The Budget The PART Wait! Don’t Leave! ORD Managers Meeting January 24, 2006 Howard Cantor

 t

The Budget

Agency Budget Process (spring/summer) Receive and implement Agency guidance to prepare for spring/summer planning meetings; prepare briefings for the front office, EC to solicit guidance; formulate budget based on results of Agency planning meetings & submit to OCFO; accurately, persuasively portray initiatives & activities. The President’s Budget (Dec – Jan) Receive & implement final OMB/Agency decisions; provide resource levels & CJ narratives to OCFO; proof budget galleys and CJs; provide briefings for ORD management; provide fact sheets for Administrator, ORD AA for budget press conference; The OMB budget (summer/fall) Revise budget based on input from OCFO & submit to OMB; use & update contingency plan; respond to OMB input, modify budget; brief front office; brief OMB; receive/respond to OMB passback. ORD Budget Planning (winter/spring) Provide planning resources to NPDs; receive planning docs for formulation process. Other Stuff (ongoing) Participate in the RCTs and provide information as needed; respond to Agency, OMB and outside inquiries about the research budget. Post-Presbud (Feb – fall) Provide briefings for Hill; fact sheets for Congressional hearings; respond to questions from hearings; respond to post-hearing QAs; RSAC, SAB; Planning and Budgeting Process

Jan Apr Oct ORD Preparation For Planning Agency Budget Process ORD Annual Planning July Budget Submission To Congress Congressional Deliberations Appropriation Budget Execution Annual Report Jan Planning and Budgeting Calendar

Clarifying the dynamic, iterative budgeting process…..

FY 2006 Conference Actions  Increases: $30.3M –STAR Fellowships $3.7M –Research Xfer $20.0M –Exploratory Grants $2.0M –Ecosystems Protection $2.9M –Endocrine Disruptors $1.7M  Reductions = -$24.0M –Global $0.6M –NAAQS $2.0M* –Water Quality $4.8M* –Comp. Tox $1.2M –Land Protection $2.3M* –HH & Eco $2.3 –HLS $7.1M –0.5% Across the Board Rescisson $3.0M  Additional Needs: –Agency Payroll - $ TBD –Agency Reserves - $ TBD * These areas also received increases resulting from disapproval of the Research Transfer. $619.4M $63.7 $24.6 $39.0 $568.3M $31.9 $33.3 $30.3 $608.6M

S&T Appropriation: Impact of Congressional Language  Reprogramming Guidelines The following programs (in addition to all program/projects) must adhere to Congressional reprogramming guidelines as they were specified in either the House or Senate Committee Reports: HLS - Safe Buildings HLS - Decontamination HLS - Preparedness, Response, & Recovery Ecosystems Protection Aggregate Risk Research Condition Assessments of Estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico Exploratory Grants  Directed General Reduction to Human Health and Ecosystems Directed increases to ecosystems protection and exploratory grants limit ORD's flexibility to absorb this reduction of $2.3M.

S&T Appropriation: Impact of Congressional Language - Cont'd  Research Transfer Disapproves transfer of resources to program offices Emphasis on STAR - House language "The Committee does not agree with the transfer of funds to..... (Program Offices listed). ORD should coordinate closely with these offices on their research needs. There should be an emphasis on using the Science to Achieve Results grants program whenever practicable." Conference language does not contradict or alter House intent.  Title 42 Hiring Authority - Authorizes the Administrator, after consultation with OPM, to make five appointments per year for FYs 2006 thru  Human Studies Restrictions - Moratorium on the use of third party intentional dosing human toxicity studies for pesticides until the Administrator issues a final rulemaking on this subject.

The PART

112 What is the P rogram A ssessment R ating T ool ? The PART evaluates program effectiveness by reviewing four areas: 1) Purpose/Design 2) Strategic Planning 3) Program Management 4) Program Results The PART is tailored for 7 types of federal programs, including R&D. Each program receives a numerical score and rating (Effective, Moderately Effective, Adequate, Ineffective, Results Not Demonstrated). Scores highlight strengths and weaknesses for each area and final scores rate overall program effectiveness. PART ratings inform the budget process, but are not determinative. Approximately 80% of federal programs will have been assessed by 2005.

What is the P rogram A ssessment R ating T ool ? Consists of ~ 30 questions and Measures Tab:  Results Section is weighted as 50% of total score  Scores in the Results section are partially dependent on scores in the Strategic Planning section  Scores in both of these sections are based mostly on the quality of the goals and measures provided in the Measures Tab  Results based on annual and long-term performance goals with emphasis on outcomes External program evaluations are addressed in both the Strategic Planning and Results sections

PART Program Measures  Each program must have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program.  Each program must also have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving long-term goals.  Each program must have at least one efficiency measure. Efficiency measures demonstrate a program’s ability to implement activities and achieve results, while making the best use of resources (e.g., time, effort, money). These measures are usually expressed as a ratio of inputs to outputs/outcomes.

How Research Contributes to EPA Outcomes and Long-Term Goals Research Programs EPA’s Strategic Goals Solutions to Complex Environmental Problems How do research programs help EPA achieve its goals & solve environmental problems? How does research contribute to outcomes? How do we evaluate research progress and results?

All ORD Research Programs... Have been re-conceptualized to explicitly tie research activities and outputs to specific client-related and environmental outcomes. Use long-term goals that stretch beyond completion and delivery of outputs to clients; most goals target client use of ORD products in environmental decision-making. ORD research outcomes are linked to environmental outcomes; those links are articulated in key scientific questions that drive ORD research.

ORD PART Reviews 2003 –Pollution Prevention/ New Technologies Results Not Demonstrated –National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Results Not Demonstrated –Ecological Research Results Not Demonstrated 2004 –Endocrine Disruptors Research (Joint PART with OPPTS) Adequate 2005 –Human Health Research Adequate –Drinking Water Research Ineffective –National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (re-PART) Ineffective –Ecological Research (re-PART) Results Not Demonstrated, Pending Final Results

Planned PART Reviews 2006 (Proposed, but not confirmed by OMB): –Global Change Research –Superfund/Land Protection & Restoration Research –Water Quality Research Other ORD programs not yet PARTed: –Human Health Risk Assessment Research –Safe Pesticides Safe Products Research –Computational Toxicology Research –Air Toxics Research –Homeland Security

Independent, Expert Program Reviews ORD instituted external expert reviews of its research programs in Other federal agencies rely on expert reviews to determine whether a program’s outcomes are being achieved. Reviews assess the quality, relevance and performance of EPA research, and serve as evidence for ORD’s PART reviews.

Client Surveys Program evaluation instrument used to gather information from clients for internal and external stakeholders’ needs. Initial survey, in 2005, focused on internal EPA clients at Office Director level, who can identify the major ORD decisions/work that were produced and used in a calendar year. See attached Fact sheet. Subsequent surveys will use initial results to establish a longer-term way of collecting data to evaluate effectiveness of programs.

EPA Research PART Challenges How Much Time You Got?

EPA Research PART Challenges Consistency –PART guidance not always interpreted similarly among OMB examiners –No evidence required for a “No” response –OMB examiners may be overwhelmed by amount of evidence presented Efficiency Measures –Little guidance in instructions for research programs –OMB unsure of what to recommend –Discussion in larger research community and with OMB necessary