Detailed Information on the
EPA Lead-Based Paint Risk Reduction Program Assessment

Develop and implement a method of measuring the impacts of the program's outreach and education efforts.

Develop and implement a reporting measure to track EPA authorization of State, Tribal and Territorial Renovation, Repair and Painting Programs

Initiate a campaign to educate the public about a new regulation to address lead-based paint hazards created by renovation, repair and painting activities in pre-1978 housing and child occupied facilities

Improve the consistency of grantee and regional office accountability mechanisms and develop a system that ensures all relevant performance data from grantees and the Regional offices is being collected for the purposes of focusing program actions.

Improve the linkage between program funding and the associated contributions towards progress in achieving program goals, especially for program grant and contractor funding.

Refine/Improve measures used in State Grant Reporting Template to improve accountability of program partners for achievement of program goals.

Further improve results reporting from program partners.

Measure: Number of cases of children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead levels (>10ug/dl)

Explanation:This long-term performance measure tracks progress towards the goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning by 2010. The Department of Housing and Urban development has also adopted a similar long term goal for its lead program. Progress is based on data collected and analyzed over two-year period.

Measure: Number of cases of children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead levels (>10ug/dl)

Explanation:This annual performance measure tracks progress towards the goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning by 2010. Data is collected and analyzed over two-year intervals therefore targets are set every two years, not annually. Baseline is number of cases in 2000.

Measure: Percent difference in the geometric mean blood level in low-income children 1-5 years old as compared to the geometric mean for non-low income children 1-5 years old.

Explanation:Percent differences calculated by subtracting the geometric mean for the comparison group from the geometric mean for the population group, dividing this difference by the geometric mean of the comparison group, and multiplying the result by 100 to obtain a percentage. The baseline for this measure is 1999 - 2002 NHANES data, with value of 32%.

Measure: Percent difference in the geometric mean blood level in low-income children 1-5 years old as compared to the geometric mean for non-low income children 1-5 years old.

Explanation:Percent differences calculated by subtracting the geometric mean for the comparison group from the geometric mean for the population group, dividing this difference by the geometric mean of the comparison group, and multiplying the result by 100 to obtain a percentage. The baseline for this measure is 1999 - 2002 NHANES data, with value of 32%

Measure: Annual percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications that require less than 20 days of EPA effort to process.

Explanation:Originally, this measure tracked the EPA non-contractor processing time required to issue certifications, including the time applicants use to take and pass the certification exam. Over the past few years, EPA has observed a trend of an increasing number of applicants taking up to the maximum amount of time allowed to take and pass the exam, currently 6 months. Because of this, we are proposing to redefine EPA effort to be the sum of Regional and HQ processing time, excluding the time applicants use to take and pass the exam. Measuring solely Headquarters and Regional processing time will allow EPA better assess efficiency and hold program managers accountable because these activities are within our control.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the program is to mitigate the risk of childhood lead poisoning by addressing lead-based paint issues. The means by which the program accomplishes this include: 1) Establishing and revising as necessary hazard standards for residential lead-based paint and for lead in residential dust and soil; 2) Establishing and maintaining a program for the certification and training of lead-based paint abatement professionals and promulgating and revising as necessary associated work practice standards; 4) Providing the public information about lead hazards and the steps they can take to protect themselves and their families from lead-based paint hazards specifically; and 5) Ensuring that information about known lead-based paint is disclosed to individuals buying or renting pre-1978 housing, and that such owners and occupants are provided information on lead-based paint hazards before renovation.

Evidence: The identified need for and general purpose of the program are outlined in sections 1002 and 1003 of the program's authorizing statute - Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X of P.L. 102-550). Implementing regulations also define scope and purpose: a) Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead, 66 FR 1206 (January 5, 2001), b) Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead-based Paint and/or Lead-based Paint Hazards in Housing, 61 FR 9064 (March 6, 1996), c) Requirements for Hazard Education Before Renovation of Target Housing 63 FR 29908 (June 1, 1998), d) Requirements for Lead-based Paint Activities, 61 FR 45778 (August 29, 1996). Program's purpose in context of government-wide effort: "Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards", President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children (2000).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program addresses the continuing problem of lead poisoning in children. Lead poisoning is detrimental to physical and mental development, and is particularly harmful to children. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported the incidence of childhood lead poisoning to be more than 890,000 cases in the early 1990s and approximately 434,000 cases in 1999/2000. An article published in the May 27, 2005 issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report estimates that there were 310,000 children with elevated blood lead levels in 1999-2002. A significant source of the problem has been identified as the presence of lead in paint, dust and soil in and around residences with small children. In 2000, HUD documented that there were 38 million homes with lead-based paint and 24 million homes with significant lead-based paint hazards; there were lead hazards in 1.2 million public housing units that housed low-income families with children under age six. Accordingly, the program will need to continue its education and outreach and worker training and certification efforts to ensure that new generations of parents and workers are aware of lead-based paint hazards and employ lead-safe practices.

Evidence: Published reviews and/or estimates of the continuing lead problem in the U.S.: "Surveillance for Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Children -- United States, 1997--2001"m Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report - Surveillance Summaries, Vol. 52, No. ss-10, p. 1-21; "Blood Lead Levels -- United States, 1999-2002", Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 27, 2005, Vol. 54, No. 20, p. 9-12; and "The Prevalence of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in U.S. Housing", Environmental Health Perspectives, October 2002, Vol. 110, No.10, p. A599-A606.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: There are multiple agencies with programs that contribute to meeting the government-wide goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning but several mechanisms are in place to prevent duplication. The program's authorizing statute established distinct roles for the various Federal and state/tribal contributors. The program is designed to fill the unique role established for it by the statute. For example, EPA is the sole agency responsible for authorizing state lead abatement certification and training programs to operate in lieu of a federally-run program. Also, the program is part of an interagency task force which ensures coordination and minimizes duplication.

Evidence: Subtitles B and C of the Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 define agency roles. The President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children issued its strategy in February 2000, which also outlines Federal agency roles (Summary in table 3). In addition, EPA has established Memorandum of Understanding on with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC). EPA and CDC have also established an Inter-Agency Agreement to support the National Lead Information Center (NLIC) which facilitates collaboration, coordination and cost sharing in the administration of the NLIC.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program has effectively utilized the various mechanisms built into its basic design. The program design incorporates regulatory, outreach, and direct funding assistance mechanisms, the combination of which provides important flexibility for accomplishing the program's mission. Having a design that includes both headquarters as well as regional components allows the program to tailor efforts to localized problems. A regulatory approach is employed in establishing lead hazard standards and for other activities that require standardization, outreach and education are used to help ensure public awareness, and grants are made to states, tribes and territories for lead abatement certification and training programs because these programs must be implemented at the state and local level.

Evidence: There is no evidence that a more narrow set of mechanisms or other changes to the basic design of the program would result in the achievement of the program goals more efficiently or effectively. The program was designed to meet the needs outlined in the authorizing statute (Title X, P.L. 102-550) which include but are not limited to setting lead hazard standards (Section 403); implementing outreach and technical assistance efforts and disclosure requirements (Section 405(d) and (e), Sections 1018 and 406); developing work practice standards and worker certification and training requirements (Section 402 and 403) and issuing grants (Section 404(g)).

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The program design focuses on four internal strategies that align with statutory responsibilities, maximize ability to impact beneficiaries and make best use of the available mechanisms. Resources allocated to the program are associated with these strategies, each of which have specific performance objectives tied to the program's annual and long term goals. The ultimate beneficiaries are children under the age of six, who are most at risk of suffering the health impacts associated with exposure to lead. Under the first strategy the program sets standards specifically to protect these beneficiaries. Through the remaining three strategies, which include outreach, public disclosure, and certification and training activities, the program addresses intermediate beneficiaries. These are individuals that have the greatest opportunity to intervene successfully in preventing children's exposure to lead including parents, governments, schools, community organizations, and lead-based paint professionals. This structure has allowed the program to respond to changing conditions in the pool of beneficiaries. It is unlikely that the activities undertaken by the program would have occurred without the program's intervention. There may have been efforts to educate the population about lead paint risks, but the uniformity and the reach would have been severely limited.

Evidence: There has been a clear reduction in the number of children with elevated blood lead levels over the last decade, as evidenced by the results of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). EPA's efforts on all fronts have contributed to this trend. The program has refined its education materials as our understanding of the nature and distribution of the target population has evolved, including translating them into different languages and expanding the venues employed for disseminating them. The most recent materials were issued in April 2005. Also, though small-scale efforts may have been undertaken, the extensive effort required to persuade states, territories and tribes to develop and continue approved programs to administer lead program requirements in lieu of direct Federal implementation attests to the fact that such programs would not be occurring in the absence of Federal efforts.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program has one established long-term outcome measure which covers the bread of the program. This measure meets the PART requirements and has already been published in the agency's Strategic Plan. It is also a multi-agency goal that is part of the federal strategy to address childhood lead poisoning. Two new long-term outcome measures have been proposed with this PART which also cover the breadth of the program but focus on certain subsets of the population that the program targets. Both measures are good but only one of these measures has been approved for inclusion in this PART. The second measure needs further work before it can be published.

Evidence: The program's existing long-term measure which tracks overall reductions in children's blood lead levels nationwide can be found in EPA's Strategic Plan 2003-2008 on pages 91-92. It is also listed in the government-wide task force strategy document "Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards" (February 2000, Page 3).

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The timeframe and targets for the program's existing measure of eliminating childhood lead poisoning by 2010 are adequately ambitious. Eliminating poisonings entirely is an extremely challenging goal. Because significant progress has been made in reducing the incidence of childhood lead poison over the past decade, the remaining cases are becoming harder and harder to address. The targets and timeframes commit the program to achieving consistent performance in the face of increasing challenges associated with identifying and reaching smaller and smaller numbers of children at risk of lead poisoning. Adequately ambitious targets and a baseline have also been established for the new subpopulation measure included in this PART. Once data on the progress toward this new measure's long-term target has been collected and evaluated, the program may need to revisit the established target.

Evidence: The incidence of elevated blood lead levels in children has been reduced over the last decade but the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) data indicate that the progress in reducing in the incidence of childhood lead poisoning is slowing. For information on reduction, see "Surveillance for Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Children -- United States, 1997--2001", Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report - Surveillance Summaries, Sept. 2003, Vol. 52, No. ss-10, p. 1-2.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program has one established annual outcome performance measure that has been approved and meets PART standards. This measure tracks progress toward eliminating childhood lead poisoning overall and has been included in the agency's annual plans since 2004. Two additional annual measures have been proposed for this PART that focus on progress with certain subpopulations of concern. Only one has been accepted and has been included in the list of approved measures for this PART. The second measure requires a bit more work before it can be approved. Both approved measures are discreet and quantifiable and measure progress toward the program's long-term goals. All annual measures rely on Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data that are only generated every two years and therefore these measures have been approved with 2-year interval targets. But, because these annual measures have bi-annual targets, the program must also employ internal annual measures that tie to the four program strategies to track progress in strategy implementation. These internal measures are not presented in the PART.

Evidence: The previously established annual measure on overall blood-lead level reduction can be found in EPA 2004 Annual Performance Plan on pages 13-14.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The existing annual measure for this program that tracks progress toward the elimination of childhood lead poisoning overall has an established baseline and has very ambitious outyear targets. The targets define a straight-line reduction path to achieving the 2008 Strategic Target and 2010 elimination goal, despite the fact that the remaining cases of lead poisoning are expected to become harder to address year to year. This makes the annual targets harder to meet over time. Targets and a baseline for the new annual subpopulation measure have been provided. The targets are adequately ambitious given it is a new measure. The program may have to revisit the targets after some results are available to determine if they need to be adjusted.

Evidence: The targets and baseline for the established measure on overall reductions in children's blood-lead levels can be found in EPA's 2004 and 2005 Annual Performance Plans.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Federal partners do commit and work toward the same goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning but it is not evident that the program links grantee and contractor actions to goals that support its long-term or annual outcome measures. EPA's federal partners (HUD and CDC) adopted the same the goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning into their Strategic Plans. Each agency reports on their actions that relate to this goal. HUD reports on its progress in abating lead hazards in public housing. CDC reports publicly every two years on NHANES data showing progress towards the program's long-term and annual goals. Grantees and contractors are not required to commit to goals that clearly link to progress on the program's annual or long-term measures. Lead program grantees do report progress on specific actions outlined in their grant agreements at mid-year and year-end but these actions tend to be output-oriented and aren't clearly tied to goals that demonstrate progress toward the overall annual and long-term outcome goals. Similarly, contractors are held accountable for performance on specific tasks but these tasks are not clearly linked to goals that support the program's annual or long-term outcome goals. Contractors do provide monthly reports and receive monthly performance assessments in conjunction with invoice payments and are reviewed annually for cost, timeliness and quality of performance.

Evidence:

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program has not recently had a comprehensive independent evaluation that was sufficient in scope to provide information useful for improving planning. In the 1990's some GAO reviews were done that showed inadequate progress was being made on reducing childhood lead poisoning but none were specifically a review of EPA's program. GAO has conducted evaluations of certain aspects the program over the last decade, including assessments of the need for and progress on standards and guidance and the need for and effectiveness of targeting the program's outreach and other intervention strategies, but these were not comprehensive enough or completed recently or regularly enough to meet PART standards and be useful for planning purposes today.

Evidence: As stated, there have been no adequate evaluations completed for this program. Examples of related GAO reports that were completed but don't meet PART requirements include: "Environmental Protection Agency: Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead", GAO-01-320R, January 22, 2001; "Lead-Based Paint Hazards: Abatement Standards Are Needed to Ensure Availability of Insurance", RCED-94-231, July 15, 1994; "Toxic Substances: Status of EPA's Efforts to Develop Lead Hazard Standards", RCED-94-114, May 16, 1994.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The program does have an adequate system that links completion of projects and other activities to respective program strategies, internal output measures, and progress on goals. The program uses an internal database which comprises several program planning and financial management tools. All programmatic contract and grant resources are tracked in Finance Central using Project Codes, starting from the program planning stage throughout the financial management lifecycle. Project Codes link projects and associated resources at multiple levels (program, office, etc.) and then to the overarching goal in the strategic plan as well as agency budget architecture. Once resources are allocated to projects through the Program Plan process the can be connected to other components of Finance Central, including support utilization activities (commitments, obligations, payments) and management oversight.

Evidence: The program uses the Office of Prevention and Toxic Substances' Finance Central IT system to manage and track its performance and financial information. Reports and other documentation describing the system were provided as evidence for this PART.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Lead program coordinates is strategic planning with the Federal Interagency Lead-Based Paint Task Force which helps direct planning efforts and minimizes opportunities for duplication with other programs. EPA has broad strategic planning process to generate the agency's 5-year Strategic Plan and the Lead program contributes to that process. Through this process the program has identified deficiencies and has taken steps to remedy them. For example, as the program reviewed its strategic direction through the development of EPA's Strategic Plan for 2008, the program took action to correct a deficiency in it performance measurement. The program's long-term performance goal was outcome oriented but it lacked specificity and was not quantified. Recognizing the performance accountability and program management limitations of the old goal, the program replaced it in the 2008 Plan with a better measure which more directly and meaningfully guides program decisions. This target was set at a level designed to support achievement of the interagency goal calling for elimination of childhood lead poisoning by 2010.

Evidence: A comparison between EPA's Strategic Plan for 2003 and the plan for 2008 show the changes in measure for this program. The program also reissued some of its outreach materials in additional languages to address certain subpopulations were becoming of greater concern. These can be found on the EPA website.

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation: All regulations that have been issued by the program were specifically mandated by the Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (the Act). EPA specifically addresses the need for the regulation in the preamble and/or supporting documentation for the regulations and the regulatory structure set out by the program supports the overall achievement of the program goals. GAO noted the need for establishment of lead hazard standards as a critical step as a part of the overall strategy. The disclosure and notification regulations are recognized to provide a suitable framework that allows market and public-right-to-know forces to promote efficient responses to the underlying conditions. Work practice and worker training and certification regulations are recognized as necessary by CDC and others to ensure the abatement and other lead-based paint activities do not exacerbate childhood exposure. There is currently an ongoing debate about whether all necessary regulations have been issued. In particular, the focus is on regulations governing home renovation activities. EPA maintains that it has the discretion as to whether a rule is needed and believes a non-regulatory approach is more appropriate.

Evidence: Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X of P.L. 102-550) provides the overarching issues for which regulations need to be issued. EPA's standards were issued in the rule entitled Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead (66 FR 1206). Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead-based Paint and/or Lead-based Paint Hazards in Housing, 61 FR 9064. Requirements for Hazard Education Before Renovation of Target Housing 63 FR 29908. EPA's rule entitled Requirements for Lead-based Paint Activities (61 FR 45778) addresses this concern.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The program does collect and use high-quality data to determine progress on its program-wide long-term and annual outcome measures. The program uses CDC's NHANES data to determine reductions in lead-poisoning incidence. This is a robust dataset that allowed for the establishment of an adequate baseline and specific, quantified targets and is critical to measuring performance of the program. The program also collects data on internal strategy-specific output measures. For example, data from grantees on certification and training is collected through quarterly and annual reports and is combined with data from federally-administer states in EPA's Annual Commitment System (ACS), allowing Regional and National program managers to track progress on these outputs. The program is also establishing a mechanism for obtaining and using geographical information on the incidence of elevated blood lead levels to improve planning and performance measurement. This should provide the program with information on progress by state, county, and large city; will help the program identify the number of housing units in states, counties, and large cities that are linked to multiple cases of elevated blood lead levels; and will help the program better target compliance efforts for the Disclosure and Pre-Notification regulations as well as better target outreach and education efforts.

Evidence: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data is widely cited and has been used for monitoring and evaluating a range of health and nutritional issues. The National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control disseminates NHANES data biannually. Geographically linked incidence data will be obtained through CDC's Blood Lead Surveillance grantees.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The program's senior manager is clearly identified as the Director of Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic's National Program Chemicals Division. Managers of specific aspects of the Lead program are also clearly identified with defined roles in organization charts and other program documents. Managers at headquarters have defined performance standards. There is also a large regional office component to the Lead program. Regional managers are held accountable for management and performance on specific goals and outputs through cyclic Regional Office assessments, semi-annual national meetings of senior headquarters and regional managers, annual national meetings of mid-level managers and key staff, and monthly teleconferences. Grantees and contractors are held accountable for specific tasks and actions through grant and contract agreements. Grantee progress reviewed and monitored at the regional level. Annual contractor performance reviews are a mandatory factor in the selection of contractors for awards.

Evidence: The program uses performance agreements for Senior Executive Service managers. Contract documents provided include information on deliveries and performance requirements. Reports from the agency's annual commitment system show regional responsibilities for certain program outputs. And, the grantee annual reports include information on accomplishments.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Program funds used at headquarters are obligated consistently with the program plan and only a limited amount of program funds remain unobligated but it is unclear that there is adequate oversight of grantees to ensure timely and proper obligations of funds. For headquarters expenditure tracking, the program uses the office-wide Finance Central system. The system supports key aspects of program planning, financial management and performance accountability and augments other agency-wide systems. Project-level allocations are established in Finance Central and spending against those allocations is tracked using unique project codes which link to commitments and obligations in the main agency-wide financial systems; Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) and the Budget Automation System (BAS). Regional office spending is not tracked in Finance Central but regional obligations are included in the agency's main finance system. Headquarters does not regularly review individual regional expenditure activity.

Evidence: No specific supporting examples and evidence (reports, memos, etc.) were provided to demonstrate that obligations are reviewed and action is taken when deficiencies and no schedules of obligations for the grantees was available. Also, there was no evidence provided that to demonstrate that obligation schedules are established for regions or that headquarters compares regional expenditures against their intended use.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program has proposed a new efficiency measure for this PART which has been approved. This measure aims to improve the timeliness of processing certain applications the program receives. Adequate targets and a baseline have been provided. In addition, the program has taken other actions aimed at improving efficiency. For example, the program recently deployed the Federal Lead Paint Program (FLPP) system to improve and streamline processes and information flows supporting certification and re-certification of trained lead-based paint professionals, and is already experiencing measurable efficiency improvements without sacrificing quality. FLPP also helps to ensure the payments of certification fees from individuals are properly credited.

Evidence: Reports from the Federal Lead Paint Program system were provided as evidence. The new efficiency measure has been listed in the Measures section of this PART.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program works primarily with other Federal agencies involved in implementing the interagency strategy for eliminating childhood lead poisoning. HUD and EPA co-chair the Federal Lead Based Paint Task Force, which coordinates the activities of EPA, HUD, CDC, OSHA, DOD, and CPSC to ensure that program efforts are mutually reinforcing and non-duplicative. The positive progress this group has made (with EPA as co-chair) is evidence of the program's effective collaboration and coordination. As mentioned previously, where necessary the program has established Interagency Agreements with agencies to further clarify and coordinate efforts. Successful collaboration and coordination with states, territories and Tribes is evidenced by the progress on program goals - these partners are critical to addressing lead poisoning in children. Working with these groups includes negotiating and approving their administration of the training and certification program on behalf of EPA, obtaining regular reports from these partners through the grants management process, and conducting annual and other meetings with state and tribal partners.

Evidence: See the multi-agency strategy from the President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children: Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning - A Federal Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards (2000). Interagency Agreements have been established with HUD and CDC to combine funding from multiple agencies in support of common program elements, such as operation of the Federal Lead Information Center and the acquisition, assessment and reporting of program performance data directly supporting the programs long-term and annual performance goals. Additional examples of federal coordination were also provided as evidence.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program follows EPA's financial management guidelines for committing, obligating, reprogramming, and reconciling appropriated funds and the program is not the subject of any material internal control weaknesses reported in the EPA Inspector General's annual FMFIA report. The main EPA financial management systems used by the program meet statutory requirements and agency officials have a system of controls and accountability, based on GAO and other principles, to ensure that improper payments are not made. At each step in the process, the propriety of the payment is reviewed. EPA trains individuals to ensure that they understand their roles and responsibilities for invoice review and for carrying out the financial aspects of program objectives.

Evidence: Evidence of strong practices includes EPA Records Schedule 299 (Budget Automation System), the information contained in EPA's annual reports and financial statements, the agency's unqualified audit opinion on EPA FY02, FY03, and FY04 financial statements, FY02 Advice of Allowance Letter, and the agency's resource management policies.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The program regularly reviews program management activities to identify potential deficiencies, and has an established track record of acting to address the findings of those assessments. Recent examples include the development and deployment of the Federal Lead Paint Program (FLPP) system for tracking certification information, adopting performance based contracting for all mission contracts, and implementing a new human capital strategy to help improve critical elements of the program's workforce.

Evidence: Documentation for the Federal Lead-based Paint Program Database System was provided as were examples of contracts. The program also provided documentation of the office-wide Human Capital Strategy and Action Plan which is helped develop and is currently implementing. The plan comprises a series of measures for retaining and attracting a diverse and skilled workforce to meet critical needs; ensuring growth, development and vitality of the workforce; and promoting effective management approaches.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The headquarters office works to determine the allocation of grants to regional offices but the regional offices are individually responsible for managing the grants. Headquarters has minimal involvement and the program lacks an overarching grants management oversight process to ensure nationwide consistency. Regional offices monitor grantee progress on certain outputs and grantees provide routine progress reports to the regions. But, the program does not use a central reporting system that covers all grantees to document grantees use of funds in eligible activity categories. Though the program has historically done well ensuring that grantees submit progress reports, the information reported is not consistent across all grant agreements and the grant agreements and reports do not consistently and clearly link activities to program-wide goals, either the overall outcome goals or internal output measures. The agency has recently implemented a new Annual Commitment System (ACS) for tracking certain regional and grantee commitments and the program began using this system in 2005. Regional managers enter the data submitted by grantees and the system can aggregates it into national and sub-national totals to allow national and regional program managers to assess progress and needs for changes in strategies or resource allocations at mid- and end-of-year.

Evidence:

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The program collects performance data from all grantees at least annually but reports and information submitted by the grantees are only available upon request from the state programs or individual regional offices. Certain important data, such as names and locations of certified lead-paint abatement professionals, is made available by some state grantees via the internet. The current mechanisms used by the program do not ensure the transparent dissemination of uniform information across all grantees at the appropriate aggregate and disaggregate level.

Evidence:

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: The program utilizes a regulatory development process that is designed to encourage early outreach and to maximize transparency. Staff are trained to develop an early roadmap to identify broad analytic areas that will be addressed in the development of the rulemaking, including plans for outreach and consultation with stakeholders. Outreach and consultation with stakeholders is a vital component of the information gathering needed to support the regulatory decision-making. For regulations issued to implement this program, EPA engaged in adequate outreach and consultation, as documented in the docket for each rulemaking. Required public comment periods were part of the regulatory development process for all regulations issued. Because several of the regulations allow for states and tribes to seek program authorization, extensive outreach and consultation with both groups occurred prior to the issuance of proposed regulations.

Evidence: Regulations for implementing the Lead program include information on involvement of affected parties: a) Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead, 66 FR 1206 (January 5, 2001), Page 1231 IV; b) Requirements for Disclosure of Known Lead-based Paint and/or Lead-based Paint Hazards in Housing, 61 FR 9064 (March 6, 1996), Page 9066 III; c) Requirements for Hazard Education Before Renovation of Target Housing 63 FR 29908 (June 1, 1998), Page 29910; and d) Requirements for Lead-based Paint Activities, 61 FR 45778 (August 29, 1996), Page 45779. In addition, documentation supporting interagency coordination on Section 1018 Real Estate Disclosure Rule was also provided as evidence.

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation: When required, the program has prepared adequate Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs). The RIAs for the Lead program rules underwent internal Agency, OMB, and public review, along with the draft rules. Economic information from the RIA is incorporated into the development of actions from an early stage of rule development and assists in identifying the best approach to regulation, emphasizing the maximization of net benefits. GAO evaluations of the program's regulatory development activities concluded that the program complies with applicable requirements in promulgating the rules and acts within the discretion permitted under the RFA and Agency guidance.

Evidence: Evidence includes Regulatory Impact Analyses for the rules issued under this program, which are available through EPA's docket system, and various GAO studies, including: (a) Environmental Protection Agency: Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead, GAO-01-320R, January 22, 2001; (b) Regulatory Flexibility Act: Implementation in EPA Program Offices and Proposed Lead Rule, GGD-00-193, September 20, 2000; and (c) Requirements for Notification, Evaluation, and Reduction of Lead-Based Hazards in Federally Owned Residential Property and Housing Receiving Federal Assistance, OGC-99-67, September 29, 1999.

Does the program systematically review its current regulations to ensure consistency among all regulations in accomplishing program goals?

Explanation: The improvement of EPA's regulatory programs is an ongoing process. Feedback and suggestions for program improvement are submitted by the regulated community, states, tribes, other Federal Agencies, NGOs and other interested parties, including the general public. At this time, the program has an ambitious plan to update and improve specific requirements in most of the program's regulations. These reviews and any subsequent development of regulations are conducted in accordance with the Information Quality Guidelines and incorporate the best available information, taking advantage of the wide-ranging expertise within the program and from across the Agency, under the supervision of senior Agency managers. This arrangement has the advantage of ensuring that program goals, objectives and strategies are consistently addressed in all regulations.

Evidence: The program's Regulatory Agenda and the Lead-based Paint Program Activities outline and help define the review activities undertaken by the program.

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: When promulgating rules, attempts to maximize overall net benefits to the extent allowed by statute. The program designed the regulations, as much as practicable, to be consistent with the Toxic Substances Control Act elements of unreasonable risk and maximization of net benefits. The program considers and allows alternative methods of compliance where appropriate. Maximization of net benefits did not occur in the setting of the program's soil standard but it is not clear that this had a substantial impact on overall net benefits and the lower standard provided "the most protective option that could be supported by the analysis" (Lead standards rule, 40 CFR PART 745).

Evidence: The program follows statutory requirements and maximizes net benefits within those constraints. Evidence of statutory responsibility and Congressional intent can be found in Sections 2(b)(3) and 2(c) of the Toxic Substances Control Act [15 USC 2601 (b)(3) and (c)]. Other specific examples of controls include Section 1018 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act which specifies that disclosure regulations require only already-known information be provided by owners to prospective renters or purchasers, as opposed to requiring owners to develop such information. TSCA Section 403 hazard standards allow private homeowners to determine whether or not to conduct abatement work, as opposed to requiring such homeowners to conduct abatements when the standards are exceeded.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program has demonstrated progress towards its long-term performance goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning. The prevalence of elevated lead blood levels has declined among children, from 890,000 in 1991 94 to 434,000 in 1999 2000 and the soon to be released value of 310,000 for 1999 2002. The other approved long-term goal is new and therefore no data has been provided on progress.

Evidence: Progress on addressing the problem of childhood lead poisoning and reducing the incidence of elevated blood-lead levels has been reported on extensively. In addition to the raw National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data available on the CDC website, articles and analyses of the data include "Surveillance for Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Children --- United States, 1997--2001", MMWR Surveillance Summaries, September 12, 2003, Vol. 52(SS10), pages 1-21; "Blood Lead Levels ?? United States, 1999-2002", Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 2005, Vol. 54, No. 20, page 513; "Recent Trends in Childhood Blood Lead Levels", Archives of Environmental Health, Nov-Dec 2001, Vol. 56, No. 6, pages 536-541.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program is achieving its annual performance goals: The program has demonstrated progress towards its annual performance goal of reducing childhood lead poisoning. This annual goal is directly associated with the long-term goal of eliminating poisoning by 2010. Recent NHANES data provide strong evidence that the program will achieve its 2004, 2005 and 2006 outcome-based annual performance goals. The other accepted annual goal for this program is new and therefore no data has been provided on progress.

Evidence: The most recent NHANES data is available on the CDC website. Progress on meeting the program's annual goal has been included in the PART. An article reviewing overall progress on reducing blood lead levels using the previous NHANES data set is "Recent Trends in Childhood Blood Lead Levels", Archives of Environmental Health, Nov-Dec 2001, Vol. 56, No. 6, pages 536-541.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: One new efficiency measure has been approved for this program which encourages shortened review times for certain applications processed by the program. For 2005, which was the first year this measure was in place, the program exceeded its target for this measure. The measure covers the EPA efforts in processing applications. Contractor effort is not counted in this measure. They are held to certain timeframes in contract agreements. The measure does not cover the majority of the activities the program undertakes and broader quantified results on overall efficiency (including grants) was not available.

Evidence: The program had set a target of having 60% of all applications processed with less than 40 days of EPA effort. This target was exceeded by 9%; 69% of the applications were processed with less than 40 days of EPA effort. Targets for 2006 and 2007 were revised to reflect this better-than-anticipated progress.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Similar programs exist at the state level and the Department of Housing and Urban Development also has a related, similar lead program, all of which have similar purposes and goals. The strategy documents and other materials from the President's Task Force allow for comparison between the similar federal programs. Though no extensive comparisons have been done between the state programs and the federal program, they work jointly together and the federal program is responsible for coordinating and ensuring progress toward the nationwide goal of eliminating lead poisoning. The progress is attributable largely to the federal efforts.

Evidence: See "Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards", President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children (2000). GAO has reported on various issues concerning HUD and EPA programs related to lead poisoning prevention: Lead-Based Paint Hazards: Abatement Standards Are Needed to Ensure Availability of Insurance (GAO/RCED-94-231, July 15, 1994), Lead-Based Paint Poisoning: Children in Section 8 Tenant-Based Housing Not Adequately Protected From Lead Poisoning (GAO/RCED 94-137, May 13, 1994), Toxic Substances: Status of EPA's Efforts to Develop Lead Hazard Standards (GAO/RCED-94-114, May 16, 1994), Lead-Based Paint Poisoning: Children Not Fully Protected When Federal Agencies Sell Homes to Public (GAO/RCED-93-38, Apr. 15, 1993), Lead-Based Paint Poisoning: Children in Public Housing Are Not Adequately Protected (GAO/RCED-93-138, Sept. 17, 1993), and Toxic Substances: Federal Programs Do Not Fully Address Some Lead Exposure Issues (GAO/RCED-92-186, May 15, 1992).

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: There have been no adequate independent evaluations completed for this program that meet the criteria of this question. No relevant evaluations at the national program level that consider the specific impact and effectiveness of EPA's Lead program individually are available. It is important to note that independent data collected by CDC on the prevalence of elevated blood lead levels (NHANES data) does indicate progress is being made on the overall program goals.

Evidence: Examples of related GAO reports that were completed but don't meet PART requirements include: "Environmental Protection Agency: Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead", GAO-01-320R, January 22, 2001; "Lead-Based Paint Hazards: Abatement Standards Are Needed to Ensure Availability of Insurance", RCED-94-231, July 15, 1994; "Toxic Substances: Status of EPA's Efforts to Develop Lead Hazard Standards", RCED-94-114, May 16, 1994.

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation: EPA applied and continues to apply a mix of regulatory and voluntary actions to obtain needed reductions in the number of children with elevated blood lead levels. The program regulations were developed to maximize net benefits within statutory constraints. The program works to ensure that its approaches remain responsive to the problem as it exists, by recognizing and dealing with changing circumstances. The program has conducted retrospective assessments of the costs imposed by its regulatory requirements to determine whether the cost estimates and assumptions in the RIAs developed in conjunction with the promulgation of its rules were correct. The results of that analysis, in conjunction with the recent CDC NHANES data showing that progress is being made on reducing elevated blood-lead levels in children and the TSCA elements precluding the exercise of regulatory authority in the absence of a demonstration of unreasonable risk, help demonstrate that the program is achieving its goals at the least incremental cost to society and is maximizing net benefits.

Evidence: A retrospective assessment was conducted recently in conjunction with the renewal of the program's Information Collection Request (ICR) authorities. That analysis, which was submitted to and approved by OMB, demonstrated that the cost estimates and assumptions of the RIA's were correct. Data on actual program costs were presented through this ICR renewal.