Detailed Information on the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Assessment

RECA will ensure that its program partners expressly commit to achieving the stated annual and long-term performance goals of the program.

RECA is working to refine its management and performance measurements processes to capture improved program efficiencies beginning in FY 2008.

The Congressionally mandated National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report recommends that the RECA be restructured so that eligiblity is based on a scientific assessment of individualized risk for downwinder and onsite participant claimants. The program will continue to monitor the activities of the NAS and like organizations that seek to revise the Act's eligibility criteria.

The program's administrative expenses are rolled into Civil Division budget totals for costs associated with overhead, retirement, and other personnel cases. Currently RECA's direct and indirect costs are not transparent in the budget, nor are they tied to specific annual and long-term goals. Beginning in FY 2008, the plan is for the Civil Division's Congressional Budget submission to tie resources to specific RECA performance measures.

Measure: Reduce backlog of pending claims by 60% by FY 2011

Explanation:For nearly all of FY 2006, the Program's office operated with a reduced staff. At the outset of FY 2005, there were 28 staff members, including contractors, working to adjudicate claims. Subsequently, the Program lost five employees due to normal attrition and released eight contractors due to budgetary constraints. Absent adequate staff, claim processing times increased, the backlog of pending claims grew, and fewer claims were adjudicated within 12 months than anticipated. The hiring freeze, which applied to both employees and contractors, was lifted in December 2005. Over the course of FY 2006, the Program hired six additional staff to assist in claims adjudication. Claim processing time is improving and the Program hopes to meet its targets in FY 2007.

Measure: Reduce average claim processing time to 200 days by FY 2011

Explanation:For nearly all of FY 2006, the Program's office operated with a reduced staff. At the outset of FY 2005, there were 28 staff members, including contractors, working to adjudicate claims. Subsequently, the Program lost five employees due to normal attrition and released eight contractors due to budgetary constraints. Absent adequate staff, claim processing times increased, the backlog of pending claims grew, and fewer claims were adjudicated within 12 months than anticipated. The hiring freeze, which applied to both employees and contractors, was lifted in December 2005. Over the course of FY 2006, the Program hired six additional staff to assist in claims adjudication. Claim processing time is improving and the Program hopes to meet its targets in FY 2007.

Measure: Percentage of claims paid within six weeks of Program receipt of acceptance form

Explanation:Following program approval of a claim, paperwork is sent to the claimant(s) to complete how they want their compensation (electronic fund transfer or paper check) and returned to the program. Once received at the program, the information is input, verified (if EFT), a "budget memo" is produced authorizing the amount of the payment for each individual, and then transferred to the Civil Division Budget Office (Section 4 claimants) or the Department of Labor (Section 5 claimants) to arrange actual payment with Treasury. This measure captures the percentage of claims in which this occurs within six weeks of receipt of the acceptance of payment forms and information.

Measure: Reduce backlog of pending claims

Explanation:For nearly all of FY 2006, the Program's office operated with a reduced staff. At the outset of FY 2005, there were 28 staff members, including contractors, working to adjudicate claims. Subsequently, the Program lost five employees due to normal attrition and released eight contractors due to budgetary constraints. Absent adequate staff, claim processing times increased, the backlog of pending claims grew, and fewer claims were adjudicated within 12 months than anticipated. The hiring freeze, which applied to both employees and contractors, was lifted in December 2005. Over the course of FY 2006, the Program hired six additional staff to assist in claims adjudication. Claim processing time is improving and the Program hopes to meet its targets in FY 2007.

Measure: Percentage of claims appeals adjudicated within 90 days of filing administrative appeal

Explanation:If a claim is denied, the claimant has the right to one administrative appeal to a designated "appeals officer" within the Civil Division. This measure captures the percentage of claims in which an appeal decision is completed within 90 days of receipt of the appeal. Instances in which the 90th day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday are designated with "**". In every instance the appeal decision was filed on the first business day following the non-work day off, and is considered to be adjudicated within 90 days of filing.

Measure: Percentage of claims adjudicated within 12 months or less of filing.

Explanation:Measures the percentage of claims adjudicated within 12 months or less. The Act requires that claims be adjudicated no later than 12 months after the claim is filed. However, the Act also states that this time period does not apply when a request for additional information is made from the claimant or an organization. This measures the percentage of claims adjudicated within 12 calendar months of filing regardless of stoppages of time while awaiting additional information.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program purpose is stated at the outset of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) statute. Specifically, Section 2(b) provides that the purpose of the Act is to establish a procedure to make partial restitution to individuals who were harmed by the government's nuclear weapons testing program during the period 1942 to 1971. The Department of Justice is authorized by the statute to implement a program (the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program) to adjudicate claims under the Act. The Act provides compensation for individuals determined to have been exposed to radiation a) as a result of being "downwind" from the nuclear weapons tests conducted at the Nevada Test Site, b) in connection with their onsite participation in the detonation of a nuclear weapon, or c) as a result of occupational exposure because of their involvement in the mining, milling, or transportation of uranium ore. The program's "Mission Statement," as described in each Civil Division Performance Budget (Congressional budget submission) is as follows: to fairly and expeditiously adjudicate claims, fully consistent with the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, as amended; educate the public about the Act; and develop strategies for improving the program.

Evidence: Authorizing legislation (42 U.S.C. §2210 note)("Act"), H. Rpt. 101-463, H. Rpt. 106-697; Program Mission statement

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

Explanation: The program operates in an environment that is responsive to the law's statutory scheme. Congress designed eligibility for compensation in a manner that does not require causality. The drafters intended the statute to serve as an "apology??on behalf of the Nation to the individuals described in subsection (a) and their families for the hardships they have endured" as a result of placing their lives and health at risk by exposing them to radiation. However, the Act's statutory scheme is not based on a scientific assessment of individual exposures for every claimant category. In some instances, the Act does not rely upon a dose reconstruction or impose other measures of causation in effectuating its statutory purpose. With respect to the occupationally exposed groups of claimants (individuals who worked in the uranium industry as miners, millers, and ore transporters), an individual's radiation exposure must be established. Epidemiological studies have identified an increased risk of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases associated with exposure to radiation from decay products of inhaled radon by uranium workers. With respect to "downwinder" and "onsite participant" claimants, there is no individual exposure requirement. A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that Congress should consider a scientific assessment upon which to base eligibility for those two groups.

Evidence: Act; NAS, Assessment of the Scientific Information for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, April 2005.

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

Explanation: The program is designed so that it is neither redundant nor duplicative of other efforts. The Act provides compassionate payments to discreet claimant populations who have no other legal recourse for injuries caused by the government. Compensation for these individuals is not available anywhere at the federal, state, or local level or in the private sector. The program works in conjunction with other agencies and federal compensation programs to provide claimants with an integrated claims adjudication process. These efforts are not redundant in content; rather, the combination of these programs serves to increase efficiencies for claimants. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers a program for military personnel who participated in the government's nuclear weapons testing program. Although less than 5% of all RECA claimants were military servicemen at test site locations, the close coordination with the VA's Radiation Exposed Veterans Compensation Act allows both agencies to share detailed duty-related and medical information that would otherwise prove difficult to obtain. The statute prohibits claimants from receiving compensation from both agencies; therefore, an offset is imposed which allows claimants the option of receiving the lump sum RECA award (offset by the amount previously received from the VA) or they may elect to continue receiving the lifetime annuity from the VA. In this way, the coordinated efforts of both agencies ensure that, by sharing claimant eligibility information, redundancies are eliminated and the adjudication system is at peak effectiveness.

Evidence: Begay v. U.S., 768 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir. 1985); H. Rept. 106-697, Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 1999; Act

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

Explanation: Any perceived flaw in the program design must be attributable to a requirement in RECA's statutory scheme. With respect to occupationally-exposed uranium workers, the statute is founded on the scientifically-based association between exposure to radiation as a result of employment in the uranium industry and specified resulting illnesses. The statute does not have a similar scientific basis for other claimant categories. With downwinder and onsite participant claimants, who are not required to establish causality, the nexus between radiation exposure from fallout and the occurrence of the compensable diseases identified in the statute demonstrates a small increased risk. According to a 2004 Congressionally-mandated study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) regarding the most recent scientific information related to radiation exposure and associated cancers or other diseases, the report concludes that in order to ensure fairness, eligibility under RECA should be scientifically assessed. Specifically, under this recommended approach, every claim would undergo an individual dose reconstruction assessment. The NAS recommends that Congress establish a process using probability of causation/assigned share (PC/AS) to determine eligibility for downwinder and onsite participant claimants who were exposed to radiation from fallout as a result of nuclear weapons testing. In terms of process, the program is well designed to quickly and effectively adjudicate a large number of administrative claims. Claims are filed by the injured individual or their beneficiary, as specified by the Act, and a decision must be made on the claim within twelve months of a claim's filing. To file for compensation, claimants submit a claim form along with supporting documentation to the program, whose claims examiners and legal staff review and adjudicate the claims. Individuals may, but need not, be represented by an attorney. Claims are adjudicated based on written evidence and without a hearing. If a claim is approved, a one-time lump sum payment is made to the claimant or beneficiary. If a claim is denied, the program notifies the claimant or beneficiary in writing of the basis for the denial and the right to refile or appeal a claim. A claimant may file an administrative appeal to a DOJ appeals officer, who can affirm or reverse the original decision or remand the claim to the program for further consideration. Upon exhaustion of the administrative appeal, claimants may file suit in U.S. District Court. Over the history of the program, judicial remedy has only been sought in ten cases. By statute, a claimant can refile a claim up to three times. Many eligible claimants receive compensation within one year of filing their claim. While assisted by other organizations in verifying eligibility, each claims adjudication is completed entirely within the RECP, with no outside entity (ie a court or administrative law judge) to slow down the process. Another design flaw in the original statute, which was ultimately rectified through legislative amendments in 2004, concerned the Trust Fund's funding mechanism. Funds appropriated through the annual budget cycle proved inadequate to compensate all meritorious claims. In 2004, legislation was enacted to establish the Trust Fund as a mandatory and indefinite account.

Evidence: Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, Implementing Regulations (28 C.R.F. Part 79); General Accounting Office Report, Radiation Exposure Compensation: Analysis of Justice's Program Administration (September 2001), National Academy of Sciences, Assessment of the Scientific Information for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program. April, 2005, BEIR VII Report in Brief (June 2005), P.L. 108-375 (Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act); P.L. 108-447 (2005 Omnibus Appropriations Bill)

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

Explanation: The program's purpose is to compensate certain individuals for injuries and illnesses received as a result of their exposure to radiation from the government's nuclear weapons testing program. In that regard, resources are targeted to address the program's purpose. The administrative procedures established by the Department are designed to utilize existing records so that claims can be resolved fairly and quickly in a reliable, objective, and non-adversarial manner. The statute specifies which individuals are entitled to compensation, and the order in which they are eligible: claimant, spouse, child(ren), parent(s), grandchild(ren), grandparent(s). The program requires claimants to submit identification documentation to ensure that the proper beneficiary or beneficiaries are compensated. It is possible, however, that due to the overly expansive nature of the Act's statutory scheme, as it relates to downwinder and onsite participant claimants, the program may not reach intended beneficiaries. Adequate funding exists for the payment of all claims. The Section 5 claimants (uranium workers) are paid from the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP) Fund, although claims adjudication and payment verification is done by the Department of Justice. Downwinder and onsite participant claimants are paid from the RECA Trust Fund. Administrative costs incurred by the Department for administering the program cannot be paid from the Trust Fund but are paid from the Department's General Legal Activities account. By statute, the program will sunset in July 2022.

Evidence: Act; Implementing Regulations (28 C.F.R. Part 79); Memorandum of Understanding Between Department of Labor and Department of Justice; P.L. 108-375 (Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act); P.L. 108-447 (2005 Omnibus Appropriations Bill). As of April 10, 2006, the Program has awarded over $1.010 billion to eligible claimants. Additionally, over $197 million in additional compensation has been paid to RECA Section 5 claimants who are eligible for an additional $50,000 under the EEOCIP.

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: Relevant to it's mission, the program has two long-term output performance measures. The first measures the average number of days to process a claim filed under the Act. This measure meaningfully reflects the program's goal to reduce the amount of time this aging claimant population must wait for adjudication. Because the claimant population is typically elderly and infirm, the time that it takes to adjudicate claims is critical. The program's second long-term performance measure is to reduce the backlog of pending claims by 60% by FY 2011. Decreasing the backlog of claims will result in a quicker resolution for claimants, allowing eligible claimants to receive compensation while they are still living, and allowing those who are not eligible to have closure on this issue or to gather additional evidence and refile.

Evidence: See measures tab.

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

Explanation: The program has ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures. For long-term measure 1, the baseline year of FY 2005 reflects an average of 316 days to process a claim. Targets of 297, 277, 258, 239, 219, and 200 days have been selected through FY 2011. For long-term measure 2, the RECP aims to reduce the number of pending claims by the end of FY 2009 by 60%. These targets are very ambitious given that over 16,800 claims have been filed since October 2000. The targets take into account that much of the delay in claim processing time is attributable to claimants gathering the documentation in response to program requests for additional evidence in order to establish a meritorious claim. Consistent with the compassionate nature of the Act, the program is generous in granting extension requests to allow claimants every opportunity to prove their claim.

Evidence: See measures tab; Average Time (in Days) To Process RECA Claims (FY 2003, FY 2004, FY 2005); RECA Claims Pending at the End of Fiscal Year 1993 Through Fiscal Year 2005

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 three specific annual performance measures to track its progress toward achieving its long-term goals. In Annual Measure 1, the program will track the percentage of claims paid within six weeks of receipt of the acceptance of payment paperwork. This measure seeks to ensure that awards to this elderly claimant population are paid in a timely manner. In Annual Measure 2, the program will track the percentage of appealed claims which are adjudicated within 90 days of receipt of an appeal. Similarly, this measure tracks the program's ability to resolve legal and factual questions on appeal expeditiously. The third annual performance measure is to reduce the backlog of pending claims. The reduction of pending claims is critical to achieving the program's mission. Each month, approximately 200 new claims are filed. The program strives to keep pace with those receipts by appropriately focusing its resources. All three measures reflect the program's ability to achieve its long-term goal of expeditiously adjudicating claims for this unique claimant population.

Evidence: See measures tab.

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

Explanation: The program has baselines and ambitious targets for each of its annual measures. The baseline year for each measure is FY 2005 and there are quantified targets for each year up to FY 2008. With recent changes in the law, administrative funding uncertainties and staffing inconsistencies, outliers exist within certain areas of the program. However, the program has years of data and will use baseline data from FY 2005 to set ambitious targets for the next three fiscal years.

Evidence: See measures tab; Percentage of Claims Paid Within Six Weeks From Receipt of Acceptance Form (FY 2003, FY 2004, FY 2005); Percentage of Claims Adjudicated Within 90 Days of Filing an Administrative Appeal (FY 2004, FY 2005); RECA Claims Pending at the End of Fiscal Year 1993 Through Fiscal Year 2005.

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: The program has four partners who work toward the goals of fairly and efficiently adjudicating claims and paying eligible claimants. The first partner, Titan Corporation (a research contractor for the Department of Energy), provides services including research, analysis, and verification of complex onsite participant claims filed by civilian workers. A second program partner, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, a research contractor for the Department of Defense (DOD), provides research, analysis, and verification of onsite participant claims filed by military servicemen. A third program partner is the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). By statute, the program is required to offset a payment to an individual by the amount of any payment made by the VA that is based on injuries incurred on account of exposure to radiation as a result of onsite participation in a nuclear weapons test. The VA verifies compensation benefits paid to military servicemen. This assists the program in determining the compensation award amount under RECA. Lastly, the program partners with the Department of Labor's Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP) to make payments to uranium industry claimants (miners, millers, and ore transporters) from the EEOICP Trust Fund. The EEOICP statute and the MOU ensure compliance with this task. Whereas, each of these program partners contributes to the effective adjudication of claims in accordance with the statute, and the efficient processing of claims, reducing the backlogs, and efficiently paying eligible claimants, they do not expressly commit to achieving the stated goals of the program.

Evidence: Purchase agreement with Titan, Regulations (§79.33); VA Adjudication Procedure Manual 38 CFR 3.500(x), 3.715; MOU with Department of Labor; EEOICP manual for payment processing procedures for RECA claims; Sample notification letter to EEOICP for Section 5 payment; Sample RECA award verification letter to EEOICP; DTRA/VA request forms or correspondence.

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: By statute, the program is audited by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on a regular basis-- every 18 months. Since the inclusion of this provision in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments in July 2000, the GAO has performed three independent audits. All aspects of program administration are reviewed. The GAO's focus of each audit is to determine the effectiveness and relevancy of the program. In every case, the GAO's recommendations have been instituted and remedial actions taken. The GAO's September 2001 report was a comprehensive evaluation of program administration, including the adjudication process, claim processing time, number of pending claims, status of funds to pay claims and program administrative costs, payment procedures, and program outreach. The next audit was performed in April 2003. After a comprehensive evaluation of program-wide activities, this report concluded that "funding to pay claims may be inadequate to meet projected needs," and recommended that the Attorney General consult with congressional committees to develop a strategy to address the gap between current funding levels and future funding needs. This recommendation was implemented by the Department through meetings with congressional members and a hearing in July 2004 before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and resulted in Congress taking legislative action in December 2004 to ensure sufficient funding to pay claims throughout the life of the program. In September 2005, the GAO conducted a report assessing program status and following up on its recommendations from its previous audit. The 2005 GAO report concluded that claim processing times had improved, Program funding had improved, and the number of pending claims had been reduced. Periodic audits of the Program have also been performed by the Department's independent auditor, KPMG LLP.. Specifically, since FY 2005, KPMG has included in its annual audit of DOJ's financial statements a review of the program and the Department's methodology for projecting the potential liability associated with the Trust Fund.

Evidence: Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (Section 14); GAO reports of September 2001 (Radiation Exposure Compensation: Analysis of Justice's Program Administration), April 2003 (Radiation Exposure Compensation: Funding to Pay Claims May Be Inadequate), September 2005 (Radiation Exposure Compensation Act: Program Status); KPMG statements published in the FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report (III-7-13)

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's administrative expenses are rolled into Civil Division budget totals for costs associated with overhead, retirement, and other personnel cases. Whereas, the Civil Division does track program-specific expenditures, direct and indirect costs for RECA are not transparent in the budget, nor are they tied to specific annual and long-term goals. Beginning in FY 2008, the plan is for the Civil Division's Congressional Budget submission to tie resources to specific RECA performance measures.

Evidence: FY 2007 Performance Budget; RECA program administrative expenses table; Civil Division Performance and Resources Table

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

Explanation: Funding deficiencies identified in the GAO's 2003 report were successfully resolved through legislation in FY 2005. GAO recommended "that the Attorney General consult with the congressional committees to develop a strategy to address the gap between current funding levels and the amount of funding needed to pay claims projected to be approved over the 2003-2011 period." In response, the Department worked closely with representatives from Congressional committees to secure a fix to the funding shortfall. Together, the appropriators and authorizers devised a solution that ensured all eligible claimants could be paid through the statutory life of the program. Two legislative fixes were enacted: 1. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2005 requires that Section 5 claimants (uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters) be paid out of the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Fund. 2. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, contains language that makes funding for the Trust Fund mandatory and indefinite beginning in FY 2006. The Fund, beginning in FY 2005, exclusively pays Section 4 claimants (downwinders and on-site participants). The 2003 GAO report also found that administrative expenses were insufficient to keep up with the volume of claims submitted in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 (after the Amendments of 2000). Two legislative changes were made to ensure that sufficient administrative funding would be available. Administrative expenses for the program are now part of the Civil Division's General Legal Activities appropriation. This provides more flexibility to adjust staffing based on workload levels.

Evidence: April 2003 GAO Report, September 2005 GAO Report, Civil Division budget requests for FY 2005 and FY 2006, National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2005 and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005.

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 maintains a detailed database (CASES) of program statistics. These statistics include (but are not limited to) the number of claims filed, pending, approved, and denied over the life of the program in all claimant categories, the value of claims paid and pending, claims filed and compensated by state, claim processing time and payment processing time. Upon receipt of a claim, all information provided on the claim form is entered into the CASES database. As additional information becomes available, the claims examiner assigned to the claim updates this information. All program requests for information and documentation to claimants and key program partners is also tracked through this system. Reports and notification procedures are routinely run in order to inform the claims examiner when an action is required. The information contained within the report is updated daily. An approval or denial entry by the claims examiner prompts attorney review of the claim. Information stored in CASES is provided regularly to Congress, GAO, and various groups interested in the program's performance. The program regularly uses CASES as a management tool, utilizing the data collected and reports generated to adjust program priorities and maximize resources. The program will use CASES to track all of its measures.

Evidence: Sample CASES Status Summary, Claims to Date Summary.

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: Federal managers are held accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results. The Civil Division implemented five-level performance plans for all SES, including those with the program. New SES and manager plans include cascading tasks/assignments that are linked to the DOJ Strategic Plan and the PMA. By December 30, 2004, all DOJ components certified to the AG that all SES and direct report performance work plans are in place. Finally, by the end of the first quarter of FY 2006, the Department had performance appraisals for more than 60% of the work force that: link to agency mission, goals, and outcomes in DOJ's Strategic Plan; hold employees accountable for results appropriate to their level of responsibility; differentiate between various levels of performance; and provide consequences based on performance. The agency is working to include all agency employees under such systems. At the program level, each attorney responsible for reviewing a specific category of claims is given annual adjudication targets. In order to meet those targets, cooperation from program partners is needed. Program managers work directly with managers and contractors from the program partners to ensure timely assistance in the adjudication and payment of claims. Each program partner is bound by either contract, statute or regulation to assist the program in achieving results.

Evidence: FY 2005 DOJ Performance and Accountability Report (p. IV-4); PMA Scorecard (1st Quarter 2006); U.S. Department of Justice Strategic Plan (2003-2008); sample performance work plan and appraisal; purchase agreement with Titan, regulations (Section 79.33); VA Adjudication Procedure Manual 38 CFR 3.500(x), 3.715; MOU with Department of Labor; EEOICP manual for payment processing procedures for RECA claims.

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

Explanation: Obligations are planned and tracked through annual financial Operating Plans (OPs). An OP displays actual obligations from the prior fiscal year and estimates obligations for the current fiscal year by object class. It is submitted to the Assistant Attorney General for Administration within 20 working days of an enacted appropriation and must be revised immediately following any major change to the spending plan. OPs are updated quarterly as part of the Department's Quarterly Status Review process. The updates compare projected and actual obligations as well as projected and actual performance to ensure that funds are being spent in accordance with the established plan and are achieving expected results. If there are significant deviations from the initial estimates, additional reviews are conducted to discuss the source of the deviation and possible courses of action to address the problem. Recent Division OPs indicate that funds are being obligated in a manner consistent with overall program plans. Additional proof of the timely and appropriate obligation of funds includes low unobligated balances for the program and consistent clean audits showing that obligations are accurate and proper. Additionally, in order to ensure that DOL is paying program claimants in a timely manner, and for the purpose intended, the DOL's EEOICP provides payment information on a weekly basis. Initially, the program informs EEOICP of all intended and authorized payments and provides EEOICP with payee information. EEOICP makes payment to claimants within one week of notification. Weekly reports from EEOICP to the program confirm all RECA payments made, including the payment date, type, and amount. The "pay date" information is entered into the program's database system. This data is then included in the annual measure of "payment within six weeks."

Evidence: EEOICP's RECA processing procedures manual, sample EEOICP payment verification sheet, DOJ Budget Operations Manual and Budget Program Execution Manuals for instructions on format and content of OPs; Civil Division Operating Plan comparing estimated and actual obligations by object class; MAX Schedule X for FY 2005 unobligated balances carried forward; and 2005 DOJ Performance and Accountability Report, Part III: Financial Section for evidence of clean audits.

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's efficiency measure is the percentage of claims adjudicated within 12 months or less of filing. The Act requires that claims be adjudicated not later than 12 months after the claim is filed. However the Act also states that the program may request additional information from the claimant or an organization in order to completely adjudicate the claim in accordance with the law. The period of time between the program's request for additional information and the claimant's submission of the additional information does not apply to the 12-month period. A report has been developed that uses data in the Civil Division's automated case management system (CASES) to track the average processing time for each claim. The report defines the processing time as the number of days between the date the claim was filed and the disposition date (disposition being either claim approval or denial). The report calculates the percent of total adjudications that occurred within 12 months or less. Additionally, program execution is measured annually by the Civil Division in connection with its performance budget, which is submitted to Congress each fiscal year. The submission reviews expenditures, resources, performance, and administration of the program. In November 2005, the GAO issued a report describing the program's design, purpose, financing, administration, benefits, and eligibility criteria, as well as three other federal compensation programs. The report provided information on actual costs of benefits paid, number of claims adjudicated, approval rates, and the length of processing time of claims and paying eligible claimants.

Evidence: GPRA Performance Measure Table: Percentage of Claims Adjudicated Within 12 months or Less, FY 2005 Congressional Submission and Performance Plan, Civil Division, November 2005 GAO report, Federal Compensation Programs: Perspectives on Four Programs, sample cancer registry disease verification form

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program collaborates and coordinates with related programs at the Department of Labor and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The program works in cooperation with the Department of Labor in its administration of EEOICP. EEOICP is intended to compensate Department of Energy employees, contractors, or subcontractors who worked with radioactive materials in the production of nuclear weapons and later contracted a serious illness. EEOICP also provides certain individuals approved under RECA with additional compensation and benefits. Although the Department of Labor is primarily responsible for administering EEOICP, the program plays an important role in verifying the approval of claims. In addition, the program notifies each claimant of the availability of supplemental compensation and benefits under the EEOICP and shares information with the Department of Labor necessary to adjudicate the EEOICP claims. Also, by statute, the Department of Labor is responsible for the payment of awards issued to RECA section 5 claimants. Accordingly, the program worked with the Department of Labor to design and implement a secure payment processing system which was implemented in early Fiscal Year 2005. Payment data is shared between the Department of Labor and the program on a weekly basis. The program also works with the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that offsets required by statute for disability payments are accurately made. Additionally, the program works with the Department of Defense's Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the Department of Energy to determine whether a claimant was an onsite participant during a period of atmospheric nuclear testing. The DTRA has access to personnel records, dosimetry databases, military unit reports, and other records that may contain documentation of an individual's assignment during a particular operation. The Department of Energy similarly has records pertaining to government civilians and contractors who were employed at a test site during a period of atmospheric nuclear testing. In response to our requests for information and upon completion of their research, a report of the finding by DTRA or DOE is forwarded to the program indicating whether or not an individual was an onsite participant, a vital criterion in determining eligibility for claimants filing as an onsite participant under Section 4.

Evidence: The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, 42 U.S.C. sec. 7384 et seq., amended by Pub. L. No. 108-375 (2004); Exec. Order No. 13179, 65 Fed. Reg. 77487 § 2(d) (Dec. 7, 2000) (setting forth the Attorney General's responsibilities under the EEOICP); Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice, dated November 17, 2004; sample notification Letter to Department of Labor regarding Section 5 claims ready for payment; sample request for onsite participant information from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency; sample request for offset information from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Civil Division, as part of the DOJ Offices, Boards, and Divisions (OBDs), received an unqualified opinion on the FY 2005 financial statements. Under the direction of the Office of the Inspector General, KPMG LLP performed the OBDs audit which included the fiscal years ended September 30, 2005, and September 30, 2004. The auditors also found no material weaknesses and no instances of noncompliance with the Federal Financial Managers Improvement Act. In addition, to comply with the requirements of OMB Circular No. A-123, the Department has documented the internal control processes for the adjudication and payment of eligible RECA claims.

Evidence: FY 2005 Department of Justice Performance and Accountability Report, Section III, Commentary and Summary provided in OIG report audit report 06-05. U.S. Department of Justice Offices, Boards, and Divisions Financial Statement FY 2005; Internal Controls for the RECA Trust Fund.

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

Explanation: The program is headed by an Assistant Director within the Torts Branch, Civil Division. The Assistant Director meets regularly with all program attorneys to discuss problematic issues for which a coordinated solution is needed. Issues include the resolution of legal questions, complex claim adjudication situations, policy-related matters, and personnel issues. Any identified problems are discussed and tasked to a staff member for follow-up action if necessary. An example of one resolved management deficiency was the handling of electronic fund transfer (EFT) verification. In February 2004, the program identified a deficiency in the processing of electronic fund transfers. This was a source of delay in the payment process. In response, program management contracted with Aspen Systems to outsource verification of electronic fund transfers. Another meaningful step taken by the program to address a management deficiency was the development of specific processes for program consideration of Native American tradition and custom in the claim adjudication process. Many claimants are Native Americans who have difficulty satisfying certain statutory criteria for compensation because tribal organizations did not record with precision the identity or residence of tribal members. To overcome this deficiency, the program has been working with tribal leaders to develop means of substantiating this information by considering different forms of evidentiary proof in order to accommodate unique aspects of Native American culture. This has dramatically decreased the amount of time required to adjudicate those claims. Effective processes are already in place to verify a claimant's identity through the Navajo Nation's office of Vital Records; meetings have been initiated to create similar processes with other Native American tribes.

Evidence: Sample Executive Committee meeting agendas; EFT outsourcing contract ; Sample NOVR request for identification verification

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

Explanation: The program has demonstrated progress in achieving its long-term performance goal for reducing the average claim processing time. During the baseline year of FY 2005, the average claim processing time was 316 days. This is a decrease over the preceding year. Similarly, the program has decreased the number of pending claims. The improvement in the program's claim processing time and the decrease in the number of pending claims was recently noted by the GAO in its September 2005 evaluation of the program. The program has set ambitious targets to further reduce claim processing time and the percentage of claims pending over the next several fiscal years.

Evidence: See Measures Tab; Government Accountability Office Report, Radiation Exposure Compensation Act: Program Status (September 2005)

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

Explanation: The program achieves its annual performance goals. Although targets have not been set in past years, the program has several years of data for all of its annual performance measures and has demonstrated continued improvement for each measure. For Annual Measure #1, the percentage of claims paid within six weeks of receipt of acceptance information, the program has increased the number of claims paid within six weeks by 26% over the past two fiscal years. For Annual Measure #2, the percentage of claim appeals adjudicated within 90 days of receipt, the program has improved by 6% over last year with over three-quarters of all appeals completed within 90 days. Lastly, Annual Measure #3, the program has been successful in reducing the number of pending claims for the past two fiscal years.

Evidence: See Measures Tab; Chart- Percentage of Claims Paid Within Six Weeks From Receipt of Acceptance Form (FY 2003, FY 2004, FY 2005); Chart- Percentage of Claims Adjudicated Within 90 Days of Filing an Administrative Appeal (FY 2004, FY 2005); Chart- RECA Claims Pending at the End of Fiscal Year 1993 Through Fiscal Year 2005.

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

Explanation: RECA is unable to demonstrate improved efficiency or cost effectiveness over the prior year. Whereas, the Act requires that claims be adjudicated within 12 months of receipt, the time during which a request is pending with a claimant or organization do not apply to the 12 month period. The efficiency measure does not take into account the stoppages of time allowed by statute but measures the percentage of claims that are adjudicated within 12 calendar months or less of filing. RECA is working to refine its management and measurements processes to capture improved efficiencies and cost savings beginning in FY 2008.

Evidence: See Measures Tab

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

Explanation: In a 2005 GAO report, this program compared favorably with three other federal compensation programs. The report described the program as non-adversarial and structured so that the application process is simple and straightforward such that attorney assistance is not necessary to file a claim. The program is more "bright-line" than the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, which requires a "dose reconstruction" analysis or the VA benefits process which requires an evaluation to determine an individual's percentage of disability, or the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, where court involvement and judicial hearings make that program more adversarial and time intensive. The GAO report also found that annual administrative program costs are significantly less for this program than the others, which include the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, and the Black Lung Program.

Evidence: November 2005 GAO report, Federal Compensation Programs: Perspectives on Four Programs; Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (Section 6(b)(2)).

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

Explanation: The program has been regularly assessed since operations commenced in 1992. The Act mandates that the GAO perform a comprehensive audit of program administration every 18 months. In its most recent audit reports the GAO determined that between September 2001 and June 2005, claim processing times improved for four out of the five claimant categories, while the number of pending claims decreased dramatically. The Civil Division quarterly audits report that the program is effective and achieving results, the Congressionally mandated National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report recommends that the Act be restructured so that eligibility is based on a scientific assessment of individualized risk for downwinder and onsite participant claimants. Whereas, the NAS report notes that the Department of Justice has no authority to implement any legislative changes and none are directed to the program's administration, the report clearly states a need for overall program reform in order to assure that the program reaches those that have been scientifically determined to be eligible to receive monetary compensation from the government.

Evidence: September 2001 GAO report, Radiation Exposure Compensation: Analysis of Justice's Program Administration; September 2005 GAO Report, Radiation Exposure Compensation Act: Program Status; NAS report