The BudgetThe PART

Wait! Don’t Leave!

ORD Managers MeetingJanuary 24, 2006Howard Cantor

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 Jan Jan AprAprAprOct Oct Oct Oct

ORDPreparation

For Planning

AgencyBudgetProcess

ORDAnnual

Planning

July JulyJuly

BudgetSubmissionTo Congress

CongressionalDeliberations

Appropriation

BudgetExecution

AnnualReport

Jan

Planning and Budgeting Calendar

Clarifying the dynamic, iterative budgeting process…..

Agency/OMB Submission

Accurately, persuasively

portray initiatives and activities

Congressional briefings, RSAC

Make an embarrassing

mistake

Pray for a minor miracle Provide resource

levels to OSP (NPDs?) for annual planning

process

Develop annual performance plan and

Congressional justification

OMB Passback (fall/winter)

Congressional QAs

Stay up past your bedtime

worrying about making an embarrassing

mistake

Budget Planning Guidance

from Agency(spring)

Planning Documents from OSP (NPDs?)

(spring)

Submit President’s budget to Agency (end of January)

FY 2006 Conference ActionsFY 2006 Conference ActionsIncreases: $30.3MIncreases: $30.3M

–STAR Fellowships $3.7M STAR Fellowships $3.7M –Research Xfer $20.0MResearch Xfer $20.0M–Exploratory Grants $2.0MExploratory Grants $2.0M–Ecosystems Protection $2.9MEcosystems Protection $2.9M–Endocrine Disruptors $1.7MEndocrine Disruptors $1.7M

Reductions = -$24.0MReductions = -$24.0M–Global $0.6MGlobal $0.6M–NAAQS $2.0M*NAAQS $2.0M*–Water Quality $4.8M*Water Quality $4.8M*–Comp. Tox $1.2MComp. Tox $1.2M–Land Protection $2.3M*Land Protection $2.3M*–HH & Eco $2.3HH & Eco $2.3–HLS $7.1MHLS $7.1M–0.5% Across the Board 0.5% Across the Board

Rescisson $3.0MRescisson $3.0MAdditional Needs: Additional Needs:

–Agency Payroll - $ TBDAgency Payroll - $ TBD–Agency Reserves - $ TBDAgency 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 AppropriationS&T Appropriation: : Impact of Congressional Language 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 BuildingsHLS - DecontaminationHLS - Preparedness, Response, & RecoveryEcosystems ProtectionAggregate Risk ResearchCondition Assessments of Estuaries in the Gulf of MexicoExploratory 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 AppropriationS&T Appropriation: :

Impact of Congressional Language - Cont'dImpact 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 2011.

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

1 12

What is theProgram Assessment Rating Tool?

• The PART evaluates program effectiveness by reviewing four areas: 1) Purpose/Design2) Strategic Planning3) Program Management4) 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 theProgram Assessment Rating Tool?

• 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 Reviews2003

– 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 2005. 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 TimeYou 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