National Advisory Council for
                     Environmental Policy and Technology

                                    July 14, 2004
Michael O. Leavitt
Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Leavitt:

      On behalf of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology
(NACEPT), I am pleased  to submit the final report of the second Compliance Assistance
Advisory Committee (CAAC). The NACEPT fully endorses the recommendations of the CAAC
in the enclosed  report,  "Recommendations for Enhancing  EPA's  Compliance Assistance
Program," June 2004.

      The first CAAC was established in 2000 under the auspices of NACEPT. Its final report
"Maximizing Compliance Assistance: Recommendations for Enhancing Compliance Assistance
Opportunities at EPA and Through Other Providers," was submitted to Administrator Whitman
in August 2001. A copy of that report is enclosed for your reference.

      The second CAAC was established in 2002 to advance the work done by the first CAAC.
The second CAAC focused on the implementation aspects of three areas critical to compliance
assistance:  (1) integration of compliance  assistance into  the Agency's mission, goals and
activities; (2)  development of  parameters  which  will  successfully measure  the results  of
compliance assistance activities; and (3) optimization  of the compliance assistance network
across EPA and other environmental assistance providers.

       The NACEPT asks that EPA contemplate  the following  as it considers the CAAC's
recommendations:

      •    All forms of environmental assistance generally, and compliance assistance
           in particular, are essential complements to the enforcement tools that form
           the traditional core  of EPA's  regulatory programs.   Assistance  and
           enforcement should not be  viewed as mutually exclusive.   Rather, EPA
           should continue to strive to find and employ the most  effective mix of these
           tools  to  achieve the  Agency's goal of protecting human health and the
           environment.   The potential for EPA's assistance  programs  to prevent
           violations of environmental laws cannot be overstated.

-------
      •    The CAAC's report emphasizes performance outcomes and environmental
           impacts of EPA's compliance assistance activities.  While work has been
           done  in  this arena,  more work needs to be  done,  and the NACEPT
           encourages EPA to fully explore this arena with the goal of establishing
           credible measures of success, beyond enforcement actions and fines, for all
           of its compliance assurance-related  activities.   At a  minimum,  these
           measures  should  reflect the compliance rates  and trends  for regulated
           entities with regard to environmental regulations.

      •    EPA  has invested  substantially  in developing goals and  performance
           measures for all of its activities, as reflected in the Agency's new Strategic
           Plan.   To the extent attainable, these goals and measures need to speak to
           actual environmental endpoints.

      Ideally, the regulated community would be in full compliance with environmental
regulations, and  enforcement would  not be  necessary.   Even  then,  the need for
compliance assistance would  not disappear.   EPA's  own  definition of compliance
assistance properly includes  assistance  activities that  can  move  entities  beyond
compliance.   The Agency needs to keep this in  mind, and to plan  for and  support
compliance assistance as a fundamental component of its mission to protect human health
and the environment.

      We truly'appreciate the opportunity to provide  these recommendations  to you.
We would also like  to acknowledge EPA's Office of Enforcement and  Compliance
Assurance for supporting the work of the CAAC.  In particular, we wish to recognize
Joanne Herman for her dedication and commitment as the Designated Federal Officer.

      On behalf of the NACEPT Council and the Compliance Assistance Advisory
Committee, we look forward to your response to the recommendations.

                                       Sincerely,
                                       Dorothy Bowers
                                       NACEPT Chair

   Enclosures
   cc: Richard Sustich, Co-Chair, CAAC
       La Ronda Bowen, Co-Chair, CAAC
       Thomas V. Skinner, Acting Assistant Administrator, OECA
       Phyllis Harris, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, OECA
       Michael Stahl, Director, Office of Compliance, OECA
       Lisa Lund, Deputy Director, Office of Compliance, OECA
       Joanne Berman, CAAC Designated Federal Officer, OECA
       Daiva Balkus, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management

-------
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCING EPA'S COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE
                             PROGRAM
        Report of the Second Compliance Assistance Advisory Committee
      National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology
                             June 2004

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The second National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
Compliance Assistance Advisory Committee (CAAC) appreciates this opportunity to provide
advice to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on enhancing compliance
assistance (CA) across the Agency and the national CA network.  Since the creation of EPA's
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) in 1994, much progress has been
made in improving the effectiveness of EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance efforts.
The CAAC is hopeful that its recommendations will assist EPA in its efforts to further enhance
CA and to improve the environmental performance of the regulated community.

The CAAC consists of representatives from state, tribal and local governments, compliance as-
sistance providers, regulated commercial,  industrial and federal facilities, community-based en-
vironmental organizations, and consultants and provides a multi-stakeholder perspective to EPA
regarding compliance assistance issues.

Compliance Assistance is defined by EPA as activities, tools or technical assistance which pro-
vide  clear and consistent information for 1)  helping the  regulated community understand and
meet its obligations under environmental  regulations;  or 2) compliance assistance providers to
aide the regulated community in complying with environmental regulations.  Compliance assis-
tance may also help the regulated community find cost-effective ways to  comply with regula-
tions and/or go "beyond compliance" through the use of pollution prevention, environmental
management practices and innovative technologies, thus improving their environmental perform-
ance. CA includes activities that are commonly described  as technical assistance, environmental
assistance, environmental management assistance, and pollution prevention assistance within the
Agency and the stakeholder community.

The first CAAC was established in 2000,  within the EPA under the NACEPT charter approved
pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) by the Administrator and the General
Services Administration.  The final report of the first CAAC, "Maximizing Compliance Assis-
tance: Recommendations for Enhancing Compliance Assistance Opportunities  at  EPA and
Through Other Providers," was submitted to the Administrator in August 2001.

The second CAAC was established in 2002 to advance the work done by the first CAAC.  The
original charge to the second CAAC was to provide recommendations to EPA: (1) for strength-
ening the national compliance assistance (CA) network by promoting collaborations in CA plan-
ning and tool development; (2) for developing and testing performance measurement systems to
demonstrate the effectiveness and environmental outcomes of compliance assistance; (3) acting
as a sounding board to provide feedback to EPA on compliance assistance issues; and (4) formu-
lating the agenda for the agency's third annual Compliance Assistance Forum.  However, the
charge was modified to focus on three  key areas: (1) the EPA-wide integration of CA into the
Agency's mission, goals and activities; (2) the development of parameters which will enable
EPA to successfully measure CA results; and (3) the optimization of the CA network across EPA
and other environmental assistance providers.

-------
This report is organized into chapters which reflect the thoughts and CA recommendations of
this second CAAC in these areas. At the end of each chapter, examples and practical tools are
provided to assist EPA in implementing the recommendations herein.

Key recommendations in this report include:

       1. Ensuring that CA is an integral part of EPA's mission in its entirety and in its
          component parts, as recommended by the previous CAAC. No single internal
          entity should be expected to  carry sole responsibility for these activities.
          Rather,  from the Administrator's Office and throughout the entire chain of
          command, EPA  must ensure that CA becomes a critical component of every
          Program Office's and Region's approach to its responsibilities as well as a key
          performance measure of its success. To accomplish this in a coordinated man-
          ner EPA  should utilize an organizational management system approach to
          plan,  implement, measure, review and continuously improve its CA program
          agency-wide.

          Further, the CAAC recommends that the Administrator establish a permanent
          coordinating  group of senior representatives across the Agency (i.e. Offices
          and Regions) to  ensure that CA is fully integrated  into the Agency's mission,
          goals and activities, and that reports of these efforts to integrate CA into the
          Agency's activities be transmitted to the Administrator on a regular basis.

       2. Aligning EPA's priority-setting, budgeting and planning processes  in a way
          that fosters a collaborative approach to CA implementation across all media
          and programs and which  is reflective of the value of CA  in  achieving the
          Agency's mission and goals.   EPA must approach its environmental protec-
          tion mission in a manner that recognizes the collective importance of research,
          regulatory development, CA, monitoring, and enforcement all  being utilized
          strategically in a balanced manner to affect desired environmental and public
          health protection outcomes.   This will  require the Agency to make coordi-
          nated decisions on allocation of resources across these Agency functions. Im-
          plementing these CAAC recommendations will require a  commitment of re-
          sources by EPA.

       3. Developing and  optimizing a CA delivery network that leverages the myriad
          of organizations and entities to which the regulated community turns for in-
          formation and assistance.  Assistance  should be provided based upon the
          needs of the end-user, with the recognition that these needs may differ be-
          tween types of regulated entities, and even within groups of similar entities.
          EPA  should also draw upon recognized behavioral models to improve the ef-
          fectiveness of CA.

       4. Developing an effective way to track and report compliance trends  and  rates
          nationally as key measures of the effectiveness of both CA and enforcement.
          Such measures would provide an improved way of determining the extent to

-------
         which CA and enforcement are impacting compliance rates and would also
         improve the ability of the Agency to ascertain where to focus its limited re-
         sources.

The CAAC requests that the Agency report back to NACEPT Council on the implementation of
these recommendations.
                                         111

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS






Introduction                                                             1




Improving Integration of Compliance Assistance Throughout EPA's Efforts         3




Improving Compliance Assistance Measurement                               7




Improving the Compliance Assistance Network                                16




Appendix A - Compliance Assistance Self-Assessment Tool                      27




Appendix B - Logic Model for Program Evaluation                             34




Appendix C - Measurement Modeling                                       40




Appendix D - RCRA Compliance Measurement Project                         44




Appendix E - The Role of the Change Agent                                   47




Appendix F - Compliance Assistance Mapper                                 49




Appendix G - Compliance Assistance Advisory Committee Members              63

-------
INTRODUCTION

Authority

The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Compli-
ance Assistance Advisory Committee (CAAC) is established within the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) under the NACEPT charter approved pursuant to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) by the Administrator and the General Services Administra-
tion.

In 1994, EPA sought to improve the effectiveness of its compliance monitoring and enforcement
operations at headquarters by consolidating these operations into one office—the Office of En-
forcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). A number of Regions implemented similar reor-
ganizations.  These reorganizations resulted in changes, both in substance and structure, to
EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance program. EPA recently undertook a five-year re-
view to assess how well the reorganization improved its effectiveness. This assessment included
soliciting input from EPA's state partners and stakeholders on how EPA can  further improve
public health and the environment through its compliance assurance efforts.

The first CAAC was established in 2000. The CAAC consists of representatives from state, tribal
and local governments, compliance assistance providers, regulated commercial,  industrial and
federal facilities and community-based environmental organizations and consultants, and pro-
vides a multi-stakeholder perspective to EPA regarding CA issues.  The final report of the first
CAAC, "Maximizing Compliance Assistance: Recommendations for Enhancing  Compliance As-
sistance Opportunities at EPA and Through Other Providers," was submitted to the Administra-
tor in August 2001.

Charge

The purpose of the second CAAC was to create a multi-stakeholder working group that can pro-
vide advice to the Administrator (through the NACEPT Council) on improving the Agency's CA
program. The charge to the second CAAC addressed four activities:

       1.  for strengthening the national CA network by promoting collaborations in CA
          planning and tool development;

       2.  for developing and testing performance measurement systems to demonstrate
          the effectiveness and environmental outcomes of CA;

       3.  acting as a sounding board to provide feedback to EPA on CA issues; and

       4.  formulating the agenda for the agency's third annual Compliance Assistance
          Forum.

However, the charge was modified to focus on three key areas: (1) the EPA-wide integration of
CA into the Agency's mission, goals and activities; (2) the development of parameters which

-------
will enable EPA to successfully measure CA results; and (3) the optimization of the CA network
across EPA and other environmental assistance providers.

The second CAAC conducted open meetings on June 4-5, 2002, in Washington, D.C. and De-
cember 3, 2002, in San Antonio, Texas. Working with OECA, the CAAC also convened the
third National Compliance Assistance Providers' Forum 2002 in San Antonio, Texas during De-
cember 2002.

-------
IMPROVING INTEGRATION OF COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE
THROUGHOUT EPA'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EFFORTS

Current State:

EPA has developed a number of CA initiatives that are being implemented in various parts of the
Agency and has improved its management of CA through the annual Compliance Assistance Ac-
tivity Plan. CA is identified in EPA's Strategic Plan (Goal 5), and the Office of Compliance in
OECA has played a leadership role in managing and coordinating EPA's CA activities. How-
ever, the recommendations of the first CAAC Report (August 2001) that EPA address CA holis-
tically and establish an Agency wide commitment to CA in the strategic plan have not yet been
realized. The CAAC believes that there are significant opportunities to improve EPA's integra-
tion of CA, but the ability to promote and develop CA holistically within EPA is limited unless
explicitly supported by the Administrator.

Recommendations:

The CAAC provides the following recommendations for integrating CA in the Agency's pro-
grams and mission. In addition, the CA Self Assessment Tool (Appendix A) is provided for use
by EPA to assist in implementing an organizational management system approach for its CA
program and assessing progress in its CA program development.

Compliance Assistance needs to be recognized and better used as a "preventive" approach
to environmental protection

       Maximizing the ability of the regulated entities to voluntarily comply with regula-
       tions is critical if EPA wishes to  obtain the maximum  environmental  benefits
       from the regulations it enacts. To work towards optimal  use of CA,  the EPA
       should implement "in-reach" for CA to support its outreach for CA. "In-reach"
       here means that EPA should reach into all offices which develop, interpret, im-
       plement, enforce, publicize, and explain regulations (including those who develop
       CA), to build EPA  staff understanding of the regulated community, especially
       small entities.

       To support this in-reach, EPA should also improve analysis of the cost of the time
       and effort needed by regulated entities to become aware of and to understand the
       applicability of new (and existing) requirements.  This information will  point  to
       needs and priorities for compliance assistance. Understanding obstacles to com-
       pliance (including the costs of discovering what and how rules apply) will assist
       EPA to improve the strategic use of CA throughout the Agency, and maximize
       self-initiated compliance.

-------
EPA must recognize that CA activities are occurring throughout the Agency and provide
structure, support and accountability for Agency-wide CA implementation

       Successful compliance assistance is a complex process. It is developed and deliv-
       ered at many different points in the  regulatory system. It demands a variety of
       tools addressing a wide diversity of environmental challenges, levels of under-
       standing and available resources. EPA should view CA not as a tactical tool, but
       rather a strategic mission. It must become the proverbial thread woven through
       the fabric of environmental stewardship.

       Accordingly, CA must be an integral part of EPA's mission in its entirety and in
       its component parts. No single internal entity should be expected to carry respon-
       sibility for these activities. Rather, from the highest levels, EPA must ensure that
       CA becomes a critical component of every program's approach to its responsibili-
       ties as well as a key performance measure.  To address the currently fragmented
       state of EPA's CA efforts, the CAAC recommends that the Administrator estab-
       lish a permanent coordinating group  of senior representatives across the Agency
       (i.e., Offices and Regions) to ensure that CA is fully integrated into the Agency's
       mission, goals and activities, and that reports of the efforts to integrate CA into
       the Agency's activities be transmitted to the Administrator on a regular basis.

EPA should utilize an organizational management system approach to plan, implement.
measure, review, and continuously improve its CA program agency-wide

       Although CA -  whether characterized as such or by other names, such as pollu-
       tion prevention, technology transfer, performance track, or integrated strategies—
       is a strong presence and pervasive force  in the Agency,  its function and impor-
       tance has not always been well-defined, it is not generally a funding priority and,
       at times, has lacked a coherent focus or a comprehensive recognition of methods
       and objectives. CA  is an important part of a systematic approach necessary to the
       achievement of the Agency's objectives, and its role in that system should be op-
       timized—particularly, in this era of stringent resource limitations.

       An  organizational management system that establishes a process for CA  policy
       development, implementation,  review, and program adjustment while also draw-
       ing upon the critical principle of continuous improvement will drive CA programs
       toward ever increasing levels of effectiveness. This approach is  a systematic way
       of managing the CA effort as an integral part of EPA's overall program. To this
       end the CAAC  has developed a Compliance Assistance Self-Assessment Tool
       (Appendix AV

EPA should  clearly communicate its CA program internally and to external CA  stake-
holders; CA stakeholders need to be involved in EPA's CA program

       Often, CA is developed without its end customer in mind. While CA can be deliv-
       ered in  a vacuum,  it achieves environmental benefit only if it is adopted and

-------
       shared by the users. In order to be effective, CA must be easily understood, useful
       and relevant to the users. Often, EPA staff does not 'speak the user's language.'
       In order to learn to speak the user's language, as well as better understand their
       needs and priorities, EPA needs to work with affected stakeholders. Communica-
       tion is the first and most important step in achieving stakeholder involvement in
       EPA's CA program.

       Communication within EPA is equally important if the EPA's CA program is to
       be effective. If the CA program continues to work as an island within the agency,
       it will fail to be  properly integrated into the program offices as they develop,
       promulgate, and enforce regulations. Similarly, without the input of the program
       offices, EPA's CA may not focus on the areas of highest need. Communication is
       the first and most important step  in achieving  program office  involvement in
       EPA's CA program.

EPA should better educate the public, the regulators, and the regulated community regard-
ing the improved  environmental protection benefits and cost-efficacy of self-initiated or
willing compliance, versus enforced compliance

       By providing CA that makes the regulated community aware of compliance re-
       quirements, EPA  can eliminate the most significant recurring root cause of non-
       compliance  ("EPA/CMA Root Cause Analysis Pilot Project:  An Industry Sur-
       vey" EPA 305 R 99 001). The environmental impacts caused by facilities that are
       willing to comply but don't know what to do would be avoided, and the environ-
       ment would be better protected. By recognizing compliance and beyond compli-
       ance performance as environmental protection goals, EPA can better support  CA
       necessary for facilities to be able to willingly and voluntarily comply.  Enforce-
       ment resources could then be targeted "smartly" at facilities that require govern-
       ment intervention to  address the environmental impacts caused by their noncom-
       pliance. The environmental benefits of willing compliance and the importance of
       providing CA should be better recognized.

EPA should balance its current use of mass media and direct mail to more effectively ad-
vance CA

       EPA regularly utilizes the mass media to publicize enforcement actions.  When-
       ever EPA informs the media or others about compliance  problems, it should, si-
       multaneously, provide current websites and/or phone numbers where members of
       the affected industry can obtain compliance assistance  (and note whether it  is a
       confidential source). This same information should be included in EPA's  En-
       forcement Alerts and in other compliance-related  material.   In addition, EPA
       should begin to regularly issue press releases on the success of CA actions.

       To inform businesses in sectors with the  highest and/or most toxic emissions that
       they are in a  high emitting industry and may be an Agency focus, EPA  should
       identify and use existing sector-based communication networks (both CA-focused

-------
       and others), as well as the medium of direct mail, to deliver appropriate CA in-
       formation. The Agency should provide an opportunity for stakeholder involve-
       ment when planning initiatives focused on particular sectors.

       These changes to EPA's current mass media and direct mail policies will increase
       the likelihood of regulatory awareness and source compliance for better environ-
       mental protection.

Development of an effective CA program will provide future benefits in supporting self-
initiated and cooperative, non-regulatory environmental protection efforts that will be re-
quired for the next generation of environmental protection issues

       It is imperative that EPA recognize the diversity of sources that can contribute to
       stress on the environment, and the importance of information and assistance to ef-
       fect changes in their environmental performance. In order to achieve its goals and
    .   objectives, EPA will need to address not only traditional  point sources, but also
       non-point sources of pollution; not only must large oil refineries and waste man-
       agement facilities be engaged, but smaller area sources and waste generators, fa-
       cilities with stormwater runoff, other businesses and even communities and indi-
       viduals must also be part of the approach. In 1999 EPA released a Task Force Re-
       port, "Aiming for Excellence: Actions to Encourage Stewardship and Accelerate
       Environmental Progress" that addressed environmental problems that had yet to
       be solved through the current system. In the report EPA expressed its belief that
       "a system that promotes stewardship, in addition to compliance  with environ-
       mental requirements, has the greatest potential for advancing environmental man-
       agement  capabilities  and  solving  environmental  problems." Development  of
       EPA's CA program is critical to the establishment of a system that promotes vol-
       untary and cooperative efforts.

-------
IMPROVING COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE MEASUREMENT

Current State:

The compliance assistance community lacks adequate systematic capabilities across all levels to
collect and analyze information to demonstrate the impact of compliance assistance activities.

Significance of Measurement

There are a number of reasons that effective measurements are critically important for compli-
ance assistance (CA):

      •  Publicly-supported CA programs need to demonstrate that they are delivering
          value for their clients and the taxpayers.

      •  Policy makers need a way to effectively assess  CA and understand what pro-
          grams work for use in setting priorities and program goals and objectives.

      •  CA programs need to evaluate their progress toward achieving their program
          goals.

      •  CA program managers need measurement tools that enable them to target re-
          sources in a way that enables them to constantly improve the management of
          their activities.

There may not be a single measurement system that can assist CA professionals  in addressing all
of these. Different systems may be  needed to address each  one. For example a measurement sys-
tem designed to help improve CA project/program management will be different from one focus-
ing on the measures  needed for communicating behavioral or environmental results to the public.

 There are two good measures of the value of CA to clients  and taxpayers:

      (a) Did the client gain an understanding of his/her impact on the environment and
          of what is required to comply with applicable regulations? One goal  of CA is
          to ensure that people know that there is an environmental  impact associated
          with a process or system they are using. Since most people do not wish to
          harm the air, land, or water,  this step is  important to achieving compliance.
          People also need to know which regulations affect them and how to comply.

       (b) Did the client change their behavior or implement a technology or processes
          in a way that proactively reduced or eliminated their emissions, discharges,
          and wastes? When the person applies cleaner technologies, they reduce their
          compliance burden and their impacts on  the environment and public health.
          In the near future the  most feasible compliance assistance measures should fo-
          cus on changes in compliance behavior at regulated entities.

-------
A third measure that is sometimes suggested for successful CA is whether or not the physical
environment improved as a result of CA. Such a measure can be misleading because effective
CA may or may not equate to improvements in the environment. Compliance with record keep-
ing requirements, for example, does not, in and of itself, result in decreased emissions to the en-
vironment. Hazardous waste generators  must maintain their hazardous waste generation and
shipment records on site for three years in order to be in compliance with regulations; such re-
cord keeping has no quantifiable beneficial environmental impact. The benefit is associated with
helping to assure that the company has an effective hazardous waste management  system  in
place. As  such, accurate recordkeeping is an essential aspect of regulatory compliance. It is a
task with which people frequently require assistance to ensure that it is done correctly and com-
pletely. CA efforts frequently rely on the rule itself as a measure of the impact that compliance
will have on the physical environment.  Rule development staffs frequently quantify the amount
of emission reductions they expect from a certain category of rules. The assumption  is that the
emissions inventory or other  characterization  of environmental impact and improvement from
which  the rule writers are working is accurate and that the control measures are effective.  In
many instances, CA that emphasizes pollution prevention and best management practices as cost
effective  ways of achieving or exceeding minimum  compliance requirements may have direct
and measurable environmental benefits. Finally, the cost of measuring the direct impacts of rules
and CA on the environment can be substantial.

Barriers to Measurement

Generally EPA has not appreciated that the primary goal of CA activities is to motivate and as-
sist the regulated community to comply  with regulation. Traditionally the Agency has focused on
counting  enforcement actions and penalty assessments as the primary  measures of enforcement
and compliance  assurance program effectiveness. This is not an effective way to evaluate the
overall success of the Agency in promoting environmental  compliance. Often  EPA lacks base-
line information regarding compliance rates among regulated entities,  and this creates a signifi-
cant barrier to measuring the changes in those rates, which is the focus of CA and other Agency
activities.  Developing effective CA measures that provide data that can be aggregated on a na-
tionwide  basis requires a substantial commitment of resources, significant coordination across
programs and types of CA providers, and a consensus-building process. If EPA is committed  to
implementing a national CA measurement system for state and local  programs, resources  will
have to be provided for this function. This is because many state and local CA programs have
experienced significant budget reductions in the past few years, and these programs should not
have to trade off resources devoted to delivery of service with those needed for measurement.

There is presently no methodology or systematic program in place for collecting a consistent set
of data on compliance assistance activities and their outcomes performed by non-EPA state  or
local government-based assistance providers, nationwide. Other cultural and institutional barriers
and challenges to measurement include:

-------
Lack of Agreement on What to Measure

       •  A lack of consensus among environmental assistance providers on what is im-
          portant to measure.

       •  Lack of strong and supportive national leadership on CA measurement and in-
          consistent management support for measurement.

       •   Lack of buy-in among affected parties.

       •  An historical focus on delivery of service and a lack of integration of meas-
          urement into the service delivery process.

       •  Insecurity on the part of CA programs about what to measure to satisfy their
          funders' perceptions that money is well spent.

Inadequate Resources

       •  Costs of conducting effective CA measurement.

       •  Lack of incentives for programs  to invest staff and other resources to develop
          and maintain effective measurement systems.

       •  Uncertainty over how the measures will be used—a failure to connect positive
          benefits to the effort of information collection.

Lack ofCA Measures & Framework for Data Collection

       •  Complexity of CA measurement.

       •  A lack of a  structured method, framework,  and process for non-EPA entities
          to manage and combine data, and lack of baseline data.

       •   Difficulty separating the behavioral and other impacts of compliance assis-
          tance from enforcement presence and activities.

       •  Lack of consistency in reporting CA activities and their outcomes among CA
          providers.

       •  Lack  of widespread use of performance measures  to demonstrate CA effec-
          tiveness.

       •  Lack of the understanding and use of environmental and behavioral indicators
          to demonstrate CA effectiveness.

-------
Inadequate CA Measurement Capabilities Among Providers

       •   Inadequate training and capability in data collection, management, and analy-
          sis among environmental assistance providers.

Despite these barriers, the CAAC believes that it is possible to develop a high quality measure-
ment system that focuses on EPA, state, tribal, and appropriate local government CA providers.
However, to be successful in developing and implementing a system that will be used nationally,
there needs to be strong and supportive national leadership and buy-in from affected parties, a
commitment to provide adequate resources for CA generally, and recognition that performance
measurement does not come without cost.

Recom mendations

The CAAC recommends that  US EPA pursue the development and implementation  of a high
quality, long-term measurement framework that will provide CA practitioners nationwide with
tools and resources for collecting, aggregating, and presenting CA outcomes. This is a long-term
goal that the Agency should aggressively pursue. To achieve this goal, the CAAC offers these
recommendations which complement and reinforce the recommendations made by the previous
CAAC and outline a number of interim steps that are necessary to achieve this goal. In develop-
ing and implementing such a system, the CAAC feels it is critical that:

       •   The system emphasizes clear, simple measures, such as whether entities are in
          compliance with environmental requirements;

       •   The measures should be used as a complement to counting the number of non-
          CA related enforcement actions or the amount of penalties collected; thus
          enabling  the evaluation of environmental progress  to focus on compliance
          success and more accurately target areas of failure for which CA could be an
          effective tool;

       •   EPA must commit the resources necessary to produce effective CA measure-
          ment if CA is to be used as a long-term strategy for developing continuous
          environmental improvement;

       •   EPA must aggregate information provided by local, state, tribal, and regional
          CA providers, as well as EPA to produce effective tools and analysis of CA
          activities.

The CAAC recommends the following specific actions on the part of EPA to pursue the objec-
tives described above:

Keep Measurement Simple & Universal

      '•   The Agency needs  to take the necessary steps to ensure that all organizations
          within EPA that are involved in providing CA  services institute adequate and
                                          10

-------
appropriate CA performance  measures. While EPA has identified state and
tribal partnerships among the cross-goal strategies in  its Strategic Plan, the
Agency needs to identify cross-program, sector-based performance goals and
focus on implementing the necessary partnerships with  identified sectors to
ensure that all programs offices work together to achieve those goals.

The  Agency should focus on  establishing baseline data and evaluating com-
pliance trends and using compliance changes and improvements as key meas-
ures of CA success.

EPA should work with state, tribal, and local CA providers to develop a set of
simple measures that focus on the types of activities and programs that they
undertake. The Agency should focus resources toward research that evaluates
the effectiveness of compliance assistance methodologies, rather than asking
each program to independently and continuously measure the effectiveness of
each approach. This research should  underpin recommended approaches to
delivering CA at the state and  local level.

EPA should examine the wealth of experience and information that is avail-
able from other agencies that have not had the coexistence of an enforcement
approach, e.g., energy efficiency, tobacco consumption, nutrition, food safety,
AIDS  prevention, auto safety, consumer awareness, and others. The USDA
cooperative extension program is  grounded in methodology to diffuse new
technologies. EPA should review and  identify the best management practices
in public education at other federal agencies  and in some successful private
sector efforts to learn from and adopt those approaches that others have tried
and found effective.

EPA needs  to rigorously examine the  measurement  data  that is currently
available and analyzed and clearly communicate the limits of the information
that  is collected. If CA measurements are to be credible, they should  not be
done piecemeal but should be made as a joint  priority for EPA, and other sci-
entific and economic entities as are appropriate. There is an important unreal-
ized opportunity  for EPA, in association- with other federal agencies, to re-
search, test, and evaluate the effectiveness of various CA techniques/ practices
so that this information could  be shared across all CA programs to assist them
in more efficiently delivering  their  services.  Some programs may tend to
broadly claim affects beyond the actual measurable results of an activity, e.g.,
tons of non-emissions due to the delivery of  a fact  sheet. Too often, project
managers are seeking environmental result measures from activities that have
no direct causal relationship with those impacts. This does not mean that such
activities do not contribute to environmental improvements, but the influence
of these activities cannot be easily measured.

EPA should adopt and promote the "logic model" (Appendix B") as the basis
for developing outcome measures, and educate its staff on its use. EPA should
                                 11

-------
          require a completed logic model for all substantially large grants, contracts,
          and external program funding in support of CA.

       •   The Agency needs to start by investing in the implementation of a set of rela-
          tively straightforward ways of assessing whether regulated entities are gener-
          ally in compliance with environmental requirements and the prevalence of
          various categories of violations and sectors  where chronic non-compliance
          tends to be high, particularly associated with the potential for environmental
          harm. Furthermore, EPA should use its Agency-wide measurement capacity to
          identify areas of greatest need for protection of human health and the envi-
          ronment, and CA programs  should prioritize efforts to focus on those top
          needs.

       •   EPA should develop a tiered  approach to reporting/measurement for CA pro-
          jects dependent on the level  of funding received from the  Agency. As dis-
          cussed by the previous CAAC, we support a monetary threshold for manda-
          tory measurement activities to reduce the overburdening of CA programs with
          operating budgets below the threshold.

       •   As recommended by the previous CAAC, a request for follow-up information
          from the regulated entity receiving assistance should be made from the com-
          pliance assistance provider regarding resulting impacts on environmental per-
          formance (e.g., waste/emissions/discharge reductions); however, we feel the
          requests for information should be voluntary and correlated to the level of as-
          sistance provided.  Environmental outcome measures may be appropriate for
          in depth consultations and hands on assistance; however, the majority of com-
          pliance assistance activities being provided would not create the data this rec-
          ommendation is seeking. Again, improvement in compliance and improve-
          ment to the environment are  not generally synonymous. Mandatory requests
          for  information could  have a negative impact on the number of companies
          seeking assistance if it is seen as burdensome or intrusive.

Focus on Compliance Behaviors & Trends in the Regulated Community

       •   EPA should use a consistent and systematic approach to measurement to help
          identify the mix of CA activities that is most effective in promoting and pro-
          ducing increased compliance; measures that can differentiate preferred ap-
          proaches that deliver prioritized outcomes would serve to improve the effec-
          tiveness of service delivery both within and external to the Agency.

       •   CA providers need improved ways to track and  measure compliance im-
          provement as a result of CA activities; examples of possible measures are
          provided in Appendix C.
                                          12

-------
       •   While CA efforts do not always result in measurable environmental impacts,
          efforts should be made to measure and document improvements when they
          occur.

       •   Recognition should also be given to effectiveness of maintaining compliance
          with regulations as a measure of CA.

       •   EPA should research and study which activities induce educational and behav-
          ioral changes that have causal impacts on the environment; where the success
          of the activities has been demonstrated, continued demonstration should not
          be needed. For example, if, after a number of high quality studies  of the re-
          sults of compliance assistance  activities (i.e., workshops, one-on-one assis-
          tance, or publications)  targeted toward  a particular sector or regulatory  re-
          quirement have  found that a certain percentage of the participants in that ac-
          tivity implemented compliance improvements, the Agency should allow CA
          programs to utilize that rate for extrapolating the results of other, similar ac-
          tivities with the sector or regulatory requirement. This would enable the pro-
          grams to avoid having to extensively measure the results of similar activities
          each time they are conducted.

       •   EPA should develop and implement a single, consistent set of measures  for
          assessing the  outcomes and impacts of all four components of its integrated
          compliance assurance program (monitoring, CA, incentives and enforcement).

       •   EPA needs to develop  improved baseline data on compliance rates for tar-
          geted sectors or regulations to help evaluate the effectiveness of CA (see Ap-
          pendix D for one example of a state that has undertaken such as effort).

Provide the Necessary Support & Resources

       •   Quantifying the value of CA activity is  resource intensive; EPA must ensure
          that adequate  resources are allocated to CA measurement. EPA should budget
          measurement  funding  within programs  commensurate with expectations of
          measurement  objectives. Service delivery may be impacted  as much more
          emphasis is placed  on measuring outcomes and on measurement. This should
          be understood and  communicated to stakeholders and collaborating CA pro-
          grams.  The  infrastructure necessary to  accomplish compliance assistance
          measurement  must be in place at the initiation of CA activities so that  the
          measures can  be implemented throughout the CA project or program.

       •   EPA should use cost-effective, statistically valid measurement systems that
          demonstrate the outcomes and impacts of efforts, rather than attempting com-
          plete measurement of every aspect of every program. By using agency re-
          sources  to test and recommend best practices instead of requiring  each pro-
          gram to verify  the results of each activity,  resource utilization can be ex-
          tended.  In instances where the Agency is able to gather statistically valid per-
                                          13

-------
          formance data for CA activities, the Agency should allow individual CA pro-
          grams  to use this performance data  as  a  surrogate for actual performance
          measurement.

Training CA Managers & Providers in Implementing Measures is Critical

       •  EPA needs to continue to develop and deliver training to CA program staff on
          basic measurement techniques and strategies, including the use of logic mod-
          els described in Appendix B. EPA must take the necessary  steps to provide
          measurement training for all staff involved in providing CA services.' Such
          training should  focus in particular on effective data collection, data manage-
          ment, and data reporting techniques and skills.

       •  EPA should develop a strategic planning and performance measurement train-
          ing component  for CA mangers with an  orientation on the development and
          use of strategic planning and program performance measurement.

CA Measurement Clearinghouse

EPA should support and improve CA program measurement through its web-based Compliance
Assistance Clearinghouse by identifying effective CA measurement techniques that can help CA
programs determine:

       •  Which  CA techniques are better suited for short-tern vs. long-term outcome
          shifts in a target audience.

       •  Which  techniques are more suited for individual target audiences or individual
          environmental contexts, e.g.,  non-point source v.  point source  pollution
          sources.

       •  If it can devise  a list of techniques or a matrix to help CA programs best de-
          velop an outcome-oriented CA plan.

       •  If there is a specific set of techniques that most effectively leads target audi-
          ences through the "Stages of Change" (Appendix  BV

       •  If retail CA programs (those that deliver  compliance  assistance directly to
          end-clients) are  accountable for environmental outcomes.

       •  If these programs set outcome priorities for which CA is a useful tool.

       •  What data is it logical to expect from retail CA programs.

       •  Where  a CA provider seeks only to bring the target audience into regulatory
          compliance, if there is a logical and/or causal linkage to environmental per-
          formance.
                                           14

-------
       •  If there is a link between regulatory compliance and environmental impact.

       •  The resources CA programs need to achieve their goals and focus their efforts
          on the top needs.

There are many examples of useful and interesting CA measurement projects that have been un-
dertaken by regional and state CA programs around the country. Examples of case studies of ef-
fective performance measures that were described at the Compliance Assistance Providers Fo-
rum in 2003 are the following:

       •  Hazardous  waste - tracking pounds reduced through a voluntary  reporting
          program.

       •  Small business - track how much assistance people  are getting, how many
          took advantage of visits, and the results of follow-up visits.

       •  Texas has developed a performance measurement system that evaluates the
          impact of EMS and Regulatory Flexibility programs - based on self-reported
          information.

       •  Clean Texas 2000—voluntary program  involving 200 industries.  Tracked
          regulatory measurements under TRI and  hazardous waste  generation reports
          (e.g., tons of emissions reduced, off- site disposal).

       •  Auto dealers - track money saved in reduced disposal costs and reduced prod-
          uct costs from product substitutions. Track benefits to the bottom line. Relate
          money to reduced emissions through disposal costs.

       •  Used the Web as a tool for gathering measurement information, but there were
          challenges, including: tracking who uses  your site, surveying users, and  how
          to measure sector performance from various sources.

       •  Environmental outcomes from CA and other activities including the EPA Re-
          gion 1-NE  Charles River initiative that focused on tracking improvements in
          water quality, a  Minnesota project that tracked changes in VOC emissions
          from waste a MA DEP Environmental Results Projects project that focused on
          a set of specific environmental outcome results and changes  in compliance
          rates, and an  initiative in  Maryland  that targeted marinas  and tracked the
          changes in behavior associated with compliance.

EPA should examine  the measures used in these and many other examples and promote their
greater utilization and catalog them in the online national compliance assistance measurement
clearinghouse.
                                           15

-------
IMPROVING THE COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE NETWORK

Current State:

The present compliance assistance (CA) network does not adequately deliver the types of assis-
tance needed by the regulated community to attain compliance with environmental regulations.
In general, the methodologies used by EPA and other providers across the CA network fail to
reach significant portions of the regulatory community because the delivery strategies (1) often
do not identify and adequately address all the barriers to behavioral change in the target commu-
nities, (2)  generally do not identify and incorporate the most effective communication channels
to reach their target communities, and (3) occasionally send inconsistent or conflicting messages
regarding  what is expected of the target communities to attain compliance.  Finally, additional
organizational support and training will be required for Agency staff to address the recommenda-
tions herein to properly deliver the assistance needed.

Previous CAAC Recommendations

The August 13, 2001  report of the first CAAC addressed improving the effectiveness of compli-
ance assistance programs. This included recommendations for developing and delivering effec-
tive compliance assistance delivery tools.  Specifically, the report included a detailed process for
establishing a systematic approach to the development of compliance assistance tools. The  rec-
ommendations in this report build on the first CAAC recommendations and cannot be achieved
without first implementing the tool development recommendations. Additionally, as discussed in
the first CAAC report, adequate resources at the Federal, State and  local  levels  are needed to
conduct a  compliance assistance effort that is credible and effective.

Problem:

The wholesale-retail model of CA delivery can be improved to increase its effectiveness in
information distribution.

EPA's current CA delivery  system is based on the wholesale/retail model. Generally EPA  will
develop CA materials and other organizations will distribute them. This is not the true way  that
CA works. For example, Figure 1 (furniture example) shows the sources of information a single
facility may need to access. Sources can range from the vendor to sister plants and trade associa-
tions. As within any  network, the top sources used will  depend upon trust, familiarity, and ac-
cess. However, the quality and reliability  of the information provided by the network can vary
greatly between the sources. Another issue of importance is how to provide the information to
the target  audience. Again this  will vary greatly between sectors and  even within a sector. This
was discussed in the first CAAC report.

Figure 2 (Networking Matrix) shows an example of the different sources, delivery mechanisms,
and product quality for a targeted sector. As can be seen there is a great range of providers and
materials that are available, and EPA is only one of many material providers.
                                           16

-------
Recommendations:

During the development of any CA delivery program the existing network for the targeted
population must be mapped and analyzed.

The CAAC recommends that during the development of any CA program the existing network
for the targeted population be mapped and analyzed. This will identify the key players in the
network,  informational needs, effective dissemination tools and the most effective dissimilation
process. As discussed in  the first CAAC report, a process should  be identified and followed
which uses these key players in the development and delivery of the CA tools.

To assist EPA and the network of CA providers in this effort, the  CAAC has  developed CA-
Mapper (Appendix D"). a survey-based visualization tool for understanding the CA network. CA-
Mapper can be used tactically to  identify the most effective pathway(s) for delivering CA to a
single end-user or group of end-users, or strategically, for allocating resources  across multiple
layers and pathways in larger CA networks.  CA-Mapper uses a generic survey questionnaire to
gather information regarding the accessibility, reliability and influence of CA wholesalers toward
CA retailers, and CA retailers toward  end-users.  The questionnaire also gathers information on
"influencers,"  entities that do not presently deliver CA but significantly impact the environ-
mental decisions of the respondent. Data from the questionnaire can be uploaded into a simple
spreadsheet containing the respondent's profile as well as the respondent's assessment of each
CA provider and influencer.

EPA needs to recognize  the limits of the wholesale-retail model, and make  reasonable de-
mands on the education outreach related to it.

The CAAC  recommends that EPA recognize the strengths and weaknesses of information-
focused, mass-market education campaigns, and build on their strengths while it considers how
to compensate for their weaknesses. The strength of the wholesale-to-retail concept is that it can
provide an effective awareness building and knowledge creation campaign.  It can, with the
proper emphasis, create intent to  change, which is lacking in some of the current EPA efforts.
Providing detailed, comparative information as a reference or resource also aids the target audi-
ence in making a decision on how to implement a technology or best management practice after
they have decided change  should be made.
                                          17

-------
                       Figure 1 - CA Information Sources for Furniture Plant
State Reg.
Agencies
(HQ and
regional)  *
Trade Asso-
ciations

Other
Plants

Sister
Plants

Vendors
— j —- * 	
S
Lawyers
• 	
Trade:
journals,
websites,
newsletter,
etc.
Universities
(ind. ext,
MEP,
SBDCs)
                                                         18

-------
To the extent practicable, EPA should implement the recommendations on developing and deliv-
ering effective compliance assistance tools presented in the first CAAC report. Implementing
these recommendations will result in a systematic approach to the development and deployment
of compliance assistance coordinated between OECA, Program and Regional Offices, States and
Tribes, pollution prevention and small business assistance providers.  This approach will use a
standard process to identity the needs of the targeted audience, develop appropriate tools and en-
sure effective delivery mechanisms.

EPA needs to improve its identification and support of communication methods that create
information of use to the regulated  community.   EPA should apply resources to identify,
nurture and deploy best CA practices, tools, and techniques to CA service providers.

EPA needs to implement the recommendations on developing and delivering effective  compli-
ance assistance  tools presented in the first CAAC report. In addition, the CAAC recommends
that  EPA measure which CA activities and outputs can reasonably be accomplished with limited
resources, as  it strives to broaden CA activity for all programs.  EPA should fund and test best
practices for  CA and disseminate the outcomes to all programs for which those practices are
most cost effective.

The  CAAC recommends that  EPA  work to develop in-context information for its target audi-
ences. By in-context, the CAAC means that the information should be provided when and where
it is  needed, at the points where the target audience has the authority to act upon the information
or from influential near-peers. This does not mean working with other retailers; it means study-
ing the consumers to determine their current education and behavior status, and identifying what
points in the communication continuum are most effective for insertion of information. Compli-
ance occurs by individual decisions that are made throughout an organization.  EPA needs to de-
velop tools and messages that can be inserted into existing communication networks at the point
of decision.

Problem

Current CA efforts do not adequately recognize the importance of behavioral approaches to pro-
mote compliance and environmental performance changes by regulated  entities. Consequently,
much current CA activity, particularly within EPA, is directed toward widespread deployment of
regulatory information.  Social marketing and  behavioral change approaches that could improve
the efficacy and impact of CA efforts are under utilized.
                                          19

-------
Figure 2 - Networking Matrix
Information sources (wholesale)
Major


Public Sector

Federal Government

EPA

Media Offices x
Regions x

ORD

Contractors
National Compliance Cen-
ters
P2Rx
DOD

State/tribe Government

Env. Regulatory Agencies x

SBAPs x
P2 Programs x
SBDC
Dept of Commerce
Compliance Assist. Pro-
grams x

Local/Regional Government
Regulatory Agencies x
Minor Quality








h
h

x h

x m

x h
x h
x h



h

h
h
x h
x

h

-
m
Dissemination Tools

Federal/state Regis-
ters

Hotlines

Websites

Listserves
Newsletters
Manu-
als/factsheets/etc
Semi-
nars/Workshops
trade-
shows/conferences
Word of mouth
Advertisements
one-on-one
video/CD's
Technology demon-
strations
Library of tech. In-
formation
Expert Systems
Incentive programs
Videoconferences
Educational materi-
als/cumculums
Mentoring
Compliance audits
SEP's/negotiated
Effectiveness


L

L

m/l

L
M

M

m/l

M
H
L
L
M

L

M
m/l
m/l
m/l

m/l
L
L
L
Delivery (retail)


Public Sector
Federal Govern-
ment

EPA

Media Offices
Regions

ORD

Contractors
National Com-
pliance Centers
P2Rx
DOD
DOT
GSA

DOL

DOE
SBA
DOC

State/tribe Gov-
ernment
Regulators
SBAPs
P2 Programs
Effectiveness








L
I

I

I

m/l
m/I
m/l
m/l
m/l

m/l

m/l
m/l
m/l



M
M
m
Customers
Businesses
Government
Operations
Vendors and
Suppliers
Trade Associa-
tions
Environmental
agencies
NGOs
Env Assist. Pro-
viders
Private Consult-
ants


















            20

-------
Figure 2 - Networking Matrix


Private Sector
Corporate environ-
mental/legal X
Private Consultants
Vendors
other businesses
Suppliers
Trade Publications

Not for Profits
NGO's
Trade Associations x




Academic/research
University Centers
MEPs




h=high

m=medium
How

agreements
Partnerships M SBDC M
Dept of Com-
merce L
Compliance
m Assist. Programs M
m OSHA
x m
Local/Regional
1 Government
Regulatory
x m . Agencies M
x h Health Dept. L
Fire Dept. L
POTWs M
x h Insurance L
h Finance L
Business Li-
cense L
Economic
Dvlpt. L

x h Not for Profits
x NGO's M
Trade Associa-
tions H
Chamber, civic
organizations M

Aca-
demic/research
University Cen-
ters m/1
MEPs m/1
            21

-------
                                                      Figure 2 - Networking Matrix
Major=major source of
wholesale information   "
Minor=minor source of
wholesale information                                                                       Private Sector
                                                                                          Corporate envi-
                                                                                          ronmental/legal  h
                                                                                          Private Consult-
                                                                                          ants            h
                                                                                          Vendors         h
                                                                                          other businesses  h
                                                                                          Suppliers        h
                                                                                          Media          1
                                                                    22

-------
 To be clear, the role of compliance assistance is to help the regulated community achieve com-
 pliance with applicable regulations.  If the regulated community organization is out of compli-
 ance, the goal of the CA actions is to bring the organization into compliance. In order to do that,
 the organization, or some of its staff, will necessarily need to change a process or procedure to
 become compliant. That change represents a change of behavior. Therefore, one of the goals of
 CA is to change behavior.  How that is  accomplished is discussed below - but it ranges from
 simply supplying informational materials for a receptive organization to working closely with an
 organization to identify and change perceptions, attitudes and organizational culture for organi-
 zations that have a lower priority for environmentally beneficial actions.  CA stops short of ap-
 plying enforcement tools to stimulate change.

 Recommendations:

 EPA should build upon recognized behavioral models, such as the Stages of Change,  to im-
 prove the effectiveness of CA.

 The CAAC recognizes a range of activities is necessary to provide a spectrum of incentives to
 foster compliant behavior by regulated entities that have different levels of understanding, skills,
 resources, and that have different priorities of how to use them.

 In brief, the model framework is based on the Transtheoretical Model, a  model derived from a
 comparative analysis of leading theories of behavior change. The model is more commonly re-
 ferred to  as the Stages of Change, which represents change as occurring in  discrete steps.  The
 US  Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA) and related environmental protection programs
 have a shared interest in  determining how to move a regulated community  (or its members) from
 activities that harm the environment to actions that protect human health and the environment.

 The following chart provides a glimpse of this continuum:

 Continuum of Education, Assistance, and Law	
 Prone to                       •                      Resistant to
 behave as desired	behave as desired	
 Easy to see or                                       Can't see and can't convey
 convey self-interest                                   self-interest or benefits
 Education	Persuasion	Law	
			
 No or weak                Passive-active  competi-   Unmanageable
 competition     	tion	Competition	
    (Glanz, 2002')

 The first  line describes the tendency of the regulated community or community member to com-
 ply with pertinent regulation(s).  The second line implies the perception of the regulated commu-
 nity that is driving this behavior. The third  line suggests the appropriate methods of interaction
 ' Glanz, k., Rimer, B.K., Lewis, F.M., Health Behavior and Health Education Theory, Research, and Practice, 3r(i
 Ed., 2002, Jossey-Bass,
                                           23

-------
for the spectrum of behavior identified in the first line.  As noted in the fourth line, the methods
should be honed to assist or to alter the behavior of the  regulated community.   The last line in-
dicates the level of "competition" for the regulated community's attention in these matters, or
relative plentitude of other demands on the attention faced by the regulated community at each
level.

All of this is to say that at one end of the  spectrum lies one segment of the regulated community
that only needs education to achieve compliance.  The  CA and  regulatory agency should focus
on distributing proper notification of a regulation, and in developing interpretations in the format
that is usable and applicable to their setting. At the other end of the spectrum lies another seg-
ment  of the regulated community that will only respond to enforcement as a sufficient mecha-
nism  to achieve compliance.  The enforcement arm of the agency exists to deal with this sub-
group.

In the middle lies a significant portion of the regulated community for whom SBREFA was writ-
ten2, for whom compliance assistance programs require  more than simple brochure development
and dissemination, more than workshop delivery.  Example activities include: on-site assessment
and individual  technical  assistance (recognized3 as  more effective that distributed information
and workshops), establishment and management of peer support networks4, social marketing
programs that seek to identify and amplify positive incentives for (while reducing barriers to)
change.

This spectrum defines the activities associated with CA - education and assistance, and provides
context for the continuum of when these activities are  appropriate relative to the legal actions
used by enforcement staff.

EPA  should provide training and support to CA providers to  integrate behavioral sciences
into CA planning and delivery.


The CAAC recognizes that most CA providers are not trained nor have any experience in the  be-
havioral sciences. Most existing CA providers are more skilled  as lawyers and engineers, than
social scientists.  CA providers need  support and training to begin developing the skill  sets
needed to integrate social marketing approaches into their CA programs.

Recognizing the importance of behavioral approaches to promote compliance  and environmental
performance, the CAAC recommends EPA invest  resources into  developing the necessary tools,
training and technical support needed by Federal, State and local CA providers.

 EPA should identify and evaluate programs at federal, state, tribal and local agencies that
have  proven effective in using recognized behavioral  models. These best management prac-
tices can then be incorporated into CA-based efforts.
2 SBREFA requires regulatory agencies to work with the regulated community
? Making Our Nonpoml Source Pollution Education Programs Effective, Shepard, Journal of Extension, 10/99,
http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/a2.html
4 Also known as communities of practice, http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garderVcop/lss.shtml


                                           24

-------
Many other public programs at the federal, state, tribal and local levels use a non-enforcement
approach to change behavior with different levels of success. For example, the USDA coopera-
tive extension program has been very effective and is grounded in methodology to diffuse new
technologies and approaches into everyday farming activities. The CAAC recommends that EPA
canvass these other programs to identify and evaluate best management practices that can make
CA programs more effective.

EPA should establish a Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee to guide the agency on the incor-
poration of sound behavioral models into CA efforts.

The CAAC recognizes that EPA does not currently have the expertise to research, develop and
implement CA efforts based  on sound  behavioral models.  The CAAC recommends that EPA
draw on the  knowledge and expertise of nationally recognized experts on behavioral change. A
Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee should be established to bring together these experts to pro-
vide EPA with the guidance and technical expertise needed to develop the policies, tools, train-
ing and other efforts needed to support the recommendations in this section.
                                          25

-------
Appendices
    26

-------
                                     APPENDIX A

Compliance Assistance Self Assessment Tool

Compliance Assistance (CA)5 is a critical, but often overlooked, aspect of EPA's environmental
protection and improvement mission. Broadly defined, CA encompasses the work that we all do
to help others understand and comply with regulatory requirements. In some respects, it is the
"stealth"  component of compliance assurance - operating  quietly  alongside more visible en-
forcement-oriented tools. When effectively executed, CA can prevent or significantly reduce the
number of regulatory  infractions. With proper  resources and  management, CA provides the
means to advance understanding of an extremely  comprehensive, complex and ever changing
regulatory framework. It provides a necessary and  constructive tension to a multi-pronged com-
pliance assurance strategy that, when done well, results in significant increases in environmental
and public health benefits.

It is reasonable to expect widespread  achievement of the Agency's performance goals only if
there is an effective effort to educate the regulated community on the requirements of the law, its
objectives, and effective methods of achieving them. Compliance Assistance, as the outreach and
education component of the Compliance Assurance effort, is a necessary and practical means of
performance goal attainment.

CA  is the responsibility of the entire Agency. While it is an explicit charge of the Compliance
Assistance and Sector Programs Division within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance As-
surance (OECA); in fact, many programs and offices are already engaged in and conduct CA ac-
tivities.6  However, responsibility  for the planning, administration,  implementation, monitoring
and  measurement of the Agency's CA activities is not always  clearly established  and defined.
Thus, while  substantial resources may be allocated to CA activities, they are not always effec-
tively and properly accounted for, and, further, as a result of the broad and diverse application of
CA, there is no integrated mechanism for determining whether the level of resource allocation is
sufficient and best applied. Putting a Management System in place for CA will result in a univer-
sally recognized approach to efficiently develop and deliver CA and demonstrate its impact on
our goals for human health and the environment.
  Compliance Assistance is officially defined by the U.S EPA as activities, tools or technical assistance which provides clear and
 consistent information for 1) helping the regulated community understand and meet its obligations under environmental regula-
 tions; or 2) compliance assistance providers to aide the regulated community in complying with environmental regulations.
 Compliance assistance may also help  the regulated community find cost-effective ways to comply with regulations and/or go
 "beyond compliance" through the use of pollution prevention, environmental management practices and innovative technologies,
 thus improving their environmental performance  CA includes activities that are commonly described as technical assistance,
 environmental assistance, environmental management assistance, and pollution prevention assistance within the Agency and the
 stakeholder community. The self assessment tool is a systems-based approach drawn from proven management systems and the
 work of Drucker, Deming, and others that have studied, practiced, and refined the process of organizational management

  Some examples of these include, but are not limited to- Integrated Strategies, Pollution Prevention, Environmental Management
 Systems, Small Business Ombudsman and Small Business Assistance Programs, Capacity Building, Incentive and Voluntary
 Programs.
                                              27

-------
The CA Self-Assessment Tool has been designed by the Compliance Assistance Advisory Com-
mittee (CAAC)7 and is proposed for EPA's use to assist with the process of developing and im-
proving CA management and the implementation of CA throughout the Agency by strengthening
its management system orientation. The tool is intended to assist the Agency in enhancing the
integration of and the accountability for its CA activities Agency-wide. For EPA to effectively
utilize CA as one of the mechanisms for achieving environmental protection and improvement, it
should assess the system in place for managing the CA program. The tool addresses key program
elements in 5 basic areas: Policy, Planning, Implementation, Measurement, Management Review
and Program Adjustment.

Establishing a proven organizational management system approach  should allow the Agency to
efficiently manage resources, effectively develop and deliver CA, continuously^improve, and bet-
ter protect human health and the environment. This  self-assessment  can be utilized for assessing
the Agency-wide CA program as  well as Regional CA programs, or the programs  of individual
Program Offices, Divisions,  Branches,  Sections, or  individual projects within  the Agency.  The
CAAC  believes this tool can also  be beneficially applied to assess compliance assistance in  state
and local programs and other stakeholders external to EPA. The questions in the assessment were
designed to be used in an Agency-wide  program evaluation. Some of the questions may  not be as
relevant if the tool is used to assess CA  within EPA Program Offices, specific projects, or by CA
stakeholders external to EPA. In these cases the user's judgment  and discretion should guide
them through the appropriate questions to include for these purposes.

Effectively applied, CA can be a way of simplifying and expediting the task of Compliance; in-
appropriately applied; it can become an additional element of confusion  and bureaucracy.  This
Self-Assessment tool  is intended to further the goals of effective CA by providing a quick snap-
shot to measure status, progress and needs. It needs to be recognized as a tool, not an end in  it-
self, and its application should be simple, streamlined and efficient.

Policy

Element 1;  Compliance Assistance Policy

A policy that expresses the Agency commitment to utilize  CA to achieve the  Agency's human
health  and environmental protection goals should be established and  communicated within the
Agency and to external stakeholders.8

       •  Is this policy present?
       •  Does the policy include a tightly defined focus on what needs to be done?
  The CAAC is a FACA subcommittee of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology. This Self-
Assessment builds upon CAAC recommendations previously submitted to EPA by NACEPT including, Maximizing Compliance
Assistance  Recommendations for Enhancing Compliance Assistance  Opportunities at EPA and Through Other Providers
(8/13/02), and comments on EPA draft Strategic Plan Architecture submitted January 2003 The Self-Assessment Tool was de-
veloped and submitted in conjunction with NACEPT CAAC recommendations provided to EPA in June 2004.
o
  Stakeholders is a broad term that includes* the regulated community, business, trade, and non-profit organizations, assistance
providers, consultants, federal, state, and local agencies, and others.


                                            28

-------
      •   Does the policy include an assured commitment to CA and the principles of
          continuous improvement?
      •   Is the policy Agency-wide and supported by top-level management?
      •   Does it serve as a framework for how EPA sets its CA goals and objectives in
          support of the overarching mission of the Agency?
      •   Is it communicated to EPA employees, state assistance grant recipients, con-
          tractors and partners?
      •   Is the policy communicated to and understood by external stakeholders?
      •   Is the policy incorporated into the Agency's programs, procedures and prac-
          tices?

Planning

Element 2. Goals and Objectives for Continuous Improvement

The Agency should establish CA goals and objectives. These should reflect identified priorities
related to the Agency strategic plan, program objectives, regulatory development, legal and other
requirements. The Agency should establish an action plan that designates schedules, milestones,
resources, and responsibilities for achieving these program objectives.

      •   Are CA goals and objectives established?
      •   Do the CA goals and objectives reflect "top-down" management commitment
          and "bottom-up" involvement?
      •   Were the CA goals and objectives developed in consultation with stakeholders
          and do they reflect their input and commitment?
      •   Do these reflect identified priorities?
      •   Are the  CA goals and objectives well defined and measurable?
      •   Has an action plan been developed for achieving these goals and objectives?
      •   Have the resources (human, technical, and financial) necessary to achieve the
          CA goals and objectives been identified?
       •   Is progress being tracked toward achieving the goals and objectives?

Element 3; Planning and Assessment

The Agency should plan  for and identify how CA is to be provided in conjunction with EPA's
environmental mandates and responsibilities and establish key measures and milestones  for as-
sessing the utilization and integration of CA within the Agency's environmental protection ac-
tivities.

       •  Are CA activities considered and incorporated in the Agency's environmental
          protection planning process?
       •  Are key Agency activities  identified which trigger inclusion  of CA in the
          planning process?
       •  Is CA addressed in the Agency's program plans and planning guidance with
          the Regions and States?
                                           29

-------
       •  Are resources (EPA, partner, and stakeholders) adequately allocated to sup-
          port CA activities?
       •  Is the use of CA in the Agency planning process tracked and assessed?

Element 4. Regulatory Development. Legal, and Other Requirements

The agency should include CA considerations  in regulatory development activities. Considera-
tion of the regulated communities'  ability to understand and implement regulations should be
included in the design  of regulatory requirements and in the development of EPA programs to
implement the regulations.  Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
requirements and other regulatory flexibility opportunities should be incorporated into the EPA
CA planning process and pertinent  information from regulatory reviews9 should be communi-
cated and utilized to  improve EPA's inclusion of CA in plans for regulatory development when
applicable.

       •  Has the Agency included a CA analysis  as part of the analytic blueprint for
          each new regulation?10
       •  Has the Agency conducted an assessment of CA needs associated with various
          regulatory options?
       •  Do Federal Register publications of proposed  and final rules include  a de-
          scription of plans for CA tools or activities  that will be developed or  con-
          ducted to support implementation of new regulations?6
       •  Are arrangements with other stakeholders in the CA network included in the
          Agency's process to plan for implementation new regulations?
       •  Has the Agency estimated, considered,  and  minimized the time and  costs
          needed to determine whether and how the regulations apply?-'
       •  Does the Agency test new regulations with stakeholders  and use the feedback
          to determine if it can be easily understood and implemented, and whether it
          accomplishes the end goal?
       •  Does the Agency document and integrate its  experience and lessons learned
          from previous regulatory development efforts and  apply them  to  regulations
          that are being  developed to ensure that future  regulations are written  in a
          manner that is easy to understand and, to the extent practicable, to comply
          with?

Element 5. Engaging Stakeholders and Building Partnerships

The Agency should involve representatives of the regulated community, tribal nations, state and
local environmental agencies, and assistance organizations, non-profit organizations and the gen-
eral public in the CA planning process. The  Agency should communicate throughout the plan-
ning process to allow these representatives to express their views and perspectives relative to key
9 Section 610 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act requires that all regulations having a sig-
nificant impact on small entities be reviewed every 10 years to assess how the regulation was developed, imple-
mented, and the impact and outcomes of the regulation.
10 CAAC Report 8/13/01
11 CAAC EPA Strategic Plan Architecture Comments, January 2003.


                                           30

-------
activities for measurement and assessment, regulatory development,  and goals and objectives,
and to be informed of the Agency's plan and appropriately included in the plan as it is developed
and updated. The Agency should look within itself for regional/local involvement to assure that
approaches meet the specific tailored requirements of "real" users and providers.

       •  Is there a process in place to involve stakeholders in CA planning?
       •  Does the Agency's CA network include representatives from this stakeholder
          group?
       •  What are the mechanisms for communicating with these stakeholders?
       •  Does the Agency have effective programs to build understanding of the reali-
          ties of the regulated community among its regulators, litigators, and develop-
          ers of compliance assistance?
       •  Is there a process in place to receive and consider stakeholder input?
       •  Is it incorporated in the CA plans?
       •  Are the stakeholder activities that contribute to the delivery of CA  included
          appropriately in the Agency's plans?

Implementation

Element 6. Roles and Responsibilities

The Agency should establish assigned roles and  responsibilities for  its  CA program activities.
The roles and responsibilities should specify programs, and specific positions within those pro-
grams that are accountable. Sufficient human, technical and financial resources should be pro-
vided for the roles and responsibilities.

       •  Does the Agency, and applicable organizational units within the Agency, have
          an individual with  responsibility for ensuring that the CA program is imple-
          mented?
       •  Are CA roles and responsibilities identified in organizational  operating plans,
          descriptions of position responsibilities, and performance standards?
       •  Are  the roles  and responsibilities described  sufficiently  and  specifically
          enough to convey a clear understanding of what the program or position is re-
          sponsible for doing that can be tracked in a meaningful way?
       •  Are roles and responsibilities of the stakeholder groups negotiated, established
          and agreed upon?
       •   Are sufficient human, technical, and  financial resources provided  to effec-
          tively execute these responsibilities?

Element 7. Training

The Agency should develop guidance and training on CA to ensure that its  employees responsi-
ble for CA implementation understand these responsibilities and are competent in performing
them. The guidance and training provided  to Agency employees should include examples of how
CA can be  effectively incorporated in various Agency functions ranging from research, to rule
development, permitting, monitoring, and enforcement. Training should provide  Agency em-


                                            31

-------
ployees with awareness of operational issues affecting regulated entities. The guidance and train-
ing should also provide Agency staff with the knowledge and tools they need to involve appro-
priate external stakeholders in their CA activities.

       •   Does written guidance on the CA program exist?
       •   Are all employees made aware of CA and the Agency's CA policy?
       •   Has a training program been developed?
       •   Is the training sufficient to provide personnel with competency for conducting
           CA responsibilities?
       •   Has the training been delivered to the appropriate Agency personnel?
       •   Do new or reassigned employees receive CA training?
       •   Are CA training records maintained?
       •   Is training provided  to personnel in  stakeholder groups  involved in imple-
           menting the Agency's CA program?
       •   Do stakeholders have adequate access to CA training?

Element 8. Communications

Communication  is critical to effective implementation of compliance assistance initiatives. The
Agency should ensure that communication of CA information, activities, plans, expectations and
achievements occurs both within the Agency and externally to other stakeholders and partners.
The Agency should also ensure that communication occurs across programs, and from field staff
and external stakeholders back up through the organization.

       •   Is there a process in place for outreach and external communications with re-
           spect to the CA program and other related resources?
       •   Is there a process in place to assure effective internal and  external  communi-
           cation of the CA program including the policy, goals, roles and responsibili-
           ties, and achievements?
       •   Is there a means of reviewing the effectiveness of communications?
       •   Is there a system for top-down, bottom- up, and cross-program communica-
           tion for CA coordinators, management, staff, stakeholders, and CA providers.

Measurement

Element 9. Measurement

In order to assess progress and performance toward  achieving its CA goals and objectives the
Agency should establish,  monitor and maintain CA measurement proceduresl2 The measurement
procedures should allow  EPA to monitor whether milestones are being met and whether CA is
12 For the most part, measurement in this self-assessment document is designed to measure how the Agency is utiliz-
ing CA and integrating CA into the environmental protection activities it undertakes. Measurement of the outcomes
of CA activities is another important aspect of measurement that is addressed in more depth separately in these
CAAC recommendations.
                                           32

-------
being utilized and integrated within the Agency's  environmental  protection activities,  and
whether EPA is meeting applicable legal and other requirements for conducting CA.

       •  Is there a system for tracking  progress  toward achieving CA program goals,
          objectives, and milestones? How is this progress tracked?
       •  Are human, technical, and financial resources committed to CA monitored
          and measured?
       •  Are CA deliverables  and performance measures attached to these resource
          commitments?
       •  Does the monitoring and measurement system identify key types or topical ar-
          eas of CA activities that are occurring, and where within the organization they
          occur?
       •  Does the monitoring and measurement system address the CA contributions
          from the Agency's stakeholder groups?
       •  Are the results of monitoring and measurement  communicated to and under-
          stood by those within the Agency and external stakeholders?
       •  Is information from the CA measurement system accessible to the public?
       •  Is the progress toward program goals, objectives, and milestones assessed, re-
          viewed, and summarized as part of the sys tem?
       •  Is there a system in place to measure outcomes of CA activities?
       •  Do these outcome measures include: increased understanding of regulatory
          requirements, improved management practices, and environmental results?

Management Review and Program Adjustment

Element 10. Management Review and Program Adjustment

The Agency should define and execute an effective and pragmatic process for management re-
view and assessment of the CA program. Program modifications and adjustments resulting from
the review should be made in a timely manner. Top management involvement and commitment
to effective CA is a critical element in this stage of the process.

       •  Is there an established and clearly understood feedback loop?
       •  Is there a process in place for formal "audit" or programmatic assessment?
       •  Is there an established process for incorporating and implementing corrective
          programmatic recommendations?
       •  Is there a process in place for "quick" or "spot-check" program review?
       •  Is there a process in place for assessing existing and projected resource suffi-
          ciency?
       •  Are program successes recognized, rewarded, and shared within the Agency,
          with stakeholders, and the public?
                                           33

-------
                                     APPENDIX B

Logic Model Framework for Program Evaluation

The Logic Model13 provides a conceptual framework that ties expected outputs and outcomes to
resource investments. Using the model helps the manager of a program or project to clearly
identify underlying assumption about how CA (or enforcement) works, and provides  a useful
tool to separate variables that contribute to changes in behavior.

A generic graphical layout of the model, as found at            	
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evallogicmodel.html H51IIrpfl 3 is presented here:

LOGIC MODEL for PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT & ASSESSMENT
-
s
1
T
U
A
T
1
O
N






























INPUTS

What we invest



Staff
Volunteers
Time
Money
Materials
Equipment
Technology
Partners






'




















OUTPUTS
Activities
What we do


>t
<=

Workshops
Meetings
Counseling
Facilitation
Assessments
Product dev.
Media work
Recruitment
Training




Participation
Who we
reach

_lv
=>

Participants
Customers
Citizens




.




Reactions

Assumptions
1)
2)
3)
4)







































OUTCOMES - IMPACT
Short
What the
short term
(education)
results are

Learning

<*•
No-

Awareness
Knowledge
Attitudes
Skills
Opinions
Aspirations
Motivations


Medium
What the me-
dium term
(behavior)
results are



	 N
	 \S
Action



Behavior
Practice
Decisions
Policies
Social action

Long Te
What the
(system)
IS


Comprer
Achiever

Social
Economi
Civic
Environn







V t /



External Factors



13
  The logic model is used to direct projects and entire programs, such as at UW, and is required for planning and
evaluation of environmental grants from the USDA.
                                          34

-------
   The "Situation" is a description of the problem that needs fixing, such as "high phosphorus levels
   make water quality less than desired."  Descriptions of the other five elements used to describe
   the program follow:

       1.  INPUTS: resources, contributions, investments that go into the program
       2.  OUTPUTS: activities, services, events and products that reach people who participate or
          who are targeted
       3.  OUTCOMES: results or changes for individuals, groups, communities, organizations,
          communities, or systems
       4.  Assumptions: the beliefs we have about the program, the people  involved, and the con-
          text and the way we think the program will work
       5.  External Factors: the context in which the program exists includes a variety of external
          factors that interact with and influence the program action.

   One important fundamental feature of the logic model is how it describes the logical progression
   of change that a program hopes to impart (such as the intended impact  of a CA program on a
   regulated community). The INPUTS are used to create OUTPUTS, and OUTPUTS create OUT-
   COMES. The outcome progression, from  short term to  long term, or from education through
   behavior to system, parallels the well-documented stages of change14 model described by Pro-
   chaska.

   Simply using the chart above to list items may fail to  capture the connections  between and
   among  items.  By modifying the worksheet to include  unique items in  connected  boxes, as
   shown on the logic model for a water quality program, a more explicit theory of change is illus-
   trated.  With the added detail of presumed connectivity, the logic model more  clearly shows the
   logical causal relationships that link inputs to outcomes.
                                         Farmers at
                                         nak o*
                                         overfeed! no
                                         p h o mpfto r u s
Increased
Hnk b«twe«n
cattle diet and
<*•
Increased
of
recommended
phosphorus
levels
±
increased
knowledge of
tracking
phosphorus
levels


pnospnorus
manure, toll
|
Make
appropriate
adjuvtinenla
to cattle teed



J Reduction. In
phosphorus
T
+
Feed coal
savtnos


1 improved
water quality

                                                  Government proorams regulate and offer
                                                  incentives: Other sources relnvorce use of
                                                  high phosphorus diets
14 Also known as the Transtheoretical Model. This model was derived by studying over 500 research models, and pulling
from them the common elements into a model now well accepted by the behavioral science community.
                                              35

-------
Note that in this example more than one CA action was used to reach the members of the partici-
pant community.  Note also that specific solutions were assumed to exist and be of ready benefit
if a change was made. The external factors listed provide contributory incentives for change - in
other words the program did not act as the sole source of incentives for change.

After the logic model framework has identified what actions and resources are intended to cause
change, then evaluation questions and measurement indicators can be developed.

The color-coding indicates the measurements that would be used to evaluate  the value of each
element in the model, be they inputs, outputs or outcomes.  The particular merit of the examples
here lies with the fact that the measure is tied to each step of the logic chain.  This improves
measurement accuracy and avoids the tendency to overstate levels of long-term system outcomes
(environmental impacts) from a single activity. Note that the model describes  indicators, but the
indicators do not control for affects from the external factors listed on the previous model.

 LOGIC MODEL for "EPA INSPECTORS PROVIDING COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE
DELIVERED DURING INSPECTIONS"

    1.  Compliance assistance is intended to change a member of the regulated  universe from
       a non-compliance behavior to a compliant behavior.

    2.  Behavioral science has clearly identified stages that individuals go through when they
       change. Progression from one stage to the next is neither assured nor permanent, i.e.,
       behavior can relapse to an earlier stage, but progression is dependent on completion
       of the previous stage, i.e., each step is required.

    3.  A Logic Model helps to diagram a logical causal relationship between inputs, outputs
       and outcomes,  and  it can help pinpoint where and what measures should be used to
       verify effectiveness of programs and activities.

    4.  Compliance assistance and enforcement programs each attempt to modify the behav-
       ior of the regulated community.

A Logic Model displays the chain of actions and their anticipated outcomes.  This chain shows
how a program is expected to work in order to deliver the desired results.
INPUTS
What we invest
        OUTPUTS
Activities        Participation
What we do	Who we reach

                        36
       OUTCOMES-IMPACT
Short       Medium    '   Long Term
Education   Behavior     System

-------
,
73
"gj'c
£ ~
0) .<2
*s g.
52-3
II
«j $
«= o>
"c •-
'w 1
P§.
c *•*•
c ™
st
• • 3
s c
.2!
es o
3
CC


Staff
Time
Money
Materials
Equipment
Technology


\"



















On-site vis-
its, i.e., in-
spections:
- Deliver
document(s)
- Provide ex-
amples
- Clarify lan-
guage
- ID & leave
appropriate
reference ci-
tation, e.g.,
URL





Official repre-
sentative of
known mem-
bers of regu-
lated commu-
nity, whose
fellow workers
may not be
operating in
compliance
with regula-
tions


^ —
^^

	 	 	 	

~^>
^\_
^^\

^.
\
Assumptions
1) Information given is understood
2) Recipient places high priority on compliance
3) Recipient values information source
4) Regulatory structure protects environment
                                                      Increased
                                                      awareness
                                                      of legal
                                                      obligation
                                                        I
            Changes that
            do not reduce
            impact on
            environment
                                                      Improved un-
                                                      derstanding of
                                                      options
              Changes that
              reduce im-
              pact on envi-
              ronment
                                                    More positive
                                                    attitude about
                                                    the need to
                                                    change
                                                    Improved per-
                                                    ception of abil-
                                                    ity to make
                                                    changes
                                                        I
                                                      Decision to
                                                      change
                        Improved
                        human health
                        and envi-
                        ronme
       External Factors
1.  Compliance Assistance activities
2  Trade meeting training
3  New technologies
4  News of legal action
Observations:
   -   The education outputs can have an affect on  the audience at any point in its movement
       through the stages of change.
   -   The participating  member of the regulated community is a designated representative, and
       may not be the one who needs to change behavior in order for the organization to become
       compliant.

The following table lists  CA  activities allowed during an inspection, and describes the activity
measure associated with each activity.  The direct outcome of that activity is also listed, along
with the likely long-term outcome (environmental impact).
                                           37

-------
Possible Outcome Measurement Associated with "Appropriate General Assistance" Available to Inspectors, as
      Described in "Role of the EPA Inspector in Providing Compliance Assistance During Inspections"
Activity
[Generic/Categorical Description]
1 . Providing physical copies of environmental
statutes or regulations, conveying a general
explanation of where to obtain the regulatory
requirements, and providing information on
where to find regulatory interpretations
[Regulatory info - "in context"', info provides
structure for action]
2. Providing information including prepared
guidance, manuals, and tech. transfer docu-
ments
[Guidance info -"in context*7, info provides
options available for action]
3. Providing info on what assistance can be
obtained from EPA, state, local assistance
programs, trade associations, and other orgs
[Referral to service partners]
4. Informing facilities regarding the phys.
equip, or processes and reports and/or records
they need to maintain, as well as a general
idea of what these documents should contain
to ensure compliance
[Info, provides model of expected behavior]
5 Distributing the small business information
sheet with information on web sites, hotlines,
and other materials.
[Referral to other information sources]
6. Providing prepared literature on P2 tech-
niques and opportunities, environmental man-
agement practices, and innovative technolo-
gies.
[Info provides options for alternative action,
equip]
7. Providing info on visible compliance prob-
lems, e g., labeling or aisle space, which do
not pose any issues of first impression requir-
ing legal or technical interpretation by the in-
spector, potentially enabling the facility to un-
dertake quick action to remedy the non-
compliance problem.
[Info provides model of expected behavior]
Activity
[Generic/Categorical Description]
8. Providing facilities with the web site for the
EPA Audit Policy and Small Business Policy to
encourage self auditing
[Referral to information]
9. Providing suggestions from published mate-
rial developed and recognized by EPA on sim-
Activity Meas-
ures
# copies,
other info
given to TA
(target audi-
ence)
# copies given
toTA
# referrals
made
# examples
offered
# sheets dis-
tributed
# copies dis-
tributed to TA
# items sug-
gested
Activity Meas-
ures
# referrals
made
# items sug-
gested
Causal Out-
come
Increased
awareness,
+/- attitude
Increased
awareness,
pos attitude
# or%TA
who make con-
tact
Increased
awareness,
knowledge,
skill
# or % TA who
contact # refer-
ences
Increased
awareness, +/-
attitude
Increased
awareness,
knowledge,
skill, behavior,
practice
Causal Out-
come
# or % who
contact & read
# references
Increased
awareness, +
Contributory
Outcome

Knowledge,
behavior,
practice
Awareness,
pos attitude
+/- attitude,
behavior,
practice
Awareness,
pos attitude
Knowledge,
behavior,
practice

Contributory
Outcome
Awareness,
knowledge,
+/- attitude
Knowledge,
behavior,
Environmental
Impact
None
This action may
have very minor
contribution
among many
None
This action may
have very minor
contribution
among many
None
This action may
have very minor
contribution
among many
None
(What is the envi-
ronmental impact
of a label or aisle
space?)
Environmental
Impact
None
This action may
have very minor
                                             38

-------
pie techniques and concepts to reduce or
eliminate pollution, e.g , housekeeping tips.
[Info models desired behavior, offers alterna-
tives]
10. Sharing information from published mate-
rial developed and recognized by EPA on con-
trol practices and equipment used within a
specific sector to comply with environmental
regulations and potentially reduce their regula-
tory burden.
[Info models desired behavior, provides op-
tions]
1 1 Providing information from published mate-
rial developed and recognized by EPA on rec-
ognized industry or sector-based practices and
concepts to reduce or eliminate pollution, e g ,
chemical substitution or equipment changes
[Info models desired behavior, offers alterna-
tives]
12 Explaining regulations or guidance that
describe how to collect a sample, but not pro-
viding advice on the number or location of
samples necessary to meet "representative"
criteria
[Regulatory info - "in context"'; info provides
structure for action]
13. Mentioning to regulated facilities that state
requirements, which may apply to them, may
be different from federal requirements
[Regulatory info; info provides structure for
referred action]

# items sug-
gested
# items sug-
gested
# explanations
offered
# caveats
given,
# referrals
made
attitude
Increased
awareness, +
attitude
Increased
awareness, +
attitude
Increased
awareness,
knowledge, +/-
attitude
# or % TA
who make con-
tact
practice, de-
cisions
Knowledge,
behavior,
practice, de-
cisions
Knowledge,
behavior,
practice, de-
cisions
Behavior,
practice, de-
cisions
+/- attitude
contribution
among many.
This action may
have very minor
contribution
among many.
This action may
have very minor
contribution
among others.
None
None
39

-------
                                       APPENDIX C

Measurement Modeling

   There may not be one national system that can help CA providers address all of the purposes for
   a CA measurement system. Different measurement systems can be used to address various pur-
   poses, but it may not be possible to address all of these purposes with a "one-size-fits-all" ap-
   proach.  Measurement for improving project/program management is not the same as measure-
   ment for communicating environmental results to the public.

   There are also various types of CA measures that need to be fully defined  and developed. The
   following model provides a framework for considering the types of measures that could be avail-
   able.

         Model Characterizing Levels & Focus of Compliance Assistance Performance

                                Measurement with Examples


                                                                Environmental In-
    Measure Types       Output Measures     Outcome Measures  dicators
    Levels of Focus
    CA Project/ Initiative
    CA Program-Wide
    (multi-initiative)
    Agency-Wide (Multi-
    program)
    Multi-Agency-Wide

    (could be multi-state
    or regional)
    National

   Moving from top left hand box to lower right hand box of this matrix, CA measures become
   more challenging to define in a meaningful way that produces credible numbers. It also becomes
   more and more difficult to identify contribution of CA, as distinct from other environmental pro-
   tection activities, to the measured results.


   Examples of Output Measures

   The following examples of output measures  are from the Northeast Waste Management Offi-
   cials' Association (NEWMOA) Compliance Assistance and Pollution Prevention Measurement
   software.  EPA Headquarters has supported the development of this software to facilitate state
   collection, management, and analysis of compliance  assistance and pollution prevention output
   and outcome data.
                                            40

-------
Client-based assistance:
       •   number of clients receiving on site assistance
       •   number of clients receiving research assistance with no on site visit
       •   number of clients receiving problem solving assistance with no on site visit
       •   number of clients receiving grants

Workshops and conferences:
       •   number of events organized by the program
       •   number of people attending these events
       •   number of events not sponsored b the program that included a  presentation by the
          program staff and the number of people reached through these events

Educational materials, including electronic and web-based:
       •   number of clients to which you sent hard copy materials, i.e., fact sheets, reports,
          guidance documents, video tapes, CDs, and others
       •   number of information requests that were received by phone, mail, e-mail, web-based
          or other direct contact to which the program responded
       •   number of publications and other materials produced and distributed

Awards programs:
       •   number of entities that applied for the award

Partnership activities:
       •   number of partnerships established or maintained between governmental and/or non-
          governmental organizations

Grants:
       •   number of grants awarded
       •   amount of money awarded

Examples of Outcome Measures

Outcome measures are those that can be directly and credibly linked to the efforts of the CA pro-
gram.  To develop an effective system for assessing the outcomes of CA activities, there needs to
be a method for  establishing a baseline against which  trends can be evaluated.  All outcome
measures need to first have a baseline with a process for follow-up and evaluation.  The exam-
ples of outcome measures provided below are taken from NEWMOA's Pollution Prevention and
Compliance Assistance Metrics.

For the categories of direct client assistance, educational events, and educational materials, the
following are examples of possible outcome measures:

Behavioral changes, such as
       •   development of an environmental management system,
       •   adoption of environmental policies and statements,
                                           41

-------
       •  implementation of training programs,
       •  process mapping,
       •  development of compliance and P2 teams,
       •   development and maintenance of chemical use and purchasing systems.

Compliance changes, such as:
       •  Changes in compliance status related to the numerous federal requirements, including
          hazardous waste, various air quality, NPDES, storm water, UST, TRI, drinking water,
          and others associated with program's work with their clients

Environmental impact, such as changes in:
       •  air emissions, such as SOx, NOx, hazardous air pollutants, specific air toxics
       •  water  discharges, including  direct discharges,  non-point  source  discharges  and
          stormwater
       •  hazardous waste generation,
       •  energy use,
       •  water use,
       •  toxic chemical use,
       •  solid waste

Examples of Environmental Indicators

Environmental indicators are the most challenging for identifying any causality or a direct link
between CA and the trends shown through the indicator. However, because the following types
of indicators can be impacted by a wide range of activities and changes  on the part of all activi-
ties at the environmental agencies, other public entities, and private entities, it is not appropriate
or effective for the measurement of these indicators to be developed or conducted by CA provid-
ers alone: \
       •  Changes in the rating of a water body and measures of overall water quality
       •  Changes in the toxic chemicals in the fish population (i.e., reduction of mercury and
          PCBs in fish)
       •  Changes in ground level ozone statewide or in a metropolitan  area
       •  Changes in SOx levels on statewide or other level
       •  Changes in NOx levels on a statewide or other level
       •  Changes in the amount of hazardous waste that is disposed
       •  Changes in the amount of hazardous waste that is recycled
       •  Changes in TRI emissions and discharges
       •  Various measures of risk reduction, i.e.,  reduction in asthma incidents related to air
          quality problems, reduction in the lead poisoning incidents

The NEWMOA P2 and CA  Metrics Software system does not include  environmental indicator
measures. It focuses on output and outcome measures.
                                          42

-------
                                   APPENDIX D

RCRA Compliance Measures Project

The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) has developed and im-
plemented a procedure to collect statistically-valid data regarding the compliance status of haz-
ardous waste generators.

Background

NH DES obtained a grant from the US EPA OECA to analyze existing data on compliance by
hazardous waste generators and to collect data to "fill in the gaps" so that supportable conclu-
sions could be reached  regarding the  efficacy of Partial  Compliance Evaluations Inspections
(PEIs) versus Full Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEIs). After analyzing the existing data
with the assistance of an EPA contractor (Tetratech), it became apparent that the data in the fed-
eral database was of little to no use due to the lack of readily available detail. NH DEC thus pro-
posed to develop a new procedure and database to collect and analyze usable data rather than
continue under the original proposal; this proposal was accepted.

The Compliance Measures Project had three major components: (1) revising the existing inspec-
tion  checklists to contain only consistent, dichotomous questions (i.e., yes/no questions where
"yes" always means "in compliance");  (2) developing a database to receive the data generated by
inspections such that the data could be analyzed efficiently; and (3) developing a "Partial  Com-
pliance  Evaluation" similar to the Environmental Results Projects (ERPs) developed by the Mas-
sachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA  DEP) that could be used to generate
statistically-valid baseline compliance rates and compliance trends. In conjunction with this pro-
ject, NH DES also undertook a comprehensive data cleanup of its Manifest Tracking System to
update entries, eliminate duplicates, and deactivate closed facilities. This report focuses on  the
third element of the project.

Hazardous Waste Partial Compliance Evaluation

The Hazardous  Waste Partial Compliance  Evaluation is  performed using a one-page printed
multi-part carbonless form. The form includes room for the basic  identifying information regard-
ing the  facility being inspected ("Notification Information"), questions regarding the facility that
do not directly relate to regulatory requirements (e.g., contact information, number of employees,
length of tenure of environmental manager, whether the facility is ISO 14001  certified, etc.), and
the  10  ERP-type questions  developed for  this procedure.  The  ERP-type questions  comprise
seven questions  that directly relate to  regulation requirements and three questions that relate to
pollution  prevention/beyond  compliance. The seven regulatory questions  must be answered
"yes" or "no", or n/a (NH SQGs only); the answer is supplemented with the number of instances
of compliance out of the total possible instances of compliance  (e.g., number of containers  la-
beled out of total number of containers). The three non-regulatory questions are answered "yes"
or "no" and are supplemented with  a rating of 1  to 5, with 5 being the best (i.e., correlating to
"yes").  NH DES recognizes that the survey questions likely will  be modified so as  to be worka-


                                           43

-------
ble for a broader implementation, since regulatory requirements are not identical from state to
state. For example, in New Hampshire a minimum of two feet of aisle space must be maintained;
in the federal regulations and in many states, the requirements are for "adequate" aisle space.

Implementation

Interns
The first summer, NH DBS hired three college students as interns. The second summer, four in-
terns were hired, but one left for graduate schools three weeks after starting. Currently, NH DES
hires the interns under its standard intern program. The goal is to establish permanent seasonal
positions, to attract teachers who would return year after year.

Training
Interns receive "classroom" training on hazardous waste regulatory requirements (including haz-
ard recognition) and then accompany a fully-trained staff inspector for the first week to observe
how the evaluations are performed. The interns also attend the same Field Safety training that all
NH DES inspectors attend; this  training covers areas such as how to recognize  a potentially
threatening situation and extricate oneself from it and how to be non-confrontational so as to get
your job done effectively. NH DES  also provides safety equipment to the interns. In  2003, the
interns attended the NH DES hazardous waste coordinator certification training; this practice  is
expected to continue.

Facility Selection
Facilities to be evaluated are selected using a random-number generator in conjunction with NH
DES's Manifest Tracking System, which contains information on every known generator in the
state (and which is  updated  when new information is received). The facilities are then mapped
and assigned to the interns to maximize the efficient use of time and travel resources. One lesson
learned from the first summer was to do an initial selection of many more facilities than needed
to obtain statistically-valid data, since many facilities turned out to be closed when the interns
arrived. Another lesson was to screen out generators who only generate used oil or precious met-
als, since they are not subject to enough requirements to generate complete data.

In the first summer, 3 interns visited 429 facilities. In the second summer, three interns visited
611 facilities dues to increased  efficiencies.  For most of the facilities, these visits were the first
contact they had ever had with NH DES on hazardous waste issues.

Evaluations and Follow-up
Facilities are not notified in advance of the visit. Upon arriving at the facility, the interns identify
the purpose of the visit  and request permission to conduct the evaluation. The facility  contact is
informed that the evaluation can be  refused, but that if it is the  facility will be placed on NH
DES's list for CEI. To date no intern  has been turned away.

At the facilities, the interns observe and discuss the conditions relating to the questions.  They
tour the facility and are expected to go into the main hazardous waste storage area(s), but they do
not do any sampling and are instructed to leave an area immediately  if they observe hazardous
conditions.
                                            44

-------
At the conclusion of the evaluation, both the evaluator and the facility contact sign the evaluation
form and the facility contact receives a copy of the form. The interns also provide a packet of
information (i.e., NH DES Fact Sheets, telephone numbers, etc) regarding applicable require-
ments and available assistance, which usually  is greatly  appreciated by  the  facility contact.
Unless the intern observes egregious conditions, there is no formal follow-up regarding any po-
tential violations; hence the evaluations do not count as "inspection beans" for EPA purposes. If
the intern does observe egregious  conditions, the facility is put on the list  for CEI, which then
may result in formal enforcement.  A  facility also will be put on the list for a CEI if it is selected
two years in a row (based on the  random  selection) and the violations observed the first year
have not been corrected. The priority of the inspection will depend on the severity of the viola-
tions.

Project Results
NH DES has published a report on the results of the first year's Hazardous Waste Partial Com-
pliance Evaluation program, which can be obtained at the following website:

http://www.des.state.nh.us/hwc
                                            45

-------
                                    APPENDIX E
The Role of the Change Agent

The Outcome Hierarchy below provides a model that focuses on behavior change - in this case,
with change being associated with compliance assistance programs. The Outcome Hierarchy
provides a context for developing a logic model of specific CA  outcomes necessary to bring
about change from non-compliance to compliance.  With the logic model in place,  such as the
steps of change, a CA program can be instilled in a target audience through specific roles involv-
ing associated outputs and activities.  With this entire context in place, identifying measures are
related to causal relationships between CA actions and specific outcomes.

Outcome Hierarchy

       System/Circumstance
       (HH&E/Environmental Quality)

       Behavior

       Skills

       Attitude

       Knowledge

       Awareness
The goal of CA is to move a target audience from Awareness to Impact. It is often forgotten that
individuals and even organizations, do not travel a direct path to get from one end  to the other.
Outcomes are not achieved in a stepwise fashion as shown on the left, but through an erratic and
convoluted path as shown on the right - especially in entrenched systems.

Outcome Chain (Logic Model)

The Outcome Hierarchy  can allow EPA to develop a logic model of outcomes, from which CA
activities can be planned  as necessary to realize change.
A logical progression for CA outcomes along this hierarchy might look something like this:
   6. Environment protected
   5. Environmental indicators stabilize
   4. Target Audience reduces environmental impact
   3. Target Audience adopts BMP/New Tech/Reg
   2. Target Audience incorporates BMP/New Tech/Reg in planning
   1.  Target Audience leams about Best Management Practice/New
       Technology/Regulation (prescribed activity/output)
System


Behavior

Learning
                                          46

-------
Discussion:  At what point is measurement needed?  Which outcome is most important? Which
outcome(s) does CA most influence?

Role of the CA Program (Steps of Change)

What does a compliance assistance program need to do  in order to move the target audience
(TA) towards change?  Research15 describes the possible sequence of roles for the CA change
agent as follows:
   7.  CA program achieves a terminal relationship with the TA.  The CA pro-
       gram shifts the target audience from a position of reliance on the CA pro-
       gram to one of self-reliance.
   6.  CA program stabilizes adoption and prevents  discontinuance. The CA
       program provides reinforcing messages to a TA that has adopted or is in
       the implementation or confirmation stages.
   5.  CA program helps the TA translate intent to action. The CA program seeks
       to influence TA behavior based on TA needs. Interpersonal network in-
       fluences from near-peers are most important at the persuasion and decision
       stages. The CA program can operate only indirectly by working with opin-
       ion leaders to activate near-peer networks.
   4.  The CA program creates intent in the TA to change.  After identifying al-
       ternatives, the CA program seeks to motivate TA interest in the desired al-
       ternative. Show barriers can be overcome.
   3.  The CA program helps  the TA diagnose the problem. Here, problem =
       compliance gap.  CA staff must show why existing practice does not meet
       TA needs. The CA staff should view the situation empathetically from the
       TA perspective. Identify barriers.
   2.  The CA program establishes an information-exchange relationship -with
       the TA. The CA program can enhance relationships with clients by being
       perceived as  credible, competent, trustworthy, and by empathizing with
       TA needs and problems.
    1.  The CA program develops a need for change in the TA.  What  is the prob-
       lem?]
System
Behavior
Learning
15 Rogers, Everett M., Diffusion of Innovations (4* Ed) Chapter 9, "The Change Agent"
                                          47

-------
                                      APPENDIX F

CA-MAPPER

Compliance Assistance16 (CA) is a critical aspect of EPA's environmental protection and  im-
provement mission.  Elsewhere in these recommendations, the Compliance Assistance Advisory
Committee17 (CAAC)  has made recommendations to  EPA  for  improving  CA management
throughout the Agency.  These recommendation are in the form of a Self-Assessment Checklist
that addresses the need for a formal CA policy, CA planning, implementation issues, perform-
ance measurement, and management review and program adjustment.

While EPA clearly plays a role in providing CA to the regulated community, many other entities
play major roles in the CA network. Other federal agencies, state regulatory agencies, pollution
prevention organizations, commerce and small  business development agencies, local govern-
ments and even non-profit and community-based organizations provide CA in a variety of forms.
Additionally, there is a substantial private sector presence in the CA network, from corporate en-
vironmental departments, to trade associations and labor, to consulting and engineering firms.

Critical to the efficient and effective operation of this network is an understanding of how CA is
delivered to the regulated community.  Unlike the regulatory hierarchy, in  which legislative
mandates are  codified  in a regulation, which, in turn,  may be enforced directly by a federal
agency or delegated  to state or local enforcement agencies, CA transmission is rarely direct from
EPA to the end-user.  Rather, CA follows complex, multiple pathways, sometimes reinforcing,
sometimes competing, which pass through several levels of providers en  route to the end-user.
Successful CA transmission, and end-user response, is further complicated by the discretionary
nature of CA reception—the end-user may respond to CA in a variety of ways, from immediate
assimilation and action, to complete disregard.  The end-user's response is also influenced by
factors outside the CA  transmission itself (e.g., financial capacity), and by entities not directly
involved in CA transmission (e.g., customers, financial providers, trade associations, peers).

In the Self-Assessment Checklist (Element 5. Engaging Stakeholders and Building Partnerships),
the CAAC recommends that EPA undertake a structured effort to involve representatives of the
regulated community, tribal nations, state and local regulatory agencies, and assistance organiza-
tions, non-profit organizations and the general public in the CA planning process. This involve-
t6Compliance Assistance is officially defined by the U.S. EPA as activities, tools or technical assistance which pro-
vides clear and consistent information for 1) helping the regulated community understand and meet its obligations
under environmental regulations; or 2) compliance assistance providers to aide the regulated community in comply-
ing with environmental regulations.   Compliance  assistance  may also  help the regulated  community  find
cost-effective ways to comply with regulations and/or go "beyond compliance" through the use of pollution preven-
tion, environmental management practices and innovative technologies, thus improving their environmental per-
formance.  CA includes activities that are commonly described as technical assistance, environmental assistance,
environmental management assistance, and pollution prevention assistance within the Agency and the stakeholder
community.

17 The CAAC is a FACA subcommittee of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technol-
ogy.


                                            48

-------
ment early in the CA planning process can be invaluable for understanding the CA network, how
CA is transmitted to end-user, and most importantly, how end-users are likely to respond to CA.

To assist EPA and the network of CA providers in this effort, the CAAC has developed CA-
Mapper, a survey-based visualization tool for understanding the CA network. CA-Mapper can be
used tactically to identify the most effective pathway(s) for delivering CA to a single end-user or
group of end-users, or strategically, for allocating resources across multiple layers and pathways
in larger CA network.  CA-Mapper uses a generic survey questionnaire (Attachment 1) to gather
information regarding the accessibility,  reliability and influence of CA wholesalers on CA retail-
ers, and CA  retailers on end-users. The questionnaire also gathers information on "influencers,"
entities that do not presently deliver CA but significantly  impact the environmental decisions of
the respondent. Data from the questionnaire can be uploaded into a simple spreadsheet contain-
ing the respondent's  profile as  well as the respondent's assessment of each CA provider and in-
fluencer.

This type of customer survey traditionally results in tabular reports that assess the quality of each
CA provider, both from an individual customer's perspective and in the aggregate, where multi-
ple respondents identify the same CA provider.

CA-Mapper converts the traditional tabular information into a visual model of the CA network.
In this visualization, the CA end-user is placed at the apex of the cone.  CA providers are located
on the surface of the cone, their distance from the apex corresponding to their operational dis-
tance from the end-user, ranging from  local to national/global. Additionally,  influencers, those
entities that exert influence over the end-user's environmental decisions, but do not presently de-
liver CA, are situated outside the surface of the cone. Again, the relative distance from the apex
corresponds to the operational distance from the end-user. The color and size of the CA provider
and/or influencer markers are used to represent the perceived attributes of the  provider or influ-
encer, with  the  colors green,  yellow  and  red  representing the  reliability of the  information
source, and the size of the marker, smaller to larger, representing the influence of the information
source. Finally, the thickness of the connecting line is used to represent the accessibility of the
information  source.  A simple example of a CA-Mapper visualization is provided in Attachment
2.

Using the CA-Mapper visualization, the  objective  of analyzing CA network  becomes straight-
forward—ensure that there is at least one large, green marker immediately connected to the end-
user,  and a continuous pathway of green markers linked  by thick connectors, from EPA to the
end-user.  Where there is no continuous  "green" pathway, the gaps (accessibility, reliability or
influence) represent opportunities for improving CA transmission.
                                           49

-------
Attachment 1 - Compliance Assistance Survey

This survey is intended to gather information regarding how your facility obtains informa-
tion  regarding how to comply with environmental regulations, and how the sources of
compliance assistance (CA) influence your facility's environmental compliance decisions.
For CA providers, this survey is intended to gather information regarding how your or-
ganization  obtains information to aide the regulated community in complying with envi-
ronmental  regulations. The survey also is intended to identify what additional entities, and
to what extent, influence your facility's environmental compliance decisions.

Information collected from this survey will be used to assess how, and how well, the net-
work of assistance providers delivers reliable CA to enable your facility to comply with en-
vironmental regulations, and to identify ways in which EPA and its partners can enhance
the delivery of CA. Information regarding specific regulated facilities and CA providers
(to the extent provided) may be used by EPA to deliver enhance CA through those provid-
ers that you  have identified  as most influential in making your facility's environmental
compliance decisions.
Part I - Facility and Contact Information
Please provide information regarding your facility or organization.
Facility Name

Facility Address

City, State, Zip Code

Name  of  Person Completing
Survey
Title

Telephone Number

e-Mail Address

Parent Company Name (if ap-
plicable)
Parent Company Address

City, State, Zip Code

Name of Contact Person

Title

Telephone Number

e-Mail Address
                                         50

-------
Part II - Facility / Organization Profile
Please provide information regarding the nature of your facility or organization's business activi-
ties.
Business Activity

Standard Industrial Classifica-
tion Code(s)
Number of Employees

Annual Revenue (Dollars)

Which best describes your facil-
ity or organization?




D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

D
D
Regulated entity
Corporate environmental office
Hospital, medical or dental provider
Financial or insurance provider
Municipal government
State or regional assistance provider
University or extension service
Economic development agency
Community based organization
Local / national trade association
Local / national professional development organiza-
tion
State environmental regulatory agency
Federal facility
Part III — Compliance Assistance Providers

Please complete a profile for each entity that provides CA to your facility.  For purposes of
this section, CA is any activity, tool of technical assistance that (1) provides clear and con-
sistent information for helping your facility understand and meet its obligations under en-
vironmental regulations, or (2) helps CA  providers to aide the regulated community in
complying with environmental regulations.
                                          51

-------
Name of Provider

Address

City, State, Zip Code

Name of Primary Contact

Telephone Number

e-Mail Address

Which best describes this CA
provider?
In which environmental areas
does this  provider  offer CA
(check all that apply)?






D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
n
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Industry peer
Consultant
Financial or insurance provider
Municipal government
State or regional assistance provider
University or extension service
Economic development agency
Community based organization
Local / national trade association
Local / national labor organization
State environmental regulatory agency
Local / national professional development organization
Federal regulatory agency
Other federal department
Air
Water
Land / hazardous waste
Pollution prevention / toxics
Environmental reporting
For this CA provider, please assess the following service qualities:
What is the primary  means
through which this  provider
delivers CA to your facility?

How easy is it for you to ob-
tain  necessary environmental
compliance information from
this source?
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Mail
Telephone / facsimile
Website / e-mail
On-site visits
Not very easy
Usually easy
Very easy
                                          52

-------
Is the  environmental compli-
ance information provided by
this source concise  and easy
to understand?

Do you face any special  lan-
guage  or  cultural barriers to
understanding the information
provider?

How accurate and  reliable is
the environmental compliance
information provided by  this
source?

To what extent does the CA
delivered  by this provider in-
fluence your facility's envi-
ronmental  compliance deci-
sions and actions?
D  Not very concise and/or difficult to understand
n  Usually easy to understand
D  Very concise and easy to understand
D  Language / cultural barriers are a factor in understanding
   the information provided
D  Not very accurate or reliable
D  Usually accurate and reliable
D  Always accurate and reliable
D  Not very influential
D  Usually influential
D  Very influential
                                           53

-------
Name of Provider

Address

City, State, Zip Code

Name of Primary Contact

Telephone Number

e-Mail Address

Which best describes this CA
provider?
In which environmental areas
does this  provider offer CA
(check all that apply)?






D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Industry peer
Consultant
Financial or insurance provider
Municipal government
State or regional assistance provider
University or extension service
Economic development agency
Community based organization
Local / national trade association
Local / national labor organization
State environmental regulatory agency
Local / national professional development organization
Federal regulatory agency
Other federal department
Air
Water
Land / hazardous waste '
Pollution prevention / toxics
Environmental reporting
For this CA provider, please assess the following service qualities:
What is the primary  means
through which  this  provider
delivers CA to your facility?

How easy is it for you to ob-
tain  necessary environmental
compliance information from
this source?
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Mail
Telephone / facsimile
Website / e-mail
On-site visits
Not very easy
Usually easy
Very easy
                                          54

-------
Is the  environmental compli-
ance information provided by
this source  concise  and easy
to understand?

Do you face any special  lan-
guage  or cultural barriers to
understanding the information
provider?

How accurate and reliable is
the environmental compliance
information provided by  this
source?

To what extent does the CA
delivered by this provider in-
fluence your facility's envi-
ronmental   compliance  deci-
sions and actions?
D  Not very concise and/or difficult to understand
D  Usually easy to understand
D  Very concise and easy to understand
D  Language / cultural barriers are a factor in understanding
   the information provided
D  Not very accurate or reliable
D  Usually accurate and reliable
D  Always accurate and reliable
D  Not very influential
D  Usually influential
D  Very influential
                                            55

-------
Name of Provider
Address
City, State, Zip Code
Name of Primary Contact
Telephone Number
e-Mail Address
Which best describes this CA
provider?
In which environmental areas
does this  provider  offer CA
(check all that apply)?

,




D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Industry peer
Consultant
Financial or insurance provider
Municipal government
State or regional assistance provider
University or extension service
Economic development agency
Community based organization
Local / national trade association
Local / national labor organization
State environmental regulatory agency
Local / national professional development organization
Federal regulatory agency
Other federal department
Air
Water
Land / hazardous waste
Pollution prevention / toxics
Environmental reporting
For this CA provider, please assess the following service qualities:
What is the primary  means
through which this  provider
delivers CA to your facility?
How easy is it for you to ob-
tain  necessary environmental
compliance information from
this source?
D
D
D
a
a
D
D
Mail
Telephone / facsimile
Website / e-mail
On-site visits
Not very easy
Usually easy
Very easy
                                          56

-------
Is  the environmental compli-
ance information provided by
this source concise  and easy
to understand?

Do you face any special lan-
guage or cultural barriers  to
understanding the information
provider?

How accurate and  reliable is
the environmental compliance
information provided by this
source?

To what extent does the CA
delivered by this provider in-
fluence  your facility's envi-
ronmental  compliance  deci-
sions and actions?
D
a
a
D
D
a
a
D
a
a
Not very concise and/or difficult to understand
Usually easy to understand
Very concise and easy to understand
Language / cultural barriers are a factor in understanding
the information provided
Not very accurate or reliable
Usually accurate and reliable
Always accurate and reliable
Not very influential
Usually influential
Very influential


Part IV - Environmental Decision Influences

Please complete a profile for each  entity that influences environmental compliance deci-
sions at your facility. For purposes of this section, an influencing entity is any person, en-
tity or organization that exerts an impact on your facility's environmental compliance deci-
sions, either through opinion  or economic impact, but who is not identified as a CA pro-
vider in Part III above.
                                         57

-------
Name of Influencer

Address

City, State, Zip Code

Name of Primary Contact

Telephone Number

e-Mail Address

Which best describes this in-
fluencing entity's relationship
to your facility?t
To  what extent  does this en-
tity  influence your  facility's
environmental    compliance
decisions and actions?
To  what  extent  would  your
facility  be  receptive to  CA
from this entity?
D  Industry peer
D  Financial or insurance provider
D  Non-regulating municipal government
D  Economic development agency
D  Community based organization
D  Local / national trade association
D  Local / national labor organization
D  Not very influential
D  Usually influential
D  Very influential
D  Not very receptive
D  Generally receptive
D  Very receptive
                                           58

-------
Name of Influencer

Address

City, State, Zip Code

Name of Primary Contact

Telephone Number

e-Mail Address

Which best describes this in-
fluencing  entity's relationship
to your facility?
To what extent does this en-
tity  influence  your  facility's
environmental     compliance
decisions and actions?
To what extent would  your
facility be  receptive to  CA
from this entity?
D  Industry peer
D  Financial or insurance provider
D  Non-regulating municipal government
D  Economic development agency
D  Community based organization
D  Local / national trade association
D  Local / national labor organization
D  Not very influential
D  Usually influential
D  Very influential
D  Not very receptive
D  Generally receptive
D  Very receptive
                                           59

-------
Name of Influencer
Address
City, State, Zip Code
Name of Primary Contact
Telephone Number
e-Mail Address
Which best describes this in-
fluencing entity's relationship
to your facility?
To what extent does this en-
tity  influence  your  facility's
environmental    compliance
decisions and actions?
To what  extent  would  your
facility be  receptive to  CA
from this entity?
D  Industry peer
D  Financial or insurance provider
D  Non-regulating municipal government
D  Economic development agency
D  Community based organization
D  Local / national trade association
D  Local / national labor organization
D  Not very influential
D  Usually influential
D  Very influential
D  Not very receptive
D  Generally receptive
D  Very receptive
                                           60

-------
Attachment 2
         National/Global
           Influences
                                          61

-------
                                                   APPENDIX G
Compliance Assistance Advisory Committee Members
  Name
Organization & Address
Communications
  1. Fern Abrams
  Director, EnvironOmental Policy
IPC - Association Connecting Electronic Industries
1333 H Street NW
11th Floor West, Tower E
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: 202-962-0460
Fax: 202-962-0464
E-mail: fabrams@ipc.org
Web: www.ipc.org  OR www.pwbrc.org
 2. Betty Barton
 Policy Analyst
Patton Boggs
1660 Lincoln Street
Suite 1900
Denver, CO 80264
Tel: 303-894-6150
Fax: 303-894-9239
E-mail: bbarton@pattonboggs.com
E-mail: bbarton123@earthlink.net
 3. LaRonda Bowen (Co-Chair)
 Consultant
Bowen & Associates
1581 51st Street
Sacramento, CA 95819
Tel: 916-457-5636
Fax:916-455-8911
Cell: 310-989-4383
E-mail: bowenl@pacbell.net
 4. Karen Brandt
 Director
 Maryland Center for Environ-
 mental Training
Maryland Center for Environmental Training
College of Southern Maryland
Economic and Community Development Center
8730 Mitchell Road
P.OBox910
La Plata, MD 20646-0910
Tel: 301-934-7504
Fax: 301-934-7685
E-mail: kbrandt@mcet.org
                                                        62

-------
5.  Kevin Dick
Director
Business Environmental Program
Nevada Small Business Development Center
University of Nevada
6100 Neil Road, Suite 400
Reno, Nevada 89511
Tel: 775-689-6677
Fax: 775-689-6689
E-mail: dick@unr.edu
Web: www nsbdc.org
6.  Joe Francis
Associate Director
DEQ Division of Environmental Assistance
1200 N. Street
Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509
Tel: 402-471-6087
Fax:
E-mail: ioe.francis@ndeg.state.ne us
7.  Annette Fulgenzi
Project Manager
Small Business Environmental
Assistance Program
Department of Commerce and Economic Oppor-
tunity
Small Business Assistance Program
620 E. Adams Street, S-4
Springfield, IL 62701
Tel: 217-524-5199
Fax:217-557-2853
E-mail:
annette fulgenzi@commerce.state.il.us
8.  Terri Goldberg
Deputy Director
Northeast Waste Management Officials' Associa-
tion
129 Portland Street
Boston, MA 02114
Tel: 617-367-8558 ext. 302 (w)
Fax: 617-367-0449
E-mail: Tgoldberg@newmoa.org
Web: www.newmoa.org
9.  Gary Hunt
Director
Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental
Assistance
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1639 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC  27699_1639
Tel: 919_715_6508
Fax:919715-6794
E-mail: gary hunt@p2pavs.org
E-mail: garv.hunt@NCMAIL.NET
Web: www.P2PAYS.org
10. Abigail C. Corso
Associate
Delta Institute
53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1604
Chicago, IL 60604
                                                        63
Tel: 312-554-0900 ext. 25
Fax:312-554-0193
E-mail: aciarka@delta-institute.org
Web:  www.delta-institute.org

-------
11.  Carl T. Jeffries
UST Program Coordinator
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
2214 N. Central Avenue Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Tel: 602-307_1526wk
Tel: 602-923_0396 hm
Fax: 602-258-4825
E-mail: carl.ieffnes@itcaonline.com
12. Lee Anne Jillings
Chief, Office of Cooperative Pro-
grams
Division of Consultation Pro-
grams
Directorate of Federal-State Operations
US Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Room: N3700
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20210
Tel: 202-693-2213
Fax: 202-693-1671
E-mail: LeeAnne.Jillinqs@osha.gov
13. David A. Johnson Consult-
ant
John J. McMullen Associates
860 Omni Boulevard, Suite A
Newport News, VA 23606
Tel: 757-873-0014
Fax: 757-873-3884
Cell: 757-869-8106
E-mail: daiohnson@iima.com
14. Dale I. Kaplan
Owner and Manager
Kaplan's Careful Cleaners
Kaplan's Careful Cleaners
4113Cotswold Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Tel: 717-737-0572
Home: 717-234-3388
Fax: 717-737-3865
Cell: 717-979-7787
E-mail: kaplans21 @comcast.net
15. Faith Leavitt
Principal, Global Environmental
& Technology Foundation
Global Environment Technology Foundation
14620 Fair Havens Road
Fort Myers, FL 33908-1632
Tel: 239-489-1647
Fax: 239-489-1693
E-mail: fleavitt@earthvision net
Web: www.peercenter.net Hint"*3
16.  Robert Lefelar
President and Owner
Clifton Adhesive, Inc.
52 Alpine Drive
Wayne, NJ 07470
Tel: 973-694-7017 (h)
Tel: 973-694-0845 (w)
Fax: 973-694-5678
E-mail: Rlefelar@cliftonadhesive.com
                                                        64

-------
17. James L. Mallory
Executive Director
Non-Ferrous Founders' Society
1480 Renaissance Drive, Suite 310
Park Ridge, IL 60068
Tel: 847-299-0950 (w)
Fax: 847-299-3598
E-mail: jlm@nffs.org
Web: www.nffs.org
18. David Mason
Vice President
Regulatory Affairs
Hatco Corporation
1020 King George Post Road
Fords, NJ 08863
Tel: 732-738-3553
Fax: 732-738-3944
E-mail: dmason@hatcocorDoration.com
19. Catherine McDavid
Owner
BAIKAL
1534 Live Oak Lane
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
Tel: 805-898-1895
Fax: 805-687-4872
E-mail: catherine.mcdavid@cox.net
20. Terrie Mitchell
Manager
Sacramento County Regional Sanitation District
10545 Armstrong Avenue, Suite 101
Mather, CA 95655
Tel: 916-876-6092
Fax:916-8766160
E-mail: mitchellt@saccountv.net
21. Marian Mudar
 Owner, Consultant
MJM Kennel
2 Countrywoods Drive
Niskayuna, NY 12309
Tel: 518-869-6415
Fax:
E-mail: mimkennel@aol.com
22. Anhlan Nguyen
President
Vietnamese Culture and Science Association
11554BellaireBlvd
Houston, TX 77072
Tel: (713) 745-7839
Cell: 281-468-3477
E-mail:  anguven1@pdg.net
23. Shawn Norton
Service-wide Environmental
Leadership Program Manager
National Park Service
Office of the Director
1849CSt., NW
Washington,  DC 20240
Tel: 202-354-1835 (w)
Fax: 202-208-4191
E-mail: shawn norton@nps.gov
                                                        65

-------
24. David R. Ouimette
Stationary Sources Program
Manager
Air Pollution Division
Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246
Tel: 303-692_3178
Fax: 303-782-0278
E-mail: david ouimette@state.co.us
25. Mark R. Shanahan
Executive Director
Ohio Air Quality Development Authority (OAQDA)
& Clean Air Resource Center
SOW. Broad St., #1718
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: 614_728_3540
Tel: 800_225_5051 (in Ohio)
Fax:614-752-9188
E-mail: mark.shanahan@agda.state.oh.us
Web: www.ohioairqualitv.org
26. Edward Stern
Private Citizen
9208 Bardon Road
Bethesda, MD 20814
Tel: 301-461-0219
Fax: 202_219-6804
E-mail: edwardxal2@hotmail.com
27. Richard C. Sustich (Co-
Chair)
Managing Director
NSF Center of Advanced Materials for Purification
of Water with Systems
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
3235 Digital Computer Laboratory
205 N. Mathews Ave., MC-250
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Tel: 217-265-8033
Fax:217-333-4158
E-mail: sustich@uiuc.edu
28. Donele Wilkens
Executive Director
Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice
18248 Marlowe
Detroit, Ml 48234
Tel: 313-821-1064
Fax:313-821-1072
E-mail: dwdwei@msn.com
29. Richard Yoder, PE
Director
Pollution Prevention Regional Information Center
University of Nebraska at Omaha
6001 Dodge Street
RH308
Omaha, NE 68182
Tel: 402-554-6257
Fax: 402-554-6260
E-mail: rvoder@unomaha.edu
Web: www.P2ric.org
                                                        66

-------