Kevin Y' Teichman, Ph'D'

1
Introduction to ORD

• Kevin Y. Teichman, Ph.D.
• Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science

2
Overview

• EPA Organizational Chart
• ORD Role, Mission, and Profile
• Organizational Structure and Locations
• Strategic Planning
• Performance Management
• Summary

3
Administrator Deputy Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Water
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
Assistant Administrator for Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
Assistant Administrator for Research
and Development
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance
U.S. EPA Organizational Chart
Assistant Administrator for Administration
and Resources Management
Assistant Administrator for International Affairs
Assistant Administrator For Environmental Informat
ion
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Office of General Counsel
Office of Inspector General
Region 5 Chicago
Region 2 New York
Region 3 Philadelphia
Region 4 Atlanta
Region 1 Boston
Region 10 Seattle
Region 7 Kansas City
Region 8 Denver
Region 9 San Francisco
Region 6 Dallas
4
ORD Role
EPA Mission Protect human health and
safeguard the natural environment air,
water, land upon which life depends.
REGIONAL OFFICES Primary interface with states
PROGRAM OFFICES (Air, Water, Waste,
Pesticides/Toxics)
Policies, Regulations
Congressional deadlines
National Decisions
Implementation
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Scientific Foundation
5
ORDs Mission

• Provide the scientific foundation to support
  EPAs mission by
• Conducting research and development to identify,
  understand, and solve current and future
  environmental problems.
• Providing responsive technical support to EPAs
  Programs and Regions.
• Collaborating with our scientific partners in
  academia and other agencies, state and tribal
  governments, private sector organizations, and
  nations.
• Exercising leadership in addressing emerging
  environmental issues and advancing the science
  and technology of risk assessment and risk
  management.

6
ORD Profile

• 1901 full-time equivalents
• 562.7 million budget
• 60 million extramural research grant program
• 13 locations (Labs, Centers, and Offices)
• Credible, relevant, and timely research results
• Technical support that informs EPA policy
  decisions

FY 2009 Enacted Level Estimated
7
ORD Organization
Immediate Office of the Assistant
Administrator Lek Kadeli, Acting Assistant
Administrator Larry Reiter, Acting Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Management Kevin
Teichman, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Science Agency Science Advisor
Office of the Science Advisor Pai-Yei Whung

National Program Directors Homeland Security
Greg Sayles Drinking Water Audrey Levine Water
Quality Chuck Noss Ecosystem Services Iris
Goodman (Acting) Human Health Sally Darney
(Acting) H.H. Risk Assessment Lynn Flowers
(Acting) Computational Toxicology Bob Kavlock
Endocrine Disruptors Elaine Francis Safe
Pesticides and Products Elaine Francis
Sustainability Alan Hecht Global
Change/Mercury Joel Scheraga Clean Air Dan
Costa Land Randy Wenstel Nanotechnology
Jeff Morris
Office of Science Policy Fred Hauchman
Office of Resources Management and
Administration Amy Battaglia (Acting)
National Center for Computational Toxicology Robe
rt Kavlock
National Risk Management Research
Laboratory Sally Gutierrez
National Center for Environmental Research Bill
Sanders
National Homeland Security Research Center Jonath
an Herrmann
National Center for Environmental Assessment Pete
r Preuss
National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory Hal Zenick
National Exposure Research Laboratory Linda
Sheldon (Acting)
8
ORD Locations
Corvallis, OR
Duluth, MN
Cincinnati, OH
Newport, OR
Grosse lle, MI
Narragansett, RI
Edison, NJ
Washington, DC
Research Triangle Park, NC
Las Vegas, NV
Athens, GA
Gulf Breeze, FL
Ada, OK
9
How ORD Evolves its Research Program
ORD Executive Council Corporate Decisions on
What We Do . . . and . . .
How We Do It
Evaluation Program and Regional Office
Feedback BOSC Program Evaluations NAS, NAPA,
and other advisory bodies PART Reviews
Decision Inputs Programs and Regions (RCTs) EPA
Strategic Plan Administrations
priorities Congressional mandates BOSC
Reviews SAB, NAS, other external
advice Stakeholders NPDs, SC, MC, EC
Planning the Program
Implementing the Program
L/C Directors Responsible for Developing ORDs
Research Products
NPDs Decide What Research Area-Specific Work We
Do and When We Do It
L/C Directors Decide How ORD Produces its
Research Products
NPDs Responsible for Communicating Products to
Clients
10
Implementing an ORD Evaluation Framework
Environmental Outcomes Results
Research Program
Partners
Research Activities
Research Outputs
Short-Term Outcomes
Mid-term Outcomes
Long-Term Outcomes
Resources
Policy Development
Strategic Objectives
Strategic Goals

Independent Expert Evaluation
Focus Outcome-oriented progress RD investment
criteria Evidence MYPs performance data
partner feedback Attribution Sphere of
influence that includes ORD and EPA Partners
11
ORDs Strategic Planning

• ORDs National Program Directors
• Annually develop strategic research directions
  for their research programs, reflected in
  Multi-Year Plans
• Identify areas of growing, as well as decreasing,
  research emphasis
• Inform annual research planning and budgeting
  efforts
• Multi-Year Plans (MYPs)
• Planning and accountability tools that address
  EPAs high-priority science questions
• Provide information to assist and support
  research decisions
• Demonstrate how ORD program contributes to Agency
  strategic goals
• Communicate research internally and externally
  (see www.epa.gov/ord/npd)

12
Multi-Year Plan Elements

• Long-Term Goals (LTG)
• Identify time-frame to deliver work
• Determine ORD role and role of others

• Annual Performance Goals (APG)
• Identify sequence to provide results
• Integrate research from all sources

• Annual Performance Measures (APM)
• Determine who will accomplish work in-house
  Lab/Center or STAR extramural researchers
• Ensure work can be done with available resources

13
Cross-Program and Program-Targeted Research

• Cross-Program Research
• Research with broad applications and implications
  for multiple offices
• Issue is persistent such that priorities remain
  fairly stable, but continually need to improve
  the science to address the priority
• Applies emerging approaches and tools
• Incubator for innovation ideas to address
  long-standing issues
• Double bang for the buck by selecting stressors
  to address a cross-program issue that will also
  inform a program-targeted effort

• Program-Targeted Research
• Often a single or primary client
• Research may be legislatively mandated, with
  deadlines
• Priorities may shift based on changing program
  needs
• Often employs established methodologies

Computational Toxicology Example of the
Complementary Nature of Cross-Program and
Program-Targeted Research ORD is conducting
research toward understanding the toxicity of the
conazole class of pesticides. While this
research is providing direct benefit to EPAs
Office of Pesticide Programs, it is also serving
as a proof-of-concept activity in ORDs ongoing
effort to develop a generalizable capability to
apply genomics-based computational approaches to
environmental toxicology.
14
BOSC Program Evaluations

• Help answer the questions
• Are we doing the right science?
• Are we doing the science right?
• Provide evidence for OMB evaluations using the
  Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
• Assigns a qualitative performance rating and
  provides a summary assessment of progress on each
  programs long-term goals
• Rating incorporates elements of relevance,
  quality, and program performance related to
  research outcomes (i.e., Research and Development
  Investment Criteria, as identified in the
  Presidents Management Agenda)
• Provide guidance for evolving the
  research/assessment program

15
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)

• Evaluates program effectiveness in four areas
  Purpose/Design, Strategic Planning, Program
  Management, and Program Results
• Programs receive numerical score and rating
  (Effective, Moderately Effective, Adequate,
  Results Not Demonstrated, Ineffective)
• Results based on annual and long-term performance
  goals with emphasis on outcomes
• External program evaluations are addressed in
  both the Strategic Planning and Results sections

16
RD Criteria

• RD specific questions in PART reflect
  OMB/OSTP Investment Criteria for RD Quality,
  Relevance, and Performance
• RD investments must be clearly planned to be
  relevant to national priorities, agency missions,
  and customer needs
• Programs must maximize the quality of the
  research in which they invest
• RD programs must demonstrate performance by
  setting annual and long-term goals and
  demonstrating progress toward outcomes

17
RD Criteria Relevance

• The purpose of the research and assessment
  program is clear
• The program responds to a specific existing
  environmental problem relevant to EPAs mission,
  national priorities, and primary clients
• The program demonstrates an outcome-oriented
  design
• The programs benefits (e.g., contribution to
  outcomes) are unique or extend beyond similar
  government or private-sector contributions
  program coordination is effective in minimizing
  or avoiding duplication
• There are a small number of performance goals
  focused on scientific progress to answer key
  questions (or reduce uncertainty) linked to the
  programs outcomes

18
RD Criteria Quality

• Merit-based procedures are used to ensure the
  programs scientific quality and leadership. The
  program compares favorably to similar programs
  (e.g., in other agencies)
• When the program allocates funds extramurally
  (e.g., through assistance mechanisms) it ensures
  merit-based competition, relevance to the
  programs objectives, and independent review by
  subject-matter experts
• When the program allocates funds
  non-competitively (e.g., to federal laboratories)
  appropriate merit-based procedures are used
• The program may conduct benchmarking of
  scientific leadership and other factors as one
  means of assessing program quality

19
RD Criteria Performance

• The program identifies relevant inputs (e.g,
  stakeholder guidance, human capital, research
  infrastructure) to ensure that implementation
  results in the intended research activities and
  outputs
• The program demonstrates the ability to produce
  identifiable results
• Conceptual frameworks (risk paradigm, logic
  model) link research questions, performance
  goals, clients, and outcomes with a specific
  environmental problem
• Performance goals serve to answer key research
  questions and track how the program will improve
  scientific understanding and its application
• The program periodically assesses research
  progress and priorities as new scientific
  knowledge is developed
• The program demonstrates that it meets
  performance goals
• The program obtains client feedback and
  demonstrates that progress is being made to
  achieve outcomes

20
Future Perspectives

• ORD is going through a period of transformation,
  focused on both what we do and how we do it
• ORD conducts research that ranges from problems
  of broad national significance to targeted
  research
• ORDs range of expertise extends across the risk
  assessment / risk management paradigm, enabling
  us to study environmental problems from
  source-to-outcome
• By formulating and solving problems in a
  integrated, multidisciplinary way, ORD can
  become the go to organization for environmental
  research
• With the recent change in Administration, it is
  unclear what performance evlauation approach OMB
  will apply across the Federal agencies

21
Summary

• ORD seeks input from many sources to enhance and
  evolve its research program
• BOSC program evaluations are one of the most
  important inputs
• Your review of ORDs Clean Air Research Program
  will be of great value and is much appreciated