week 1 paper 535

1

5

Budget approval is a crucial aspect of effective public financial management. It provides accountability, transparency, and fiscal responsibility in allocating and using government resources (Chen, et al., 2014). The standard flowchart shown on page 76 process generally involves five general processes, namely: (1) budget preparation, (2) review and executive management approval of the budget, (3) legislative review and appropriation, (4) budget execution, and (5) audit and evaluation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does indeed follow this overall pattern; however, it is a more complicated process with more levels of congressional control, policy adherence, and interagency cooperation.

The EPA’s budget process follows the same sequential structure as the standard flowchart. It starts with budget formulation and planning, where the agency formulates priorities to be observed in the following fiscal year. Regional offices and all programs of the EPA prepare preliminary estimates of the budget that is expected to be spent on different activities, statutory requirements, and performance targets. This process is an entire replica of the Agency Budget Preparation process under the generic flowchart.

The EPA headquarters adds up the proposals based on the internal estimates and forwards them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to be reviewed. This corresponds to the stage of the usual model, the Executive Budget Office Review. At this point, the OMB analysts ensure that the suggestions made by the EPA comply with the Presidential policy agenda as well as the budgetary parameters.

When OMB is done with its review, the budget of the President is ready and is sent to Congress, around February every year. It is the very point of the flowchart at the Legislative Review and Appropriation. Congress then conducts hearings on the budget requests of the EPA in appropriations subcommittees, which are the House and Senate appropriations committees, the Interior, Environment, and related agencies subcommittees. After such hearings, Congress could make amendments, approve, or disapprove part of the EPA request before it would be finally appropriated.

Once the budget is passed by both Congress and signed into law by the President, it enters the implementation process. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) allocates money to regional and program offices based on accepted operating plans of the EPA. This is associated with the Implementation step in the flowchart. Lastly, EPA does monitor, reporting, and auditing, making sure that the expenditure is in compliance with the legislative objectives and the federal accounts regulations (Hua, et al., 2025). Audits should be carried out by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the EPA to establish efficiency and compliance, which would be the last step in the standard budget process, which is the Audit and Evaluation.

Although the process of the EPA has a general pattern of the typical flowchart, it has a number of noticeable differences that show the complexity of federal budgeting. To begin with, it is not a linear process of EPA but a circular one (Hua, et al., 2025). It lacks a smooth flow from one step to another but is made up of sustained communication and negotiation among the EPA, the OMB, and Congress. That is, in case OMB requires some clarifications about some of the funding reasons, or performance indicators, then the EPA must resubmit and amend its submission so that further consideration can be given to it - an interagency review not shown in this simplified flowchart.

Second, the EPA uses result-oriented planning and performance-based budgeting throughout its process. This is a GPRA-based approach that connects the resource allocation with quantifiable outcomes, which in this case are the rates of pollution abatement or levels of emissions. The traditional flowchart takes budgeting as mainly a numbers game, whereas the EPA integrates performance management in the development, implementation, and reporting of the budgeting process.

Three, the EPA process entails extra levels of regional coordination and stakeholder involvement. The agency also holds Regional Budget Breakout Sessions where the regional offices discuss their funding priorities and consistency with the EPA's national strategic goals. The conventional flowchart does not feature such a participatory process, which usually assumes a centralized decision-making body.

The second significant deviation is the addition of the external monitoring and transparency provisions. EPA also releases extensive Congressional Justifications, Operating Plans, and Annual Performance Reports, which give the public and Congress a preview of how money is used and disbursed. The standard flowchart is insufficient in the audit and evaluation, but the EPA goes further and obliges the publication of budget information publicly with its Planning, Budget, and Results site.

Lastly, the EPA process should consider the federal budget contingencies, including the continuing resolutions, sequestration, or any additional appropriations in case of emergencies. In case Congress does not pass a budget in time, the EPA will be tasked with temporary budgets, and the agency will have to change its budget plans on the fly.

The budget approval process by the EPA demonstrates a multi-dimensional, integrated expansion of the normal public sector budget model. Similar to the flowchart on page 76, it follows the preparation, review, approval, implementation, and assessment. It is, however, different in the interactive nature, performance focus, regional coordination, and openness commitment. These variations denote the difficulty of the task of managing a large federal agency under complicated statutory and environmental guidelines.

References

Chen, G. G., Weikart, L. A., & Williams, D. W. (2014). Budget Tools: Financial Methods in the Public Sector (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781483324050

Hua, M., McCauley, K., Brew, D., Heywood, J., Siracusa, J., Stevens, M., & Paustenbach, D. (2025). United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Perfluorooctanoic Acid, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid, and Related Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances 2024 Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level: Part 1 - Analysis of Public Comments. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 55(3), 321–367 https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2024.2415893

1

5

Budget approval is a crucial aspect of effective public financial management. It provides accountability, transparency, and fiscal responsibility in allocating and using government resources (Chen, et al., 2014). The standard flowchart shown on page 76 process generally involves five general processes, namely: (1) budget preparation, (2) review and executive management approval of the budget, (3) legislative review and appropriation, (4) budget execution, and (5) audit and evaluation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does indeed follow this overall pattern; however, it is a more complicated process with more levels of congressional control, policy adherence, and interagency cooperation.

The EPA’s budget process follows the same sequential structure as the standard flowchart. It starts with budget formulation and planning, where the agency formulates priorities to be observed in the following fiscal year. Regional offices and all programs of the EPA prepare preliminary estimates of the budget that is expected to be spent on different activities, statutory requirements, and performance targets. This process is an entire replica of the Agency Budget Preparation process under the generic flowchart.

The EPA headquarters adds up the proposals based on the internal estimates and forwards them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to be reviewed. This corresponds to the stage of the usual model, the Executive Budget Office Review. At this point, the OMB analysts ensure that the suggestions made by the EPA comply with the Presidential policy agenda as well as the budgetary parameters.

When OMB is done with its review, the budget of the President is ready and is sent to Congress, around February every year. It is the very point of the flowchart at the Legislative Review and Appropriation. Congress then conducts hearings on the budget requests of the EPA in appropriations subcommittees, which are the House and Senate appropriations committees, the Interior, Environment, and related agencies subcommittees. After such hearings, Congress could make amendments, approve, or disapprove part of the EPA request before it would be finally appropriated.

Once the budget is passed by both Congress and signed into law by the President, it enters the implementation process. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) allocates money to regional and program offices based on accepted operating plans of the EPA. This is associated with the Implementation step in the flowchart. Lastly, EPA does monitor, reporting, and auditing, making sure that the expenditure is in compliance with the legislative objectives and the federal accounts regulations (Hua, et al., 2025). Audits should be carried out by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the EPA to establish efficiency and compliance, which would be the last step in the standard budget process, which is the Audit and Evaluation.

Although the process of the EPA has a general pattern of the typical flowchart, it has a number of noticeable differences that show the complexity of federal budgeting. To begin with, it is not a linear process of EPA but a circular one (Hua, et al., 2025). It lacks a smooth flow from one step to another but is made up of sustained communication and negotiation among the EPA, the OMB, and Congress. That is, in case OMB requires some clarifications about some of the funding reasons, or performance indicators, then the EPA must resubmit and amend its submission so that further consideration can be given to it - an interagency review not shown in this simplified flowchart.

Second, the EPA uses result-oriented planning and performance-based budgeting throughout its process. This is a GPRA-based approach that connects the resource allocation with quantifiable outcomes, which in this case are the rates of pollution abatement or levels of emissions. The traditional flowchart takes budgeting as mainly a numbers game, whereas the EPA integrates performance management in the development, implementation, and reporting of the budgeting process.

Three, the EPA process entails extra levels of regional coordination and stakeholder involvement. The agency also holds Regional Budget Breakout Sessions where the regional offices discuss their funding priorities and consistency with the EPA's national strategic goals. The conventional flowchart does not feature such a participatory process, which usually assumes a centralized decision-making body.

The second significant deviation is the addition of the external monitoring and transparency provisions. EPA also releases extensive Congressional Justifications, Operating Plans, and Annual Performance Reports, which give the public and Congress a preview of how money is used and disbursed. The standard flowchart is insufficient in the audit and evaluation, but the EPA goes further and obliges the publication of budget information publicly with its Planning, Budget, and Results site.

Lastly, the EPA process should consider the federal budget contingencies, including the continuing resolutions, sequestration, or any additional appropriations in case of emergencies. In case Congress does not pass a budget in time, the EPA will be tasked with temporary budgets, and the agency will have to change its budget plans on the fly.

The budget approval process by the EPA demonstrates a multi-dimensional, integrated expansion of the normal public sector budget model. Similar to the flowchart on page 76, it follows the preparation, review, approval, implementation, and assessment. It is, however, different in the interactive nature, performance focus, regional coordination, and openness commitment. These variations denote the difficulty of the task of managing a large federal agency under complicated statutory and environmental guidelines.

References

Chen, G. G., Weikart, L. A., & Williams, D. W. (2014). Budget Tools: Financial Methods in the Public Sector (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781483324050

Hua, M., McCauley, K., Brew, D., Heywood, J., Siracusa, J., Stevens, M., & Paustenbach, D. (2025). United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Perfluorooctanoic Acid, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid, and Related Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances 2024 Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level: Part 1 - Analysis of Public Comments. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 55(3), 321–367 https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2024.2415893