RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND
TECHNICAL SERVICES AT EPA:
A NEW BEGINNING
ESD EVALUATION REPORT
REPORT TO THE
EPA(LABORATORY STUDY
STEERING COMMITTEE
JUNE, 1994
Cross-Agency .Subcommittee
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JSSL 2 2 1994
THE ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Next Steps in the EPA/Laboratory Study
L- ~~
TQ All EPA Employees
Last month I communicated with all of you about the status of the EPA
laboratory study. At that time I indicated that I had received a number of very
significant recommendations from the Steering Committee, and that I would
consider the many comments we had received before making a decision about how
to proceed. Since that time the Steering Committee has submitted its final report. I
have reviewed the report carefully and have talked to many people about it
people from inside the Agency as well as from the outside.
I want to thank all of the people who have worked so hard on the Laboratory
Study. It represents a great deal of effort by a great many people, and this is apparent
from the quality and thoroughness of the analyses and recommendations. I believe
that this study will shape the Agency's science program for many years to come.
I have now reached final decisions and want to share them with you today.
I agree with, and accept, the recommendations that have been made to
me. I plan to move expeditiously on their implementation. (The
Steering Committee's report and recommendations have been placed
in all employee E-mail boxes, and a summary is attached to this
memorandum.)
We need to build a participatory implementation process, one that
expands the current steering committee by including many more
employees from different parts of ORD and the Agency. We must also
expand union representation, look to the example of the recent
reorganization of the Office of Enforcement, and look for and receive
assistance from people from outside the Agency who share our interest
in improving the quality of science at EPA.
I want to move quickly on preparing implementation plans for these
recommendations. I am therefore asking the Steering Committee to
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
establish implementation groups that are to report back to me by
November 1, 1994, with specific action plans.
As we move to implement the recommendations of the laboratory
study, I want to be certain that these action plans will also help us
move toward our goals of streamlining and re-invention. Therefore,
we want to ensure that the implementation process focuses on issues
such as diversity, empowerment, and a shifting of resources from
supervisory and administrative tasks to scientific and technical work,
wherever possible.
During the Steering Committee deliberations there was considerable
discussion of physical consolidation of laboratories, particularly in
ORD. This is a complex issue, which is understandably of concern to
our employees. In order to give us time to effectively consolidate on a
functional basis, and in order to assess whether or not physical
consolidation with its attendant human and financial costs is
necessary, I have decided to postpone consideration of this issue until
at least June 1996. This will enable our workforce to focus on
implementing the very important science and management reforms
that the Steering Committee has recommended. In the interim, when
functions are relocated from one geographical location to another as
part of implementation, employees may be given the option to
voluntarily relocate with the function. In addition, we will continue to
implement those moves that had earlier been agreed upon apart from
this study.
The ideas that have been put forward in the Steering Committee's report
dramatically move the Agency toward the goal of excellence and national leadership
in science that will be essential as we enter a new generation of environmental
protection. As we move more and more towards pollution prevention, common
sense initiatives, and geographic 'people and place' issues, a strong scientific
foundation becomes ever more important. I am firmly committed to this pursuit of
excellence and scientific leadership and call on every agency employee to make this
goal a reality.
Carol M^Browner
Attachment
-------
Attachment
The recommendations of the Steering Committee represent a commitment to
move EPA to the cutting edge of government science. Focusing first on issues of
mission and management, the Steering Committee recommendations include:
Development of a Science Strategic Plan, guided by a single policy-maker in
coordination with the Science Policy Council and the Senior Leadership
Council, to feed into the Agency-wide Strategic Plan;
Development of a new planning process with cross-Agency involvement in
the distribution of the Agency's research, development and technical services
resources;
Establishment of the risk paradigm as the driver for prioritization of
resources and organizational changes;
Designation of four National laboratories for the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) to facilitate organization of functions along the lines of
risk;
An increase in the percentage of the ORD budget set-aside for long term
research from the current level of approximately 35 percent to 50 percent;
Greater outreach to the scientific community by increasing extramural
research from $20 million to $100 million in competitive, investigator
initiated grants;
Creation of an internal, investigator-initiated competitive research program
to fund innovative ideas and improve intramural science quality;
Thorough integration of peer review in all scientific and technical products;
Expansion of the graduate fellowship program to train a cadre of new
scientists for EPA and the Nation; and
Continuation of the current alignment of the Program and Regional
laboratories acknowledging their direct service to their parent organizations
with increased roles for them in the Agency's research planning process.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISIONS EVALUATION
CROSS-AGENCY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
II. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISIONS (ESD)
A. Introduction
B. ESD Mission Statements
C. ESD Services
D. ESD Customers
III. SUMMARY OF EPA LAB STUDY FINDINGS
A. Mitre Report
B. NAPA Report
C. SAB Report
D. Research. Development and Technical Services at EPA: A New
Beginning Report (Draft 6/13/94)
IV. CROSS-AGENCY SUBCOMMITTEE CHARGE
V. EVALUATION APPROACH
VI. EVALUATION ANALYSIS
A. Evaluation of Central Advocate(s) and Their National Planning
Function for ESDs
B. Evaluation of Dedicated Resources for Base
C. Evaluation of Budget Mechanism and Location
D. Evaluation of Alignment and Coordination Options between ESD,
Program Offices and ORD Activities and Exploration of Coordination
Options to the Agency Budget and Strategic Planning Processes
E. Exploration of Processes to Ensure that Future Planning includes
review of Organizational Alignment of ESDs with Agency's
Scientific/Technical Mission
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX A ADVOCATE PRO/CON ANALYSIS CHARTS
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISIONS EVALUATION
CROSS-AGENCY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA), in an effort to assess the state of its
science and technology program, has conducted a comprehensive Laboratory
Study, whereby, all its research and technical laboratories were reviewed. This
study was conducted by a contractor, Mitre, and their findings presented in a
comprehensive report. : .
The EPA Laboratory Study Steering Committee (Steering Committee) convened in
Annapolis, MD on June 7 and 8, 1994 to evaluate the results of the Mitre Study,
and to develop its own opinion and plan of action that addresses the Agency's
science and technology program.
The Steering Committee endorsed a series of recommendations that covered issues
pertaining to the balance of long-term research and applied research, peer-review,
competition of research resources, streamlining and management improvements,
and reorganization options for laboratories in EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD), the program offices and the regional Environmental Services
Divisions (ESDs).
After a lengthy discussion concerning the ESDs, the Deputy Administrator raised
several issues to the Steering Committee that required further evaluation. The
Steering Committee formed a Cross-Agency Subcommittee (Subcommittee) to
evaluate:
A central advocate(s) and its national planning function for the ESDs;
A dedicated resources (FTE/dollars) base;
A budget mechanism (program element, line item) and location;
Alignment and coordination options between ESDs, Program Offices and
ORD;
Coordination options to the Agency budget and strategic planning processes;
and
Processes to ensure that future planning includes a review of organizational
alignment of ESDs with the Agency's scientific/technical mission.
-------
Upon completion of series of analyses, the Subcommittee presents the following
recommendations:
The ESD Central Advocate should be charged with the primary responsibility
of the assurance and maintenance of customer alignment between scientific
and technical services of the ESDs and their customers. OROS/LR provides
the essential neutrality required in establishing and maintaining this customer
alignment across the Agency.
OROS/LR should continue in its national advocacy role for the ESDs.
Modifications to enhance OROS/LR management and budget systems will be
necessary. If the enhancements outlined by the Subcommittee cannot be
achieved, supplemental analysis would need to be conducted to determine
an alternative advocate.
By establishing a balanced ESD budget, EPA provides for the essential
organization stability and maintains flexibility to fulfill program requirements.
The balanced ESD budget fosters customer alignment.
The Subcommittee does not propose any redistribution of the ESD scientific
and technical resources across the Agency. The Subcommittee proposes
that a national budget for the ESDs be established in a single program
element placed within the central advocate's budget responsibilities. The
national budget will be the sum of the individual core requirements identified
for each Region. The remaining targeted ESD base should be established as
line items with the respective program office budget responsibilities.
Additional negotiations for increased capability and capacity would continue
to be conducted through the existing negotiation process.
A new Agency-wide planning process for research, development and
technical services should be developed. The ESD Central Advocate, in
coordination with the Regional Administrators, is charged with the primary
responsibility for ensuring that ESD scientific and technical services are
integrated into the Agency's Strategic Plan.
To effectively plan for the future, accurate and readily available information
. concerning the ESD's scientific and technical services must be available.
EPA should develop an integrated process to evaluate its current, and
forecast its future, science and technical service requirements.
These recommendations are being forwarded to the full Steering Committee for
inclusion in their recommendations to the Administrator.
-------
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISIONS
A.. Introduction
The regional Environmental Services Divisions (ESD) of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) offer a full-range of technical services in support of
regional and national media-specific (air, water, pesticide, toxics, and hazardous
waste), and enforcement programs.
The Divisions are typically divided into three branches: the Surveillance and
Monitoring, the Regional Laboratory and the Quality Assurance Branches. These
branches provide complimenting services for the collection, analysis, and
evaluation of quality data. They direct and coordinate surveillance and monitoring
activities within the Region, provide necessary analytical services, and ensure the
quality of data generated in support of all Agency mandated programs.
ESDs work with State, local and tribal governments on a day-to-day basis, not only
in an advisory role, but in a hands-on capacity, providing on-site assistance. ESDs'
multi-disciplinary technical staff provide technical assistance concerning laboratory
and field techniques, quality assurance and control, and when necessary, actual
analytical support to ensure their field investigations. ESDs have an essential role
in interpreting data, measuring trends, and establishing environmental profiles.
Through the leveraging of multi-discipline technical employees, ESDs are able to
provide services at a significant cost savings allowing for the Agency to retain in-
house expertise. Maintenance of in-house expertise is vital for effective and
efficient review of external parties performance, evaluation of proposed
technologies, evaluation of grant proposals and cost. Additionally, in-house
expertise is essential to proper case development for sensitive enforcement
actions.
-------
EL ESP Mission Statements
The ESDs have adopted the following mission statements' in their strategic
planning effort.
To maintain and enhance a technically scientifically skilled, dedicated and
diverse staff through the excellence of our recruitment, career development,
training, management and leadership. To incorporate the ESDs as equal
partners in the Agency's budget, management and decision-making
processes.
To conduct quality inspections and investigations to achieve and maintain a
high level of compliance with environmental laws and regulations. To
participate in enforcement programs by providing comprehensive technical
support and analysis.
To assess, from a multi-media/multi-program perspective and in partnership
with regional programs, the environmental problems in the region and their
relative risk. To identify information gaps to direct future data acquisition
activities.
To use scientific information and environmental data to identify problems,
assess their relative risk and identify information gaps that exist for
identification of emerging problems.
To provide fully equipped, field and laboratory support to produce physical,
chemical and biological data of known quality to be used for environmental
decision-making at all levels of government.
To provide scientific data of known quality to support Agency decision-
makers through partnerships with regional and national media program
offices, state, local and tribal governments, academia, the private sector and
public.
To communicate ESDs' vision, mission, goals, priorities and expertise to its
customers and policy-makers.
National Strategic Plan for the Environmental Services Division. April 1993
-------
(L. ESP Services
The ESDs provide the following full range of complimenting services.
Analytical Services - The ESDs operate regional laboratories that provide a
full cadre of analytical testing services for physical, chemical, microbiological
and biological parameters utilizing modern instrumentation and Agency-
approved methodologies. This capability provides essential geographically
data that is used for compliance monitoring of all media, including civil and
criminal enforcement, special health risk studies (ambient air toxic
monitoring) and special ecosystem studies (EMAP/REMAP). Several regional
laboratories have specialized unique services due to specific regional needs
(e.g. low level metals analysis, dioxin, protozoa).
Environmental Data Handling and Assessment - Data management and
assessment are critical to ensure sound Agency decision-making.
Centralized data management allows for integrated data assessment. The
ESDs assist in managing national databases consisting of a full array of
environmental data. Examples of these include, STORET, AIRS and WBS.
These data are used to assist in establishing baselines, determining trends,
ensuring data quality and assisting in evaluating compliance to
environmental laws and regulations.
Environmental Monitoring - oversight, technical assistance and data
evaluation are monitoring services provided by the ESDs. Examples of these
services are the ozone PAMS network, ambient air toxics monitoring,
participation in the national estuary program providing field and analytical
support, and interaction with the states for a wide range of statutory
programs (105, 106, 305b, and 319).
Field Inspections and Investigations - The ESDs provide a wide array of
complimenting services in support of single and multi-media inspections and
investigations. This includes facility compliance inspections, compliance
sampling inspections, criminal and civil enforcement investigations,
emergency response support and oversight of state media programs and
contractors.
Quality Assurance - Development and management of the regional Quality
Assurance (QA) program is performed by the ESDs which provides a
centralized approach to ensure that data used to make decisions are of
acceptable and appropriate quality. This involves working closely with
regional staff, other Federal agencies, State, local and tribal governments
and the private sector providing assistance in the development of monitoring
-------
plans, grant and contract workplans, methodology requirements and
standard operating procedures.
Technical Services/Transfer - The ESDs provide technical assistance to
strengthen their partnerships with regional and national media program
offices, State, local and tribal governments, academia, the private sector and
public. Services offered include assistance related to laboratory techniques,
equipment/instrumentation, and quality control. In addition, training is
provided by the ESDs related to these issues.
D^ ESP Customers
The ESDs provide services for a wide variety of customers that can be categorized
into primary and secondary customers both internal and external to the Agency.
Their primary internal customers include the Regional Administrators (RAs), Deputy
Regional Administrators (DRAs), Program Division Directors (regionally and
nationally), regional staff, criminal investigators, the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) and the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC). Primary external customers are
state, local and tribal government agencies (such as environmental, health and
agricultural) and the regulated community.
Secondary internal customers are the regional offices of External Affairs, the
National Environmental Services Officer (NESO) in the Office of Regional
Operations and State/Local Relations (OROS/LR), Headquarters Program Office
Assistant Administrators (AAs), the Office of Research and Development (ORD)
laboratories and the National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC). The public,
volunteer monitoring groups, other federal agencies, academia, contractors,
commercial environmental laboratories, Congress, environmental interest groups
and the media are considered secondary external ESD customers.
8
-------
III. SUMMARY OF EPA LABORATORY STUDY FINDINGS
A_. Mitre Report
A baseline description of all EPA laboratories was provided in the Mitre report.
Mitre assessed options for enhancing the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of
laboratory operations to respond to current and future roles and missions.
These options included customer orientation, streamlining, the Carnegie
Commission, a distinct Environmental Services Organization and geographic
approaches, all with and without physical consolidation.
n.
Mitre reported that EPA can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its
operations through management changes. The changes would eliminate the
apparent duplications of facilities and equipment, and facilitate the disciplinary
strengths of the human resource base. These changes are:
Consolidation of all of the Office of Prevention Pesticides and Toxic
Substance (OPPTS) laboratories and the two Office of Radiation and Indoor
Air laboratories;
Realignment and consolidation of ORD laboratories in the manner of the
Carnegie Commission option; and
Reduction of the number of laboratories within the regional offices through
consolidation to a few laboratories with national service focus.
Mitre recommended five management improvements that in their opinion would
provide for positive changes:
The establishment of quality assurance as a visible high-level function;
The perfection of the issue-based planning process;
The creation of customer orientation throughout the Agency with a clearly
focused and articulated mission statement;
The improvement to the information management system to increase the
accessibility of managers to complete, consistent and accurate data; and
The delegation authority to the lowest level of management consistent with
federal policies.
-------
EL. National Academy of Public Administration Report
The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) convened two panels of
experts to review the recommendations of the Mitre Report pertaining to
organizational capacity and science issues.
NAPA reported that the ESDs work was science and technology-based. The ESD
workload is clearly defined, and there appears to be a reasonable match between
workload and capacity for the ESDs. The ESDs receive direction mainly from the
program offices, but it is placed through and managed by the RAs allowing for
flexibility and appropriate accountability.
NAPA recognized the close relationship the ESDs have with the RAs. NAPA stated
that there are program support requirements placed in ORD that cannot be satisfied
by the ESDs or program office laboratories that then poses a serious challenge to
ORD in achieving these requirements and maintaining a longer-term strategic
research agenda.
NAPA supported the creation of an Environmental Services Organization. This
would create a single Headquarters official responsible for ESDs and program office
laboratories at a national level. This approach would enhance multi-media support
and research to future regulatory programs, reducing ORD's workload.
Cj. Science Advisory Board Report
The Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) reviewed the findings of the Mitre report. The RSAC reported that the
program office and ESD laboratories focused on near-term applications of science,
particularly those associated with monitoring, methods development, inspections
and enforcement of particular media statutes and regulations. There is frequent
interaction between these laboratories and their customers, and a general
understanding of the mission they support. The ORD laboratories tend to focus on
problem-oriented and long-term research which is more strategic in nature, leading
to new insights about mechanisms and interrelationships. Many of the interactions
with the ORD clients are controlled by Headquarters staff.
The findings and recommendations of the SAB focused mainly on the ORD
laboratories. They recognized the Administrator as the principal client and
spokesperson for the Agency. ORD scientists must be relieved of administrative
and contract management oversight responsibilities, and be allowed to return to
hands-on research. A more efficient, effective and mission-oriented research
management system, with minimal barriers to achieve scientific and engineering
goals, needs to be created.
10
-------
Actions should be taken to correct basic research management problems,
considering both the ORD laboratories and their Headquarters office, before any
initiative is taken addressing realignment. The RSAC opposed the proposal of
creating the new Environmental Services Organization. More analysis and
consideration needs to be conducted concerning human resource needs, and the
impacts that reorganization and realignment may have on them.
The Committee initially recommended that no particular option be selected until
management improvements were made. At that time, realignment or physical
consolidation may still need to be implemented. With these improvements made,
the Committee endorsed some variation of the Carnegie Commission option from
the Mitre report, providing for the creation of some mega-laboratories th,at would
represent particular themes related to EPA's mission. They recommended that risk
assessment be included as one of the themes.
The Committee concluded with the statement that the Agency's extramural
research program should be expanded to demonstrate the Agency's commitment
to environmental research. EPA should develop mechanisms that allows for a fully
competitive process, both internally and externally.
CX Research. Development and Technical Services at EPA: A New Beginning -
Draft 6/13/94
The EPA Laboratory Study Steering Committee (Steering Committee) convened in
Annapolis, MD on June 7 and 8, 1994 to evaluate the results of the Mitre EPA
Laboratory Study, and to develop its own opinion and plan of action that addresses
the Agency's science and technology program.
The Steering Committee began by defining the mission of EPA, and its unique role,
as the joint protection of environmental quality and human health. It is noted that
effective environmental policies depend on sound science. As a result, science
must be the fundamental basis for decisions at EPA.
The Steering Committee endorsed the following recommendations:
EPA will change its research program to ensure a balance between research
resources support long-term research and research resources used to
support the applied research and implementation requirements of the
regulatory programs and the Regions.
11
-------
The Administrator will designate a senior policy official to serve as the focal
point for the strategic planning and implementation of the Agency's
research, development and technical services as an integral part of the
Agency's Strategic Plan. A planning process will be developed that
integrates the needs and capabilities of the ORD, Program Offices and
Regions.
The organizational concepts proposed by the Carnegie Commission will be
accepted by EPA. ORD will reorganize its national research laboratories into
four categories: a) Environmental Health and Effects; b) Exposure; c) Risk
Assessment, and d) Risk Management.
EPA will provide for competitive, peer-reviewed grants for academia and not-
for-profit scientific community and work with other federal scientific
agencies to ensure coherent and integrated federal environmental science
programs.
EPA will significantly increase the involvement of the broad scientific
community in EPA science activities through an enhanced peer review
process.
EPA will improve the partnership among its science programs - ORD, the
program office laboratories and the ESO laboratories.
ORD will take steps to decentralize research laboratory management and
administration, and use streamlining as an opportunity to enhance and
empower the science function in EPA.
The Agency recognizes the importance of maintaining the Program office
laboratories because they provide vital technical support to assist, in the
regulatory development and enforcement in the missions areas of their
parent offices.
The regional ESD laboratories provide scientific and technical support to the
RAs. These laboratories are important to maintain, and EPA will explore
ways to enhance and improve their functions.
The Final Report containing the EPA Laboratory Study Steering Committee
recommendations to the Administrator is scheduled to be completed in July 1994.
12
-------
IV. CROSS-AGENCY SUBCOMMITTEE CHARGE
After a presentation of the ESDs during the afternoon session on June 8, 1994 at
the Steering Committee Retreat, four actions were proposed as potential solutions
to existing problems experienced by the ESDs. They were establishing 1) a
champion for ESDs in Headquarters, 2) dedicated resources (FTE/dollars) and a
program element, 3) a confirmed capital budget including, Building & Facilities
(B&F) and Repair & Improvement (R&l) resources for the regions, and 4) a
champion for methods development and validation.
The Steering Committee discussed a full-range of issues surrounding the'proposed
actions. Following a lengthy discussion, the Deputy Administrator summarized the
discussion by stating that there was consensus that 1) a Headquarters advocate(s)
for the ESDs should be fully evaluated, 2) a national program element/budget
should be fully evaluated to provide a stable base of resources for the ESDs, and 3)
dedicated support for methods development and validation should be explored.
OARM and ORD will lead the evaluation of B&F/R&I resources and methods
development/validation, respectively. ESDs will provide assistance in the
evaluation of these cross-cutting issues, as necessary.
The Deputy Administrator presented an unexplored issue as "Are we satisfied with
the current organization of ten regional laboratories?". Following a discussion of
the ESDs and their customer relationships, the Steering Committee agreed to
maintain the current organization with a regional laboratory in each Region. The
Steering Committee supported an initiative that future planning activities, both
strategic and budget, should provide opportunities to review the regional
organization and the Agency's scientific/technical mission.
An subcommittee was formed and charged by the Deputy Administrator and the
Steering Committee. The ESD evaluation was placed by the Deputy Administrator
on the "front burner" and must be completed by June 23, 1994. The
subcommittee consisted of representatives from all the ESDs, and the various
program offices. Region 6, the Lead Region for the ESDs, served as this Cross-
Agency Subcommittee coordinator, with assistance from Region 2 and OROS/LR.
13
-------
The following charge for the Cross-Agency Subcommittee was proposed by the
Deputy Administrator and concurred on by the Steering Committee.
To evaluate a central advocate(s) and its national planning functions for the
ESDs;
To evaluate dedicated resources (FTE/dollars) base;
To evaluate a budget mechanism (program element, line item) and location;
To evaluate alignment and coordination options between ESDs, Program
Offices and ORD;
To explore coordination options to the Agency budget and strategic planning
processes; and
To explore processes to ensure that future planning includes a review of
organizational alignment of ESDs with the Agency's scientific/technical
mission.
14
-------
V. EVALUATION APPROACH
The following action steps were taken by the Cross-Agency Subcommittee to
complete the evaluation.
A. Evaluation of Central Advocate(s) and Their National Planninq Function for
Evaluate potential candidates (Pro/Con Analysis);
Conduct ESD/candidate function analysis (Crosswalk);
Analysis using evaluation criteria such as Science Quality/Utility, ..
Stature/Credibility, Mission Focus, Customer Satisfaction, Multi-media
Approaches, Priorities, Function alignment, Future Investment, Locus of
Control;
Develop a roles/responsibilities description for national planning function;
and
Develop a short list of candidates.
EL Evaluation of Dedicated Resources for Base
Determine current resource level and source (FTEs/dollars);
Determine base resource requirement; and
Develop Budget Proposal(s).
ฃi Evaluation of Budget Mechanism and Location
Evaluate program element vs. line item mechanisms (Pro/Con Analysis); and
Evaluate National Program Manager (NPM) location (Pro/Con Analysis).
Dj. Evaluation of Alignment and Coordination Options between ESP. Program
Offices and QRD Activities
Evaluate current communication process (formal, informal);
Identify contact points or liaisons; and
Develop an improved communication integrated strategy that includes the
activities of ESDs, Programs and ORD.
Ej. Exploration of Coordination Options to the Agency Budget and Strategic
Planning Processes
Integrate the Agency Science/Technology mission into the Agency's budget
and strategic planning processes (being processed as management
improvement action in the lab study).
15
-------
Exploration of Processes to Ensure that Future Planning Includes a Review of
Organizational Alignment ESDs with the Agency's Scientific/Technical
Mission
Evaluate a potential organization and function review process;
Develop mechanisms to integrate the review process into the Agency's
budget and strategic planning process; and
Incorporate accountability as part of the Advocate's performance criteria.
16
-------
VI. EVALUATION ANALYSIS
The following sections describe a summary of the evaluation analysis conducted by
the Cross-Agency Subcommittee.
A,. Evaluation of Central Advocate(s) and Their National Planning Functions for
ESDs
1. Proposed Roles and Responsibilities
Noted during the June 7-8, 1994 Steering Committee Retreat was the absence of
a strong national advocate for the ESDs in the Agency's overall budget and
strategic planning process. The roles and responsibilities for this advocate are
proposed as follows:
Serves as ESD national program manager with clearly defined
responsibilities, authority and accountability. Organization and reporting
responsibilities would be aligned with current Assistant Administrator
(AA)/RA relationships for existing Agency programs.
Provides consensus building for the effective and efficient use of resources
to meet individual program and the overall Agency's science/technical
support requirements.
Serves as the focal point for problem identification and solving for the
Agency's program offices, ORD and the Regions.
Serves as a national forecaster ensuring that the development of the ESDs
are in line with the Agency's scientific mission, and that resources to meet
future demands are available.
v
Serves as the national advocate ensuring that the Agency's senior
management both is aware and understands how the ESD mission integrates
into the overall Agency's scientific mission.
Represents the ESDs as an equal partner during the Agency's budget and
strategic planning efforts.
Provides leadership for the ESDs promoting national consistency.
Facilitates communications between ESDs, the Administrator and national
program offices.
17
-------
1a. Potential Candidates
ซ Deputy Administrator
o Science Policy Council (SPC)
o Science Advisor to the Administrator
o Associate Administrator, Office of Regional Operations, State/Local Relations
(OROS/LR)
ฎ Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and Resources
Management (OARM)
ซ Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE)
Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
ซ Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS)
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water (OW)
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER)
Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA)
Regional Administrator (RA)/Assisfant Administrator (AA) Advisory Panel
Deputy RA/ Deputy AA Advisory Panel
2. Analysis
The potential candidates were initially analyzed by looking at the following
approaches.
FOCAL POINT APPROACH
Focal Point Approach is defined as a single point contact responsible for
national advocacy, budget planning, and strategic planning for the ESDs.
Can include:
AA, OROSUR
Science Advisor to the Administrator
Deputy Administrator
TEAMS APPROACH
Teams Approach is defined as of a group of individuals sharing responsibility
for national advocacy, budget planning, and strategic planning for the ESDs.
18
-------
Can include:
RA/AA Advisory Panel
DRA/Deputy AA Advisory Panel
Science Policy Council
INDIRECT STAKEHOLDER
An Indirect Stakeholder is defined as an existing AA, who is not a
stakeholder, who will serve as the national advocate and be responsible for
budget and strategic planning for the ESDs.
Can include:
AA, OARM
AA, OPPE
SINGLE PROGRAM DIRECT STAKEHOLDER
A Single Program Direct Stakeholder is defined as an existing AA, who is a
stakeholder/customer for a single program, who will serve as the national
advocate, and be responsible foe budget and strategic planning for the ESDs.
Can include:
AA, OAR
AA, OSWER
AA, OW
AA, OPPTS
CROSS PROGRAM DIRECT STAKEHOLDER
A Cross Program Direct Stakeholder is defined as an existing AA, who is a
stakeholder/customer of more than one program, who will serve as the
national advocate, and be responsible for budget and strategic planning for
the ESDs.
Can include:
AA, OECA
AA, ORO
19
-------
Further analysis provided five additional hybrid approaches (combinations):
FOCAL POINT/TEAMS
Focal Point/Teams is defined as a combination of a single focal point
responsible for national advocacy, and budget and strategic planning for the
ESDs with consultation from an advisory team.
Can include:
AA, OROSL/R/Advisory Panel or SPC
Science Advisor/Advisory Panel or SPC
Deputy Administrator/Advisory Panel or SPC
INDIRECT STAKEHOLDER/TEAMS
Indirect Stakeholder/Teams Approach is defined as an existing AA, that is
not a stakeholder, who will serve as a national advocacy, and be responsible
for the budget and strategic planning for the ESDs with consultation from an
advisory team.
Can include:
AA, OARM/Advisory Panel or SPC
AA, OPPE/Advisory Panel or SPC
SINGLE PROGRAM DIRECT STAKEHOLDER/TEAMS
Single Program Direct Stakeholder/Teams is defined as an existing single
program AA, who is a stakeholder/customer for a single program, that will
serve as the national advocate, and be responsible for budget and strategic
planning for the ESDs with consultation from an advisory team.
Can include:
AA, OAR/Advisory Panel or SPC
AA, OPPTS/Advisory Panel or SPC
AA, OSWER/Advisory Panel or SPC
AA, OW/Advisory Panel or SPC
20
-------
CROSS PROGRAM DIRECT STAKEHOLDER/TEAMS
Cross Program Direct Stakeholder/Teams is defined as an existing multi
program AA, who is a stakeholder/customer for more than one program, that
will serve as the national advocate and be responsible for budget and
strategic planning for the ESDs with consultation from an advisory team.
Can include:
AA, OECA/Advisory Panel or SPC
AA, ORD/Advisory Panel or SPC
Following additional discussions, the Cross-Agency Subcommittee members agreed
to subdivide two of the existing options; the Indirect Stakeholder/Teams and the
Cross Program Stakeholders/Team. This division provided an opportunity for a
detailed evaluation of each organization included within the option category.
Additional comments were received by the Cross-Agency Subcommittee to
evaluate an option which included management/organizational improvements to the
OROS/LR.
OARMrTEAM
This was defined as the AA from OARM who will share responsibility for the
national advocacy, and budget planning and strategic planning for the ESDs
with consultation from an advisory team.
OPPE/TEAM
This was defined as the AA from OPPE who will share responsibility for the
national advocacy, and budget planning and strategic planning for the ESDs
with consultation from an advisory team.
\
QECA/TEAM
This was defined as the AA from OECA who will share responsibility for the
national advocacy, and budget planning and strategic planning for the ESDs
with consultation from an advisory team.
21
-------
ORD/TEAM
This was defined as the AA from ORD who will share responsibility for the
national advocacy, and budget planning and strategic planning for the ESDs
with consultation from an advisory team.
ENHANCED OROS/LRrTEAM
This was defined as a Modified Focal Point/Teams with the focal point being
the AA for OROS/LR. This option provides for the implementation of
management improvements and consultation from an advisory team to
improve and enhance the current situation.
Proposed management improvements should include:
Clearly defined roles and responsibilities within OROS/LR;
Identification of senior manager within OROS/LR:
Development of a communication strategy (inreach and outreach);
Improved dedicated staffing with OROS/LR;
Evaluation of contractor support mechanisms;
Increased use of regional rotational assignments for special projects;
Development of a national ESD database;
Implementation of the national ESD strategic plan;
Establishment of Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) between
OROS/LR and the Programs and Regions;
Successful Resolution of budget issues (Executive Office limitations);
Conducting of annual performance surveys;
Coordination between OROS/LR linking regional operations (ESD
specifically) and state/local relations who are the ESD customers,
fostering leveraging of resources; and
Conducting of a national needs survey.
22
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION ADVOCATE CANDIDATE ANALYSIS
TABLE 1: SUMMARY CHART
ADVOCATE CANDIDATE APPROACH
Criteria Reference Code
1. FOCAL POINT
Deputy Administrator
Science Advisor to Admin.
AA. OROS/LR
2. TEAMS
RA/AA Advisory Panel
DRA/DAA Advisory Panel
Science Policy Council
3. INDIRECT STAKEHOLDER
AA, OARM
AA, OPPE
4A. SINGLE PROGRAM DIRECT STAKEHOLDER
AA. OAR
AA. OPPTS
AA. OSWER
AA, OW
4B. CROSS PROGRAM DIRECT STAKEHOLDER
AA. OECA
AA. ORD
5. FOCAL POINT/TEAMS
Deputy Administrator/Advisory Panels or SPC
Science Advisor/Advisory Panels or SPC
AA, OROS/LR/Advisory Panels or SPC
5A. ENHANCED OROS/LR/TEAMS
CRITERIA |
A
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
B
0
-
+
+
+
0
+
c
0
0
-
-
-
0
+
D
0
0
0
-
0
+
E
0
0
0
- -
+
0
+
F
0
0
0
-
-
0
/
+
G
0
0
-
-
-
0
+
H
-
0
+
+
+
_
+
I |
0
0
+
+
+
0
+
23
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION ADVOCATE CANDIDATE ANALYSIS
TABLE 1: SUMMARY CHART (CONTINUED)
ADVOCATE CANDIDATE
Criteria Reference Code
6A. INDIRECT STAKEHOLDER/TEAMS
6A. AA, OARM/Advisory Panels or SPC
6B. AA, OPPE/Advisory Panels or SPC
7A. SINGLE PROGRAM DIRECT STAKEHOLDER/TEAMS
AA, OAR/Advisory Panels or SPC
AA, OPPTS/Advisory Panels or SPC
AA, OSWER/Advfsory Panels or SPC
AA, OW/Advisory Panels or SPC
7B. CROSS PROGRAM DIRECT STAKEHOLDER/TEAMS
7B1 . AA, OECA/Advlsory Panels or SPC
7B2. AA, ORD/Advisory Panels or SPC
CRITERIA
A
0
+
0
+
0
+
B
+
+
+
+
+
+
C
+
0
+
+
0
0
D
+
0
0
0
-
0
E
0
+
-
+
+
+
F
+
+
+
+
+
+
G
0
0
-
0
0
0
H
+
0
+
+
+
+
I
+
0
-f-
+
-f
+
24
-------
CRITERIA REFERENCE CODE DESCRIPTIONS:
A. SCIENCE QUALITY/UTILITY - Does the candidate facilitate the production of science of the highest quality to support the
Agency's environmental protection mission?
B. STATURE/CREDIBILITY - Does the candidate provide the potential for enhancement of the professional stature and credibility <
the scientific/technical staff?
C. MISSION FOCUS - Does the candidate's organization mission improve/enhance the mission of the ESDs?
D. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION - Does the candidate improve the ability to satisfy ESDs' customer needs?
E. MULTI-MEDIA APPROACHES - Does the candidate enhance the ESDs' ability to address multi-media, interdisciplinary issues?
F. PRIORITIES - Will the candidate ensure that resources are focused on the highest priority environmental problems and Agency
support needs?
G. FUNCTION ALIGNMENT - Does the alignment with the candidate clarify organizational responsibilities?
H. FUTURE INVESTMENT - Will the candidate provide leadership for routine self-evaluation, as well as, future investments in
facilities and equipment?
I. LOCUS OF CONTROL - Does the candidate share the mission of the ESDs resulting in "true" championing?
25
-------
3. Analysis Summary
The results of the Pro/Con analysis of advocate candidates for the ESDs has been
summarized in Table 1. Criteria utilized by the Cross-Agency Subcommittee during
their evaluation corresponds to the criteria development and utilized by Mitre
Corporation. Appendix A represents the detailed Pro/Con analysis conducted by
the Cross-Agency Subcommittee.
Based on the evaluation criteria, the following four candidates were identified as
potential candidates for further consideration by the Cross-Agency Subcommittee.
AA, OROS/LR/Advisory Panels or SPC with Management
Improvements
AA, OARM/Advisory Panels or SPC
AA, OECA/Advisory Panels or SPC
AA, ORD/Advisory Panels or SPC
26
-------
EL Evaluation Dedicated Resources (FTE/Dollar) for Base
1. Overview
ESD resources, both Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) and support dollars, are provided
from various media-programs which use the ESDs' technical expertise to support
compliance, enforcement, monitoring and overall implementation of their programs.
ESO resources are provided through internal negotiations on a Region by Region
basis which has been identified as both an organizational strength and weakness.
Resource flexibility is a valuable asset in ensuring customer alignment and fulfilling
program requirements. Resource stability fosters national cohesion and ensures
the availability of essential scientific and technical support services.
No national program element (PE) exists which solely provides for ESD FTEs. Of
the estimated 110 PEs currently established, only two specifically identify ESD
functions (Watershed Management and Superfund). Seven others include line
items outlining program objectives which require ESD services. Line item refers to
support documentation, typically work load models, which provides the detailed
description of activities and cost estimates included within a national program
element. Office of Water's program element for watershed management PE
includes 2.8 FTE per Region for the ESD Division Director and their immediate
office positions.
In 1993, two new PEs, one for the programmatic account and one for the
Superfund account, were establish which provide for ESD equipment purchases.
Prior to 1993, the ESD equipment fund was provided through contributions from
the national program offices; Supplemental resources were provided by regional
management. Over the past several years, the ESD equipment fund has averaged
approximately $3.8 million.
Other operating resources including B&F, and R&l, leases, utilities, supplies et
cetera are funded with resources managed by OARM and their regional
counterparts.
27
-------
2. Objective
To define a dedicated, stable pool of resources needed to ensure that the
ESDs have the resident expertise and capability to respond to the
Agency/Program Office requests for scientific/technical support services.
To maintain responsiveness to emergencies, and evolving Agency program
requirements for scientific/technical support services.
To develop a system which facilitates a continual balance between the
dedicated ESD resources and Agency/Program Office requirements for
scientific/technical support services.
3. Considerations
Resources
A review of Agency's historical accounting information shows that a base for ESDs
has been informally established by the Agency's decision-makers. An analysis of
the results of regional negotiations for Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) used to staff
the ESDs and support the Agency and program office functions was conducted by
the Subcommittee for fiscal years 1991, 1992 and 1993. More current resource
data was not available within the analysis timeframe. The analysis showed
marginal ESD resource shifts, less than 5%, from FY 1991 to FY 1993.
A preliminary review of a representative sample for FY 1994 resources continues
to support this analysis. Approximately 600 FTEs have historically been provided
in staffing the regional ESDs and meet the Agency's basic scientific and technical
support services needs. This resource funding level represents the base resource
requirements necessary to assure that ESD scientific/technical support services can
be provided in support of the regional programs. These resources would need to
be augmented based on specific volume and types of services required by regional
programs.
[Note: Accuracy of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) counts used in this analysis could
not be determined during the timeframe provided to the Subcommittee. FTE
counts presented in this review represent an average of 1991, 1992, 1993
estimates.]
28
-------
Scientific/Technical Support Services
An analysis of the results of regional negotiations for ESD scientific/technical
support service types and volumes varied from Region to Region. Highlighted
during the analysis was that flexibility and responsiveness are essential in
facilitating the programs to successfully meet a wide range of statutory
requirements and program commitments. Responsiveness and flexibility were
identified by Mitre to be essential elements for increased customer satisfaction.
Some basic scientific and technical services provided by ESD require development
expertise and special administrative considerations. Development of expertise is
accomplished both through the training of resident staff, appropriate skill mix and
external hiring. Special administrative considerations includes medical monitoring
program participation, credentials maintenance, supplies and scientific
instrumentation. These ESD scientific/technical services have fixed requirements
below which they cannot continue to be offered to the programs.
Balance
By making available ESD scientific/technical services to competitive or negotiable
process, the Agency ensures that its science mission is adequately supported by
the ESDs. Competition ensures continued customer alignment by maintaining
responsiveness and system flexibility. Understanding and/or defining fixed
requirements (costs) ensures basic scientific/technical services can continue to be
provided to the Agency system as a whole.
Throughout the analysts, the need for complete flexibility by any individual
programs was weighed against ensuring the availability of basic scientific/technical
services.
29
-------
4. Budget Proposals1
Proposal 1
Proposal 1
ESD Base Budget
Programs
Additional
Capacity
Negotiated Services and Resources
Capacity
ESO Base
(600 FTE)
Capability
Overhead
Negotiated
Services
(66%)
Fixed Services
(33%)
Resources:
Defines base as 100% of current ESD resources
Establishes ESD budget using base resources (600 FTE)
Maintains current distribution of resources
Base and core are synonymous
Scientific/Technical Services:
Defines one-third of ESD services as fixed
Allow two-thirds of ESD services to be negotiated
Establishes ESD service "menus" for negotiated and fixed services.
Establishes program "budgets" and "checking accounts" by which
negotiated services are provided and tracked.
Establishes process to conduct program "needs" survey to ensure
ESD/program alignment, and aid in forecasting major resource shifts and
future budget requests.
Based on a preliminary evaluation, it was determined that approximately one
third of the ESD scientific/technical services should remain fixed to ensure
their availability to the programs. The remaining two thirds of ESD
scientific/technical services could utilize competitive or negotiable
mechanism based on specific program needs.
It should be expressly stated that the budget proposals presented do not
propose or endorse any redistribution of regional resources across the
Agency. Cost estimates do not include facility and fiscal management.
30
-------
Proposal 2
Proposal 2
Programs
ESD Base
(600 FTE)
Additional
Capacity
Capacity
Capability
Overhead
ESD Base Budget
Negotiated Services and
Resources
Negotiated Services
Resources:
Defines base as 100% of current ESD resources
Establishes budget using ESD base resources (600 FTE)
Maintains current distribution of resources
Base and Core are synonymous
Scientific/Technical Services:
Does not determine specific percentages of fixed/negotiated services noting
that each Region will have critical mass requirements
Establishes ESD service "menus" for negotiated and fixed services.
Establishes program "budgets" and "checking accounts" by which
negotiated services are provided and tracked
o Establishes process to conduct program "needs" survey to ensure
ESD/program alignment, and aid in forecasting major resource shifts and
future budget requests
31
-------
Proposal 3
Proposal 3
Capacity
Overhead and
Capability
Core Total
ESD Core Requirements
Adm.
QA
LAB
FIELD
Negotiated Services and Resources
4
4
8 - 9
8 -9
20- 21
20- 21
16 - 18
16-18
Resources:
ซ Does not define base
o Core includes overhead and capability to perform services
ฎ Defines core resources needed to provide for ESD functions: Administrative,
Laboratory, Field and Quality Assurance
Core is defined as 480 - 520 FTE nationwide; individual core requirements
will be identified for each Region.
Scientific/Technical Services:
Core reflects basic capability and overhead
Variable cost reflecting capacity (volume or types of service) to support to
programs will be negotiated
32
-------
Proposal 4
Proposal 4
Programs
ESD Base
(600 FTE)
ESD Core
(480 - 520
FTE)
Additional
Capacity
Capacity
Capability
Overhead
BSD Budget
Negotiated Services and Resources
Negotiated Services
Fixed Services
Resources:
Defines base as 100% of current BSD resources
Establishes program office targets using base resources (600 FTE}
Targets defined as resource levels needed to provide a volume of service
(capacity) in support of the program office
Core includes overhead and capability to perform services
Defines core resources needed to provide for ESD functions: Administrative,
Laboratory, Field and Quality Assurance
Establishes ESD budget using core resources (480 - 520) FTE; individual
core requirements will be identified for each Region
Scientific/Technical Services:
Core reflects basic capability and overhead
ซ Variable cost reflecting capacity (volume or types of service) to support
program offices will be negotiated
o Establishes program "target" of the current base level (600 FTE) as a means
to establish for both the provider and user historical resource levels and
prevent major resource shifts
ซ Additional capacity for services can be negotiated on a case by case basis
33
-------
5. Summary
A common issue identified by the Cross-Agency Subcommittee during their
analysis of the options, was the impact of the option on the ability for ESD to
successfully negotiate with the program offices in the future.
By only establishing a core for the ESDs, a strongly negative effect on ESD's
capability to negotiate with the programs for resources would occur. A clear,
uniform definition would have to be transmitted by the Agency's senior
management. A difficult cultural change would be required to ensure that Agency-
wide personnel possessed a clear understanding of services included in core.
Historically, the definition of "core" is eventually replaced with the definition of
"base". Should this occur, the ESD would lose program resource support needed
to support and fund essential capacity.
Establishing a base for the ESDs would formalize the resource requirements for
providing scientific/technical support to the program offices. Determination of an
ESD base would enhance its ability in negotiations with the program offices for
resources. Again, a clear, uniform definition of base and the services provided
within its parameters would be essential. The identified base for ESD should be
institutionalized into the Agency's budget process.
34
-------
III. Evaluation of Budget Mechanism and Location
Many issues involving the budget mechanism and location will be resolved by the
selection of the ESD advocate. Analysis of specific budget mechanisms location
cannot not be finalized the determination of the ESD advocate. The Cross-Agency
Subcommittee noted that the use of the selection of a budget mechanism and the
budget location should not be to ensure customer alignment; this should be
accomplished through improved management and coordination across the Agency.
To enhance and improve the Agency's Science and Technology program, it will be
necessary to encourage cultural changes involving resources. The following
provides discussion on various budget mechanism and location options,
highlighting general advantages and disadvantages provided by the Cross-Agency
Subcommittee.
A. Mechanism
The Cross-Agency Subcommittee did not recommend a proposal for the Agency
petitioning Congress to develop a separate appropriation to provide for its internal
science and technical support services. Appropriations are readily targeted by
Congressional and special interest groups, resulting in the potential of significant
impacts on the programs they are meant to support. The Agency's Research and
Development appropriation has been negatively impacted based on the influence of
external parties.
A Program Element (PE) was identified as a viable budget mechanism. A PE
encourages resource stability within EPA by providing a readily identifiable account
for scientific and technical services. The present ESD capital equipment PE has
stabilized resources available for purchasing scientific equipment for the ESDs.
These funds were originally provided by each media office and aggregated by
OARM's Budget Division for distribution based on an agreed-upon methodology. It
should be noted, however, that because of its visibility of a PE in the external
budget process, it can be targeted for specific reductions rather than simply being
affected by global Agency-wide cuts. This would seriously impact the Agency's
ability to provide the support services conducted by the ESDs for the program
offices.
The Cross-Agency Subcommittee identified line item as a viable budget
mechanism. Line items are sub-elements of larger PEs. This results in less
visibility and increased flexibility. However, historically line items have been
subjected to reductions by unilateral decisions.
Both mechanisms provide a means for establishing an Agency-wide definable
budget for the ESDs. As noted during the EPA Laboratory Study, the ESD
scientific and technical services-were not widely known and understood within the
35
-------
Agency. Their lack of involvement in the Agency's budget process has contributed
to this problem. Establishment of a PE or line item within existing budget or a new
budget specific for the ESD services ensures their participation in future budget
planning. This would facilitate the resolution of other management problems
identified by the Steering Committee concerning coordination and alignment of the
ESDs with ORD and program offices during the Agency's Strategic Planning
process.
B. Location
The Cross-Agency Subcommittee identified and evaluated three options for the
location of ESD NPM within the Agency's organizational structure. These are: 1}
a single NPM within the Agency solely responsible for the ESD budget, 2) a Mixed
NPM, that includes the National Advocate and one or more NPMs in the Agency,
each having oars of the ESD budget process; and 3) Multi-program NPMs where
the ESD budget is managed outside the National Advocate office by one or more
NPMs in the Agency.
The single NPM option would provide a centralized planning and budget process.
This is a streamlined, more efficient approach. A mixed NPM provides for stability
and flexibility by having some portion of the budget managed by a single NPM (the
advocate), and the remainder managed by one or more NPMs that are ESD
customers. Multi NPMs would completely distribute the budget outside of the ESD
advocate, allowing the customers to have full control. This is less efficient, and
allows for unilateral decisions that can affect the whole resulting in resource shifts.
It would require extensive coordination by all the NPMs.
36
-------
[Jj. Evaluation of Alignment and Coordination Options between ESP. Program
Offices and ORD Activities, and Exploration of Coordination Potions to the
Agency Budget and Strategic Planning Processes
During the Cross-Agency Subcommittee's analysis, the inter-relationship of
strategic planning, budget planning and program alignment and coordination was
determined to be essential in the success of any organization. Strategic planning
represents the driving force behind budget planning. Budget planning represents
the driving force behind program alignment and coordination. Originally, the Cross-
Agency Subcommittee was charged to address alignment/coordination issues
separately from budget/strategic planning issues. After careful consideration, the
Cross-Agency Subcommittee determined that the inter-relationship of these
activities was best emphasized when combined.
During the past year, the Agency has made great strides first by developing an
Agency-wide Strategic Plan, and secondly, by institutionalizing the Strategic Plan
into the Agency's budget process. The Subcommittee acknowledged these efforts
as instrumental in improving the coordination Agency-wide in the budget and
strategic planning processes. The Cross-Agency Subcommittee recognized the
often understated value of inreach and outreach activities. The EPA Laboratory
Study itself has greatly accentuated cross program understanding which will lead
to enhanced alignment and coordination within the Agency. This awareness
across the Agency's national and regional programs is essential, and should
represent the cornerstone for building an effective outreach program for the
Agency's scientific and technical community and its customers. These combined
efforts provide the foundation upon which to build a more integrated planning
process and improved science and technology in the Agency.
The Steering Committee recommended that the Administrator designate a senior
policy official to serve as the focal point for the strategic planning and
implementation of the Agency's research, development and technical services as
an integral part of the Agency's Strategic Plan. A new Agency-wide planning
process for research, development and technical services will be developed. The
ESD Central Advocate, in coordination with the Regional Administrators, will have
primary responsibility for ensuring that ESO scientific and technical services are
integrated into the Agency's Strategic Plan.
The Agency-wide recognition and endorsement of a national advocate for the ESDs
will serve as a catalyst for improving alignment between the ESDs, the program
offices and ORO in the strategic and budget planning processes. The advocate
provides a focal point for the ESDs at the EPA Headquarters office providing easy
access to the national program offices and ORD. Options identified in Sections
VLB. and VLC. of this evaluation that address a dedicated ESD budget and
37
-------
mechanism, would enhance ESDs' role in the budget and strategic planning
processes by making ESD a stakeholder.
A team or advisory panel would provide supplemental advice and guidance to the
national advocate on cross-Agency issues relating both to strategic planning and
budget. This creates a dual system that provides for two paths to better ensure
communication, alignment and coordination within the Agency.
In addition to having a national advocate, the establishment of liaisons between
the ESDs and the program offices and ORD would greatly increase communication
which is critical to alignment, strategic planning and budgeting issues. Direct lines
of communication should be established. Development of Memorandum of
Understanding with the ESDs could be used as a tool to formalize
this process.
Figure 1 depicts a flow chart that outlines this integrated process that
demonstrates these various coordination relationships for the alignment, budget
and strategic planning processes. It demonstrates the dual system which should
encourage consensus building instead of unilateral decision making.
Figure 1: Integrated Process for Alignment, Budget and Strategic Planning
Sa
<
r
I
OA
ence Policy .
3ouncil |
*
'Research, Development
and Technical Services ,
Designee J
(
^
^
^
R OARM OE
\
>. ESD
Advocat
. X
^
CA OPPTS
Administrator
Dep
Admin
e
Re
Adn
1
ป
gi
ii
ntv - i
Strator IOROS/LR
r - J 7 T 7
4 4_ < ^ 1
onal | OPPE ORD OSWER OW
mstraior
ESD |
38
-------
E.. Exploration of Processes to Ensure that Future Planning includes Review of
Organizational Alignment of ESDS with Agency's Scientific/Technical
Mission
While attempting to meet its charge for this evaluation, the Cross-Agency
Subcommittee noted the difficulty and general lack of readily available information
relating to the ESDs. This was particularity true in the area of resource
management and future program needs. Review of resource management and
capacity requirements are essential elements in preparing for the future. An
accurate understanding of customer needs, both immediate and long-term, is
critical in future planning.
The following are a list of proposed activities to assist in gathering of information
for future planning purposes.
Conduct a customer "needs" survey;
Establish a forecasting system for short- and long-term program
requirements;
Develop a national tracking system to determine progress and efficiency;
Develop a national ESD database;
Develop an inreach and outreach program to enhance communication and
coordination;
Establish a customer satisfaction survey to evaluate performance;
Develop a standardized process to be used Agency-wide providing
consistency;
Conduct internal evaluations of the ESD organization on an annual basis;
Conduct external evaluations every 5 years; and
Develop national goals.
These elements can be implemented individually or formalized in an integrated
process. Roles and responsibilities for these activities will be established and
formalized in an integrated workplan.
39
-------
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
1 Research, Developm
and Technical Servic
^ Designee
* *
c- n r
science roiicy ^ \~(
Council * H-
V '
\ X
/- - - / r
\ OAR i OARM IOECA
Admmistratori
pnr |
i
:esi^ Deputy
_J Administrator
\ ^^
3ROS/LRU
1
"^
ป.' 1 ^
OPPTSl Re
Aon
Q
gi
u
. T 7 r 7
4. 4. t t
onal OPPE ORD |OSWER| | OW
mstrator
ESD
The Cross-Agency Subcommittee proposes the following recommendations to the
EPA Laboratory Study Steering Committee for inclusion in their report to the
Administrator.
Evaluation of a Central Advocate
The ESD Central Advocate should charged with the primary responsibility of
the assurance and maintenance of customer alignment between scientific
and technical services of the ESDs and their customers. OROS/LR provides
the essential neutrality required in establishing and maintaining this customer
alignment across the Agency.
Modifications to enhance OROS/LR management and budget systems will be
necessary. These changes implemented, along with management
improvements already adopted by the Steering Committee, will greatly
enhance the current organization.
OROS/LR should continue in its national advocacy role for the ESDs. If the
enhancements outlined by the Cross-Agency Subcommittee in the Enhanced
OROS/LR/Team Option cannot be achieved, supplemental analysis would
need to be conducted to. determine an alternative advocate.
40
-------
Evaluation of Dedicated Resource for Base and Evaluation of Budget Mechanism
and Location
By establishing a balanced ESD budget, EPA provides for the essential
organization stability and maintains flexibility to fulfill program requirements
The balanced ESD budget fosters customer alignment.
The Subcommittee does not propose any redistribution of the ESD scientific
and technical resources across the Agency. The Subcommittee proposes
that a national budget for the ESDs should be established in a single program
element placed within the central advocate's budget responsibilities
(Proposal 4). The national budget will be the sum of individual core
requirements identified for each Region. The remaining targeted ESD base
should be established as line items with the respective program office
budget responsibilities. Additional negotiations for increased capability and
capacity would continue to be conducted through the existing negotiation
process.
Evaluation of Alignment and Coordination Options between ESD. Program Offices
and ORD Activities and Exploration of Coordination Option to the Agency Budget
and Strategic Planning Processes
The Steering Committee has recommended that the Administrator designate
a senior policy official to serve as the focal point for the strategic planning
and implementation of the Agency's research, development and technical
services as an integral part of the Agency's Strategic Plan.
A new Agency-wide planning process for research, development and
technical services should be developed. The ESD Central Advocate, in
coordination with the Regional Administrators, is charged with the primary
responsibility for ensuring that ESD scientific and technical services are
integrated into the Agency's Strategic Plan.
Exploration of Processes to ensure that Future Planning includes Review of
Organizational Alignment of ESDs with Agency's Scientific/Technical Mission
To effectively plan for the future, accurate and readily available information
concerning the ESD's scientific and technical services must be available.
EPA should develop an integrated process to evaluate its current, and
forecast its future, science and technical service requirements.
41
-------
ESD EVALUATION
CROSS-AGENCY SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS
Co-Chair, Joe D. Winkle, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6
Co-Chair, Jeanne Fox, Regional Administrator, Region 2
Co-Chair, Shelley Metzenbaum, Associate Administrator for Regional Operations
and State/Local Relations
Frank M. Covington, Director, National Enforcement Investigative Centers
Tudor T. Davies, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Gerald A. Emison, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 10
Ann Goode, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation
Dennis Grams, Regional Administrator, Region 7
John Hankinson, Regional Administrator, Region 4
Henry L. Longest II, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
42
-------
APPENDI . ADVOCATE PRO/CON ANALYSIS CHARTS
ADVOCATE CANDIDATE 1 : Focal Point (Deputy Administrator or Science Advisor to Admin, or AA. OROS/LR Only)
CRITERIA -::-: ?'.v. :;i- p; H:':
A - Science Quality/Utility
B - Stature/Credibility
C - Mission Focus
D - Customer Satisfaction
E - Multi-Media Approaches
F - Priorities
G Function Alignment
H - Future Investment
1 1 nrus at Control
scone
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
PRO/CON ANALYSIS ".- /;:.V,- .l^W-hr U %: ::L r =.-. :F> '-.ฃ : h-H; = .$ฃsfc - -
Pro-Senior decision-makers closely tied to the Agency's strategic planning; proximity to
Administrator; actively involved in the redevelopment of the Agency's S/T program; all currently in
coordinating and consensus-building roles; direct accountability to Congress; political appointee
Con-Broad accountability not linked to any specific regulation; lack of direct control (more
fundamental coordination role); political appointees are subject to periodic changes
Pro-Proximity to Administrator; political appointee; responsibility in redevelopment of Agency's S/T
mission; ability to institutionalize the dual career path
Con-Perceived change vs. real change overall (figure head)
Pro-Broad responsibilities would provide a national focus to keep ESDs in line with Agency's mission;
neutral on what their organization can do specifically to enhance ESD mission
Con-
Pro-Centralized focus for the national program offices; centralized focus in budget & strategic
planning processes; limited impact on organization causing minimal disruption of services
Con-
Pro-Centralized focus for the national program offices; centralized focus in budget & strategic
planning processes; centralized organizational impact causing minimal disruption of services
Con-Lack of national champion for multi-media
Pro-Direct link to the Agency's priority decision-makers
Con-Regional and geographic priorities may be diluted; lack of program responsibilities that
influences decision-makers; lack of specific regulatory accountability; priorities are general
Pro-Proximity to the decision-makers; general alignment
Con-Specific day-to-day alignment; lack of specific accountability
Pro-
Con-Limitations of the Executive Office (OA); lack of direct budget control; lack of support staff for
day-to-day implementation
i
Pro-Multl-media, multi-program approach is in line with Agency's mission
Con-Lack of specific responsibilities and accountability; lack of support for day-to-day
implementation
A 1
-------
ADVOCATE CANDIDATE 2: Teams (RA/AA Advisory Panel; DRA/DAA Advisory Panel; Science Policy Council (SPCI Only)
CRITERIA
A - Science Quality/Utility
>
B - Stature/Credibility
C - Mission Focus
D - Customer Satisfaction
E - Multi-Media Approaches
F - Piiorities
G Function Alignment
H - Future Investment
1 Locus ot Control
SCORE
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PRO/CON ANALYSIS - ;: V'::s: r. 'i?^ :" - -^'- :.-'
-------
ADVOCATE CANDIDATE 3:. Indirect Stakeholder (AA of OARM or OPPE Only)
CRITERIA
A Science Quality/Utility
B - Stature/Credibility
C - Mission Focus
D - Customer Satisfaction
E - Multi-Media Approaches
F - Priorities
G - Function Alignment
H - Future Investment
1 - Locus of Control
SCORE
+
0
-
0
0
-
+
+
PRO/CON ANALYSIS - '. .-.-. i&i , .--/hi:--.:-. .' '::' i : ; ;- & ^- ฎNl/ v
Pro-
Con-More involved in the administrative operations of the Agency
Pro-Senior decision-maker; parity
Con-Specific mission is not directly linked to S/T; not a recognized advocate of S/T, internally and
externally
Pro-
Con-Their unrelated mission could dilute the ESD mission
Pro-Provides a focal point; services/support organization sharing many customers with ESD
Con-Low customer alignment; lack of understanding of ESD products and services;
Pro-
Con-Neutral position; limited knowledge of multi-media approaches
Pro-OPPE is link between Agency's budget process and Administrator's goals
Con-Typically generalists. with lack of focus on the specifics at the customer level
Pro-Neutral functional position; management parity
Con-Potential to dilute ESD alignment; would not enhance S/T functions
Pro-Knowledge of budget process and ability to work within it; could address administrative
concerns (B&F/R&I)
Con-Lack of understanding of ESD mission, integration and needs
Pro-Focal point; parity
Con-Lack of specific responsibilities and accountability; would not capture scientific needs
A 3
-------
ADVOCATE CANDIDATE 4A: Single Program Direct Stakeholder (AA of either OAR. OPPTS, OSWER. or OW Only)
CRITERIA
A - Science Quality/Utility ;
B - Stature/Credibility
C Mission Focus
D - Customer Satisfaction
E - Multi-Media Approaches
F - Priorities
G - Function Alignment
H - Future Investment
1 - Locus of Control
SCORE
0
+
-
-
-
+
+
PRO/CON ANALYSIS
Pro-Senior decision-makers closely tied to the Agency's strategic planning; proximity to the
Administrator; actively involved in the redevelopment ot the Agency's S/T program; all currently in
coordination and consensus-building roles; direct accountability to Congress; political appointee
Con-Potential to concentrate scientific excellence in a single program lacks cross program
perspective
Pro-All senior decision-makers; all have specific responsibilities and accountability
Con-Historical internal and external perception
Pro-Mission relates to day-to-day implementation as opposed to general approach
Con-Organizational mission is too focused on a single program; tendency to dilute ESD cross
program mission to meet specific program needs
Pro-
Con-Too focused on a single program
Pro
Con-Majority of candidates would not foster multi-media
Pro-Focal point
Con-Competing/conflicting priorities; potential for in-balance due to single program focus
Pro-
Con-lncomplete alignment due to single program focus
Pro-Have adequate support staff; senior decision-makers actively involved in budget process
Con-Potential conflict with other programs; potential control problems; tendency to negatively
impact resources not directly in support of single program mission
Pro-Focal point; parity
Con-Incomplete sharing of mission
A 4
-------
ADVOCATE CANDIDATE 4B: Cross Program Direct SteJtehoJdef (AA of either OECA or ORD Only)
CRITERIA
A - Science Quality/Utility
/
B - Stature/Credibility
C - Mission Focus
D - Customer Satisfaction
E - Multi-Media Approaches
F Ptioiities
G - Function Alignment
H - Future Investment
1 - Locus of Control
SCORE
0
+
-
-f
-
-
+
+
PRO/CON ANALYSIS ?>
Pro-Senior decision-makers closely tied to the Agency's strategic planning; proximity to
Administrator; actively involved in the redevelopment ol the Agency's S/T program; all currently in
coordinating and consensus-building roles; direct accountability to Congress; political appointees
Con-Potential to facilitate production of science of the highest quality in a single program; quality in
specific mission; ambient monitoring will not be addressed by OECA
Pro-Senior decision-makers; responsibility and accountability
Con-Historical internal and external perception
Pro-
Con-ESOs have a different mission than ORD; OECA's mission is narrower than the current ESO
mission; potential conflicts with primary interests
Pro-
Con-ORD has different primary customers than ESOs; OECA shares a narrower focus of customers;
potential to dilute the ESD's current mission
Pro Both are currently multi-media organizations
Con-Potential multi-media changes will require cultural changes within EPA
Pro-Focal point; broader range of priorities
Con-Potential conflicts with primary interests
Pro- Current knowledge of analytical systems
Con-Some primary ESD functions may be lost; potential problem with primary interests
Pro-Have adequate support staff; senior decision-makers actively involved in budget process
Con-Potential conflict with other programs; potential control problems; tendency to negatively
impact resources not directly in support of single program mission
Pro-Focal point; parity
Con-Incompatibility of some missions and functions; potential problem with primary interests
A 5
-------
ADVOCATE CANDIDATE 5: Focal Point/Teens Hybrid (Deputy Administrator or Science Advisor to Admin, or AA. OROS/LR/Advlsory Panels or SPC)
CRITERIA
A - Science Quality/Utility
j
B - Stature/Credibility
C - Mission Focus
i
D - Customer Satisfaction
E - Multi-Media Approaches
F - Priorities
G - Function Alignment
H Future Investment
1 - Locus ol Control
SCORE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
PRO/CON ANALYSIS .; . , <}-.:. j = :: ' :' ...:>; , :;. '-, " >;{-'{. ' : ^fev- .:
Pro-Senior decision-makers closely tied to the Agency's strategic planning; proximity to
Administrator; actively involved in the redevelopment ol the Agency's S/T program; all currently in
coordinating and consensus-building roles; direct accountability to Congress
Con-Broad accountability not linked to specific regulations; lack of direct control (more fundamental
coordination role)
Pro-Proximity to Administrator; Committee structure fosters buy-in; focal point has support of
committee
Con-Lacks direct responsibility and accountability; still ad hoc structure
Pro-Focal point can ensure that missions remain focused; broad responsibilities would provide a
national focus to keep ESDs in line with Agency's mission
Con-
Pro-Centralized focus and representation for the national program offices; centralized focus in budget
& strategic planning processes; limited impact to current organization causing minor disruption of
services
Con-
Pro-Cross representation affords enhancement; single focal point supporting multi-media initiatives
Con-Lack of direct control and accountability of resources
Pro-Direct link to the Agency's priority decision-makers with a focal point for communication
enhancement
Con-Potential for conflicting priorities
Pro-Neutral; limited impacts to organization with minimal disruption of services
Con-
Pro-Potential tor coordinated budget enhancement including a single national advocate
Con-Potential for limitations of the Executive Office (OA); no centralized resource pool; lack of
support for day-to-day implementation; advisory group effectiveness depends on level of
participation
Pro-Multi-media, multi-program approach is in line with Agency's mission; focal point
Con-Ad hoc system with no clear lines of specific responsibilities and accountability; lack ol support
for day-to-day implementation
A 6
-------
ADVOCATE CANDIDATE 5A: Enhanced Focal Point/Teams Hybrid (AA, OROS/LR Only/Advisory Panels or SPC with Management Improvements)
CRITERIA
A - Science Quality/Utility
B - Stature/Credibility
C - Mission Focus
D - Customer Satisfaction
E Multi-Media Approaches
F - Priorities
G - Function Alignment
H - Future Investment
1 Locus ol Control
SCORE
0
-f
+
4-
+
+
+
+
1
PRO/CON ANALYSIS :' .. /' '.('?. :-... :'': \ - = V -.-; -j^i -O^ . / -
Pro-Defined roles and responsibilities linked to Agency S/T mission; senior decision-maker closely
tied to the Agency's strategic planning process; proximity to the Administrator; currently in a
coordinating and consensus -building role; direct accountability to Congress; political appointee
Con-Lack of direct control (more fundamental coordination role); broad accountability not linked to
specific regulations
Pro-Proximity to the Administrator; political appointee; senior decision-maker supported by advisory
panel; defined S/T responsibilities and accountability
Con-Historical internal and external perception
Pro-Enhancement due to the addition of advisory panel and management improvements; provides
national consistency; state/local relations enhances customer alignment
Con-
Pro-Centralized focus and representation for the national program offices; centralized focus in budget
and strategic planning processes; limited impact to current organization causing minor disruption of
services
Con-
Pro-Enhances organization's multi-media capabilities; provides single focal point for multi-media
nationally
Con-
Pro-Direct link to the Agency's priority decision-makers with an improved focal point; enhanced
communication; Memorandums of Understanding with program offices and the Regions
Con-Potential for conflicting priorities
Pro-Knowledge and experience in current ESD alignment; state and local relations enhances
customer alignment.
Con-
Pro-Currently responsible for equipment PE for ESDs; knowledge of the budget process and ability to
work within it; advisory group fosters nationally and regional buy-in
Con-Limitations of the Executive Office (OA); advisory group effectiveness' depends on level of
participation
Pro-Multi-media. multi-program approach is in line with the Agency's mission; local point; parity;
management improvements deline accountability
Con-
A 7
-------
ADVOCATE CANDIDATE 6: Indirect Stakeholder/Teams Hybrid (AA. of OARM or OPPE/Advlsory Panels or SPC)
CRITERIA
A - Science Quality/Utility
B - Stature/Credibility
C - Mission Focus
D - Customer Satisfaction
t
E Multi-Media Approaches
F - Priorities
G - Function Alignment
H - Future Investment
1 - Locus of Control
SCORE
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
PRO/CON ANALYSIS
Pro-Availability of a scientifically -oriented advisory body
Con-Ad hoc approach that is dependent on participation; lack of S/T expertise by focal point
Pro-Senior decision-maker supported by scientific advisory body
Con-Conflict resolution may be difficult due to lack of S/T expertise
Pro-Slightly enhancement of current situation due to the addition of scientific advisory panel; AA-
ship promotes national consistency
Con-Lack of S/T understanding; their current mission will likely dilute the ESD mission
Pro-Provides a focal point and representation; limited impact to current organization causing minimal
disruption of services; services/support organization sharing many customers with ESD
Con-
Pro-Cross representation affords enhancement
Con-
Pro-Senior decision-makers; broad representation
Con-Conflicting specific program priorities
Pro-Neutral functional position; management parity
Con-
Pro-Knowledge of the budget process and ability to work within it; advisory group fosters nationally
and regionally buy-in
Con-Advisory group effectiveness depends on level of participation
Pro-Central focal point; parity
Con-
A 8
-------
ADVOCATE CANDIDATE 6A: Indirect Sfcftahotder/Tssms Hybrid (AA of OARM/Advleory Penaio or SPC)
CRITERIA
A - Science Quality/Utility
B - Stature/Credibility
C - Mission Focus
D - Customer Satisfaction
1
E - Multi-Media Approaches
F Priorities
G - Function Alignment
H - Future Investment
1 - Locus of Control
SCORE
+
-ป-
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
PRO/CO^ ANALYSIS
Pro-Availability of a scientifically-oriented advisory body
Con-Ad hoc approach that is dependent on participation; lack of S/T expertise by focal point
Pro-Senior decision-maker supported by scientific advisory body
Con-Conflict resolution may be difficult due to lack of S/T expertise
Pro-Slightly enhancement of current situation due to the addition of scientific advisory panel; AA-
ship promotes national consistency
Con-Lack of S/T understanding; their current mission will likely dilute the ESD mission
Pro-Provides a focal point and representation; limited impact to current organization causing minimal
disruption of services
Con-
Pro-Cross representation affords enhancement
Con-
Pro-Senior decision-makers; broad representation
Con-Conflicting specific program priorities
Pro-Neutral functional position; management parity
Con-
Pro-Knowledge of the budget process and ability to work within it, advisory group fosters national
and regional buy-in
Con-Advisory group effectiveness depends on level of participation
Pro-Central focal point; parity
Con-
A 9
-------
ADVOCATE CANDIDATE 63: Indirect Stabeholdu/Teamo Hybrid (AA of OPPE/Advisory Penelt or SPC)
CRITERIA
A - Science Quality/Utility
B - Stature/Credibility
C - Mission Focus
O - Customer Satisfaction
r
E - Multi-Media Approaches
F - Pfiorities
G - Function Alignment
H - Future Investment
1 - Locus ol Control
SCORE
+
+
0
0
+
+
0
-f.
+
PRO/COM ANALYSIS :
Pro-Availability of a scientifically-oriented advisory body
Con-Ad hoc approach that is dependent on participation; lack of S/T expertise by focal point
Pro-Senior decision-maker supported by scientific advisory body
Con-Conflict resolution may be difficult due to lack of SfT expertise
Pro-Slightly enhancement of current situation due to the addition of scientific advisory panel; AA-
ship promotes national consistency
Con-Lack of S/T understanding; their current mission will likely dilute the ESD mission
Pro-Provides a focal point and representation; limited impact to current organization causing minimal
disruption of services
Con-
Pro-Cross representation affords enhancement
Con-
Pro-Senior decision-makers; broad representation
Con-Conflicting specific program priorities
Pro-Neutral functional position; management parity
Con-Potential to dilute ESD alignment
Pro-Knowledge of the budget process; advisory group fosters nationally and regionally buy-in
Con-Advisory group effectiveness depends on level of participation
Pro-Central focal point; parity
Con-
A 10
-------
ADVOCATE CANDIDATE 7A: Single Program Direct StekehoMer/Toems Hybrid (AA of either OAR.OPPTS.OSWER or OW/ Advisory Panels or SPC)
CRITERIA
A - Science Quality/Utility
B - Stature/Credibility
C - Mission Focus
D - Customer Satisfaction
E Multi Media Approaches
F Priorities
G - Function Alignment
H - Future Investment
1 Locus of Control
SCORE
O
+
+
0
-
+
-
-f
+
PRO/CON ANALYSES
Pro-Senior decision-makers closely tied to the Agency's strategic planning; proximity to
Administrator; actively involved in the redevelopment of the Agency's S/T program; all currently in
coordination and consensus-building roles; direct accountability to Congress;broad scientific
representation
Con-Potential to facilitate the production of science of the highest quality in a single program
Pro-All senior decision-makers; all have specific responsibilities
Con-Historical internal and external perception
Pro-S/T focal point with a S/T advisory council makes a strong team; mission relates to day-to-day
implementation as opposed to a general approach
Con-Tendency to dilute ESD cross program mission to meet single program needs
Pro-Consensus process; equal representation
Con-Too focused on a single program; tendency to display bias for a single program
Pro-
Con-Lack of control overall
Pro-Provides for a focal point; direct link to Agency decision-makers; consensus process
Con-Conflicting and competing priorities
Pro-
Con-lncomplete alignment due to single program focus
Pro-Have adequate support staff; senior decision-makers actively involved in budget process; system
of checks and balances
Con-Tendency to negatively impact resources not directly in support of single program mission;
advisory group effectiveness depends on level of participation
Pro-Focal point; equal representation
Con-Tendency to facilitate a single program and not the broader cross program
A 11
-------
ADVOCATE CANDIDATE 7B: Cross
CRITERIA
A - Science Quality/Utility
B - Stature/Credibility
C - Mission Focus
D - Customer Satisfaction
E - Multi Media Approaches
F - Piiorities
G - Function Alignment
H - Future Investment
1 - Locus of Control
Program Direct StafcohoMfW/TeemB Hybrid (AA of althor OECA or ORD/A'Msory PanaJs or SPC)
SCORE
+
+
0
0
+
0
0
+
ป-
PRO/CON AMALY6IS
Pro ORD plays a major roles in SfT of the Agency; quality is essential to mission of OECA; same as
I)
Con-ORD focus is primarily on research; ambient monitoring is not captured under OECA
Pro-Senior decision makers; responsible and accountable for science and quality of data
Con-Historical internal and external perception; turf issue
Pro-S/T focal point with a S/T advisory council makes a strong team; mission relates to day-to-day
implementation as opposed to general approach
Con-ESDs have a different mission than ORD; OECA's mission is narrower than the current ESD
mission
Pro-Consensus process; equal representation
Con-ORD has different primary customers than ESDs; OECA shares a narrower focus of customers;
potential to dilute the ESDs' current services
Pro-Both are currently multi-media organizations
Con-Their multi-media functions are tied to their mission providing a narrow
Pro-Provides a focal point; direct link to the Agency's decision-makers; consensus process
Con-Conflicting and competing priorities
Pro-Advisory panel has balancing effect
Con-ORD and OECA are large organizations; some ESD functions do not align (e.g. ambient
monitoring, special studies)
Pro-Have adequate support staff; senior decision-makers actively involved in budget process; system
of checks and balances
Con-Potential conflict with other programs; potential control problems; tendency to negatively
impact resources not directly in support of single program mission; advisory group effectiveness
depends on level of participation
Pro-Focal point; equal representation
Con-lncomparability of some missions and functions
A 12
-------
ADVOCAT2 CANDIDATE 7B: Crcoa Program Direct Stakoholdair/Tbama Hybrid (AA of either OECA or ORD/Advlsory Panels or SPG)
CRITERIA
A - Science Quality/Utility
B - Stature/Credibility
C - Mission Focus
O Customer Satisfaction
i
E - Multi-Media Approaches
F - Priorities
G - Function Alignment
H - Future Investment
1 Locus ol Control
SCORS
+
+
0
0
+
0
0
-f
-ป-
FRO/CON ANALYSIS :
Pro ORD plays a major roles in S/T of the Agency; quality is essential to mission of OECA; same
*1
ar
as
Con-ORD focus is primarily on research; ambient monitoring is not captured under OECA
Pro-Senior decision makers; responsible and accountable for science and quality of data
Con-Historical internal and external perception; turt issue
Pro-S/T focal point with a S/T advisory council makes a strong team; mission relates to day-to-day
implementation as opposed to general approach
Con-ESDs have a different mission than ORO; OECA's mission is narrower than the current ESO
mission
Pro-Consensus process; equal representation
Con-ORD has different primary customers than ESDs; OECA shares a narrower focus of customers;
potential to dilute the ESDs' current services
Pro-Both are currently multi-media organizations
Con-Their multi-media functions are tied to their mission providing a narrow
Pro-Provides a focal point; direct link to the Agency's decision-makers; consensus process
Con-Conflicting and competing priorities
Pro-Advisory panel has balancing effect
Con-ORD and OECA are large organizations; some ESD functions do not align (e.g. ambient
monitoring, special studies)
Pro-Have adequate support staff; senior decision-makers actively involved in budget process; system
of checks and balances
Con-Potential conflict with other programs; potential control problems; tendency to negatively
Impact resources not directly in support of single program mission; advisory group effectiveness
depends on level of participation
Pro-Focal point; equal representation
Con-lncomparability of some missions and functions
A 12
-------
ADVOCATE CANDIDATE 7B1: Cross Program Direct StaVchoider/Toams Hybrid |AA of OECA/Advliory Panels or SPC)
CRITERIA
A - Science Quality/Utility
B - Stature/Credibility
C - Mission Focus
D - Customer Satisfaction
E - Multi-Media Approaches
F Priorities
G - Function Alignment
H - Future Investment
I - Locus of Control
SCORE
+
f
0
0
+
+
0
+
+
PRO/CON ANALYSIS
Pro-Senior decision-makers closely tied tot he Agency's strategic planning; proximity to
Administrator; currently in coordinating and consensus-building roles; direct accountability to
Congress; political appointee; actively involved in the redevelopment of the Agency's SfT program;
quality is essential to OECA
Con-Ambient monitoring is not captured under OECA
Pro-Senior decision makers; responsible and accountable for science and quality of data
Con-Historical internal and external perception; turf issue
Pro-S/T advisory council provides additional mission focus; mission relates to day-to-day
implementation as opposed to general approach
Con-OECA's mission is narrower than the curient ESD mission; advisory panel must be pro-active
ensuring that full ESD mission is preserved
in
Pro-Consensus process; equal representation
Con-OECA shares a narrower focus of customers; potential to dilute the ESDs' current services
Pro-Both are currently multi-media organizations
Con-Their multi-media functions are tied to their mission providing a narrow
Pro-Provides a focal point; direct link to the Agency's decision-makers; consensus process
Con-Conflicting and competing priorities
Pro-Advisory panel has balancing effect
Con-OECA is a large organization; some ESD functions do not align (e.g. ambient monitoring, special
studies)
Pro-Have adequate support staff; senior decision-makers actively involved in budget process; system
of checks and balances
Con-Potential conflict with other programs; potential control problems; tendency to negatively
impact resources not directly in support of single program mission; advisory group effectiveness
depends on level of participation
Pro-Focal point; equal representation
Con-lncomparability of some missions and functions
A 13
-------
ADVOCATE CANDIDATE 7B2: Groan Prorjrem Direct Stc!tehc!der/Taama Hybrid (AA of ORD/Advlsory PaneJa or SPC)
CRITEFliA :
A - Science Quality/Utility.
>
B - Stature/Credibility
C - Mission Focus
ป
D - Customer Satisfaction
E Multi-Media Approaches
F - Priorities
0 Function Alignment
H - Future Investment
1 - Locus of Control
SCORE
+
4-
0
0
f
+
0
+
+
PRO/COW ANALYGJS . <; ;.; . *, &' p ;.' , : ; ,...'...;.-.;'. '.' .
Pro-Senior decision-makers closely tied to the Agency's strategic planning; proximity to
Administrator; currently in coordinating and consensus-building roles; direct accountability to
Congress; political appointee; actively involved in the redevelopment of the Agency's S/T program;
ORD plays a major role in the S/T of the Agency
Con-ORD focus is primarily on research
Pro-Senior decision makers; responsible and accountable for science and quality of data
Con-Historical internal and external perception; turf issue
Pro -S/T advisory, council provides additional mission focus; mission relates to day-to-day
implementation as opposed to general approach
Con-ESD's have different mission than ORD; advisory panel must be pro-active in ensuring that full
ESD mission is preserved
Pro-Consensus process; equal representation
Con-ORD has different customers than ESDs; potential to dilute the ESDs' current services
Pro-Both are currently multi-media organizations
Con-Their multi-media functions are tied to their mission providing a narrow
Pro-Provides a focal point; direct link to the Agency's decision-makers; consensus process
Con-Conflicting and competing priorities
Pro-Advisory panel has balancing effect
Con-ORD is a large organization; some ESD functions do not align (e.g. enforcement/compliance
monitoring, emergency responsiveness)
Pro-Have adequate support staff; senior decision-makers actively involved in budget process; system
of checks and balances
Con-Potential conflict with other programs; potential control problems; tendency to negatively
impact resources not directly in support of single program mission; advisory group effectiveness
depends on level of participation
Pro-Focal point; equal representation
Con-lncomparability of some missions and functions
A 14
------- |