Sanford, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814,
Washington, DC 20548

Please Print on Recycled Paper.

File and source

File

23-105795-american-rescue-plan-act-implementation-of-economic.pdf

Size

1,308,823 bytes

SHA-256

e761c1ecd9ab6c2c2c96d9d7cd07632b4ced9cf177b06c5c7b80cc300688649c

Our copy

23-105795-american-rescue-plan-act-implementation-of-economic.pdf

Original

www.gao.gov