Reporting Results for Pesticide Programs

1. Reporting Results for Pesticide Programs Robin Powell, EM Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Environmental Department

2. Background • General Performance Reporting Act (GPRA) Requirements • Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) • General Accountability Office (GAO)-investigative arm of Congress charged with examining mattersrelating to the receipt and payment of public funds. • Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

3. GPRA • Passed in 1993 • Phased implementation • Focusing on ALL Federal programs • Goals & Purpose: • Improve program efficiency and effectiveness by focusing on results • Holding federal agencies accountable and improving the confidence of the American people • Improve Congressional rulemaking with accurate information

4. GPRA • As of 1997, all programs are required to submit an annual strategic plan, annual report with results, and a performance report to OMB • I.e., EPA Strategic Plan and Goals • Establish performance indicators • Verification and validation of results

5. Outcome Measure “An assessment of the results of a program activity compared to its intended purpose”

6. Output Measure “The tabulation, calculation, or recording of activity or effort and can be expressed in a quantitative or qualitative manner”

7. Performance Goal “Aperformance goal means a target level of performance expressed as a tangible, measurable objective, against which actual achievement can be compared, including a goal expressed as a quantitative standard, value, or rate”

8. Performance Measure “A way to measure the activities of a program in relation to the performance goal set forth by the program.”

9. Performance Indicator “A performance indicator means a particular value or characteristic used to measure output or outcome”

10. PART “A systematic, consistent process for developing program performance ratings and then using that information to make budget decisions”

11. PART • According to Bill Diamond/EPA: PART was “developed to assess and improve program performance so that the Federal government can achieve better results.” In 2004, Pesticide Field Programs (ES; Worker Protection; WQ; SAI) were assessed and received a score of 36 (results not demonstrated) Poor score was largely attributable to lack of performance outcome measures and quantifiable data on contribution of field program activities to strategic agency goals.

12. Reporting Results: Why? • Will be necessary to remain “aggressive” in budget allocation process • Regionally and nationally • Maintain funding levels • Improve ability to defend the need for additional funding

13. Reporting Results: How? • No single output or outcome can measure an entire program • Integrated approach • All outputs and outcomes • Quantitative/Qualitative • Statistical • Narrative • Aggregated and disaggregated

14. Reporting Results: What? • Outputs • Any numerical data & statistical analyses • Outcomes • Did the X # of inspections prevent X# of unlicensed applicators applying RUPs? • Narrative • Qualitative and Quantitative

15. Pesticides: General • Can be data rich or deficient depending on program • Assessment results • Number of spray events • Comparison of applied GUPs & RUPs • Quantity of pesticides used on tribal lands • Analyses of any gathered sampling data • NOT raw data

16. Pesticides: C&T • Number of C&T events • Number of attendees at each event • Comparison of C&T attendees • Pass vs. Fail

17. Pesticides: Enforcement • Number of spray violations • Compliance Assistance activities (limited) • Number of inspections performed vs. number of violations • Number of licensed off-reservation applicators who apply on tribal lands • Number of cases initiated

18. Pesticides: WPS • Number of violation events • Number of citations • Comparison of violation types • Number of inspections

19. Pesticides: Limitations • Difficult to measure compliance • Very limited outputs and performance indicators • Very difficult to assess the progress in achieving environmental goals • Environmental Educational indicators • Difficulty in assessing the compliance assistance outcomes • Goal of EPA • How to measure the pollution reduction through these activities

20. Pesticides: Possibilities • Can improve strategic planning • Forecast needs • Identify needs and goals • Budgetary process • Defensible requests for additional funding • Provides guidelines on funding needs • Forecasting future funding requirements to maintain program integrity

21. Reporting Results Example: Pesticides

22. Overall Report Example: Pesticides

23. Other Media: Grants Management • Demonstrate program capacity building • Demonstrates the need for additional support for programs that are deficit in funding • Enables the program and EPA to identify tribal needs for additional programs • Can forecast needs

24. Reporting Results Example: Grants Management

25. Overall Report Example: Grants Mgmt

26. Not Recommended • It is not needed to include full documents or reports with the results or progress report • Do not have more than 3 pages of narrative per project or program • It is not recommended to include ordinances or codes within the report. • Reference within the report the documents You can have a good results report while keeping it simple!!!

27. Conclusion It has been stated repeatedly that if programs are not producing verifiable “results” through illustration of outputs and/or outcomes, those programs will NOT be funded in the future

28. Thank You. Robin Powell, Environmental Manager Environmental Department Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe rpowell@plpt.nsn.us 775-574-0101 x12