Local Programs at the National Level: Vision, Changes, and Challenges

1
Local Programs at the National LevelVision,
Changes, and Challenges
2
The Vision

• Our transportation system is the best in the
  world!

3
Mission

• Improve mobility on our Nations highways through
  national leadership, innovation and program
  delivery.

4
The Changes/Impacts

• Impacts to Local Public Agency (LPA) projects
  involves program delivery.

5
National Program Review Team

• FHWA Team formed in February 2006
• Teams Charge
• Assess the administration, oversight and
  stewardship of local public agency Federal-aid
  projectsIdentify areas for improvement that will
  ensure the overall quality and effectiveness of
  local project activities along with any needed
  changes in the oversight requirements.

6
National Program Review

• The Team looked at
• 7 States
• 39 projects
• 35 local jurisdictions

7
Review Findings

• The administration of Federal-aid projects by
  LPAs may lack a systematic or comprehensive
  oversight approach
• Current oversight activities, as a whole, may be
  inconsistent from State to State and
• Current oversight activities may be ineffective
  for ensuring that Federal-aid requirements are
  met on LPA-administered projects.

8
Review Effort and Results

• Core Federal-aid Program Areas Reviewed
• December 2006 report, titled, The Administration
  of Federal-Aid Projects by Local Agencies
• Executive Directors April 4, 2007 Memorandum to
  the field (Call to Action!)
• Administrator Capkas October 25, 2007 Memorandum
  (Programmatic Material Weakness Determination)

9
Field Action Response

• Review the State DOTs existing oversight
  processes and procedures for LPA-administered
  projects.
• Make the determination as to whether or not the
  State DOT has a comprehensive LPA project
  oversight program.
• Reporting Due October 1, 2007.
• Prepare comprehensive Action Plans
• Due January 31, 2008

10
General Findings

• Division assessment on whether the State DOTs
  have a comprehensive oversight program pertaining
  to LPA projects
• 27 - Yes
• 9 - No
• 13 Yes/No
• 1 yet to be determined
• No reports of fraud, waste and abuse
• No reports to suggest a financial material
  weakness
• Staffing and NEPA Compliance noted more frequently

11
Findings Continued

• 2. General reaction from the State DOTs about
  the current focus on the LPA program
• Generally across board, State DOTs have been
  receptive and cooperative to FHWA reviews
  pertaining to oversight of their LPA programs.
• Further, the vast majority have been very
  receptive to FHWA recommendations and suggestions
  to make necessary adjustments to improve the LPA
  program.

12
Findings Continued

• Assessment on the Need for New Regulations
• 29 do not support the need for additional
  regulations
• 14 support the need for some sort of regulatory
  effort
• 5 no response
• Of the 9 reporting not having a comprehensive
  oversight program, only one supports regulatory
  change.

13
Findings Continued

• 4. Division Office Review Activities and
  Initiatives for FY 2008
• The FHWA field offices activities did not reveal
  any noted patterns or common themes.
• Review activities appeared to be well represented
  across the full cycle pertaining to the project
  development and implementation processes.

14
Findings Continued

• Training Needs
• Field offices identified many training needs.
• Subject area needs that standout
• General overview of Federal requirements/Federal
  regulations (Federal-aid 101),
• Contraction Administration,
• NEPA, and
• Consultant Selection

15
Conclusions Recommendations

• The status of the LPA program is does echo the
  findings in the 2006 National Review and does
  provide support the Administrators programmatic
  material weakness determination.
• However, the picture is not so bleak as field
  efforts are starting to turn things around. Our
  FHWA field offices are working to address issues
  and concerns identified.

16
Conclusions RecommendationsContinued

• New regulations appear not to be warranted.
• Issues appear to stem from a need for
  clarification of existing regulations and
  policies.
• First policy to be developed pertains to the
  issues of responsible charge and adequate
  staffing.

17
Conclusions RecommendationsContinued

• Basic courses needed are already developed and
  available.
• Some sort needs assessment mechanism and/or
  competency assessment needs to be developed and
  available to LPAs along with the corresponding
  links on available training options.
• Also State DOT assistance through LTAP needs to
  be better harnessed in order aid with these
  training needs and demands.

18
Comprehensive Action Plan

• Headquarters Initiatives
• Develop Appropriate Policies and Guidance
• Develop LPA Public Website
• Expand on LPA Staffnet site
• Develop Presentation/Training Packages/Tool Kit
• Develop Training Assessment Tools
• Develop Focused Training Coordination with State
  DOTs/LTAP
• Work with Program Specialties on LPA Initiatives
• Develop Good/Best Practices Website
• Monitor Field Progress and Reporting
• Maintain Coordinators Network
• Provide Technical Assistance and Support

19
Challenges for the Future Federal, State and
Local government working toward the Vision.

• Information and Training
• Coping with Federal and State Requirements.
• Understanding and supporting the facets of public
  expectation.
• Determining the best alternative (Optimal
  Alternative vs. the Least Cost Alternative)
• Communication and Cooperation among government
  levels.
• Process improvement/Process re-engineering.

20
Contact Information

• Bob Wright, Local Project Oversight Program
  Coordinator
• E-mail robert.wright_at_dot.gov
• phone [phone]
• fax [phone]

21

• Questions?