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 officethe 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-
timizedparticularly, 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 useda 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 2000voluntary 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 receptionthe 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-
forwardensure 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
------- |