Detailed Information on the
EPA Pesticide Enforcement Grant Program Assessment

Work to develop appropriate outcome performance measures.

Develop targets and baselines.

Evaluate why cost effectiveness appears inversely proportional to amount of Federal funding.

Measure: Percent of violators committing subsequent violations (Baseline and targets under development.)

Explanation:

Measure: Percent of compliance actions taken as a result of inspection/enforcement.

Explanation:

Measure: Number of enforcement actions taken (Federal + State) per million dollars of costs (Federal + State). (Baseline and targets under development.)

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The primary purpose of the pesticide enforcement grant program is to fund inspections and related activities (e.g., laboratory analyses, enforcement actions and inspector training). The most significiant purpose of FIFRA is to protect human health and the environment through the regulation of pesticides. The FIFRA statute authorizes EPA to give grants (via cooperative agreements) to states (including territories) and tribes to support their FIFRA pesticide enforcement and compliance programs. States are the primary implementers of FIFRA. Even where states do not have primacy for implementing a specific aspect of FIFRA, they are relied upon to conduct the inspections.

Evidence: FIFRA Section 23, Consolidated Cooperative Agreement Guidance, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

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

Explanation: Pesticides are poisons that can threaten human health and the environment; the need for the regulation of pesticides under FIFRA continues. For example, over 100,000 people in 2001 were sufficiently concerned about their actual exposure to pesticides to call their local poison control; a significant number of these callers developed symptoms, some life threatening. Many pesticides are toxic to a variety of fish, insect, and plant species. Use and misuse of pesticides can cause significant loss of non-target species. Eliminating or limiting those exposures can have a beneficial effect and are the goals of FIFRA and its compliance implementation at the state level through the support of the pesticide grant. State funding is insufficient to cover all costs of implementing FIFRA. This cooperative enforcement agreement program is designed to maximize compliance with federal and state pesticide laws and their implementing regulations, and to address national and local priorities. Both federal and state laws control the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides in the United States, with the goal of ensuring Americans that public health and the environment are protected from illegal or adulterated products and the misuse of pesticides. A vigorous, comprehensive compliance monitoring and enforcement program that serves both local and national needs is essential to accomplish this goal. EPA is the only federal entity providing this type of funding to states and tribes.

Evidence: FIFRA. EPA Draft Report on the Environment 2003 (see section 3-8). AAPCO letter to Administrator Whitman. AAPCO Funding Survey

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

Explanation: Through the grants, EPA is able to work with the states annually to identify priorities and program objectives. EPA grant funding allows states to operate FIFRA programs. All states and territories with primary enforcement authority also receive grant support. More than 95% of the monitoring to determine compliance with pesticide laws is currently provided by states, tribes, and territories that are cooperating with EPA under this program. Because of states' overwhelming activity in this area, the grant also allows EPA not to have a substantial inspection program of its own where EPA does have retained inspection authority. There is no other program that provides funding to support a cooperative enforcement effort with state, territorial, and tribal pesticide regulatory agencies. There is a pesticide program grant administered by the Office of Pesticides Programs, but that grant does not fund compliance and enforcement activities.

Evidence: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

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

Explanation: The program design is free of major flaws. Congress annually appropriates specific funds for this program, which EPA distributes according to a formula. Regions are delegated responsibility for awarding the grants. Regional and state agreements specify responsibilities and outputs under individual grant agreements tracked by the regions. States argue that federal funds have not kept up with changes in FIFRA, its regulations and registration decisions. States have concluded from surveys and analyses that reduction or elimination of the funding that supports this cooperative enforcement program would lead to a significant diminution or elimination of the this already resource-constrained program.

Evidence: AAPCO letter to Adminsitrator Whitman. AAPCO funding survey

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Pesticide enforcement grant funding is directed to state, territorial, and tribal pesticide regulatory agencies that have been designated by the governor or other appropriate official as the lead agency for compliance and enforcement activities. This grant funding is allocated by a combination of base funding for each state [currently $107,100] and formula funding. The formula is based upon several weighted factors that address the scope of a comprehensive pesticide compliance and enforcement program: the state's population, the numbers of pesticide-producing establishments and certified private and commercial applicators, and the number of farms and their acreage. This base plus formula funding allocation was developed with the input and support of the state pesticide regulatory agencies, and is based upon a work plan which will take into account more specific factors, such as regional and local priorities. Each work plan is negotiated between the Regional Office and state, tribe, or territory, who determine a balance between program goals, respective priorities, and proposed deliverables in the form of program commitments. Program funds reach nearly every state [except Wyoming, which does not have FIFRA enforcement primacy], six territories, and a number of tribes. Since the grants are intended to go directly to states and tribes for their use, they do reach the intended beneficiaries. The formula, which is rerun biannually, also ensures that the funds are allocated based on the universe regulated and protected by FIFRA. Regional and state negotiations assure coordination toward common goals.

Evidence: FIFRA Enforcement and Compliance Funding Allocation Formula. 40 CFR §§35.230-235

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 pesticide grant program has received initial agreement with its grantee partners to pursue development and implementation of two outcome measurements: percentage decrease in subsequent pesticide violations by previous violators (primarily misuse cases) and percentage increase in complying actions taken resulting from inspections or enforcement.On January 14, 2004, EPA issued interim grant policy applicable to all grant programs, including the FIFRA pesticides grants, requiring all future funding packages to document how the assistance agreement furthers the Agency's strategic goals. All grants will describe how the program work plan will support the goals of the Agency strategic plan. An agency workgroup is developing final guidance on the incorporation of performance measures and environmental outcomes. In the meantime, grant policy only encourages grants to link to the Agency's specific strategic plan architecture and to have output or outcome goals and annual performance goals the grant will help implement. EPA sets strategic goals - a combination of core program and priority activities - tri-annual 'Consolidated Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Guidance,' which are then negotiated with grantees who bring to the negotiations their 'Priority Setting Plan.' As an assistance agreement, the final grant is not a contract, but is to support the grantee carrying out a public purpose authorized by statute. The state priorities are stated in terms of numbers and types of inspections, which are the measures for the program that meaningfully reflect the grant program purpose. In addition, in the Guidance we define the criteria and minimum components of what can be counted as an inspection. These measures are renegotiated yearly, as is required by statute and regulations.

Evidence: Consolidated Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Guidance. EPA Order 5700.1. FIFRA Project Officers Manual. EPA Strategic Plan. EPA Grants Policy Issuance 04-02

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

Explanation: Working with the States, , EPA is developing measures, targets and baselines. .

Evidence: Consolidated Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Guidance. FIFRA Project Officers Manual. (Example workplans negotiated by EPA regions and states are also available if requested. EPA Form 5700-33H.

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: Working with the States, EPA is developing more appropriate measures. The data received on EPA Form 5700-33H, resulting from annual regional/state negotiation demonstrate year-to-year progress on meeting overall inspection targets. Nevertheless, EPA is working towards a better set of annual measures, including an efficiency measure that is the ratio of effective inspections per dollar. This is a block/formula based program that supports a wide range of purposes and allows grantees generally to set their own program priorities. In the annual evaluation process (described elsewhere), grantees prepare a self-evaluation of their performance which is considered and used in EPA's evaluation.

Evidence: Consolidated Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Guidance. FIFRA Project Officers Manual. (Example workplans negotiated by EPA regions and states are also available if requested. EPA Form 5700-33H

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

Explanation: Targets , baselines, and measures are under development with the State partners. Currently, the cost baselines for measure comparisons are based upon experience from prior years. Similarly, the year-to-year data reported on Form 5700-33H provide baselines for next year negotiations of new measures and performance. Regional project officers are responsible for negotiating reasonable but ambitious outputs for grant dollars given to grantees.

Evidence: Consolidated Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Guidance. FIFRA Project Officers Manual. (Example workplans negotiated by EPA regions and states are also available if requested. EPA Form 5700-33H

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 partners are the state and tribal grantees and through the cooperative agreements and workplans commit to and (because the grantees under this formula-based grant ultimately set their priorities) generate the program goals. The grants and workplans tie performance to goals. EPA guidance includes procedures used to get partners to commit to, measure and report on performance related to goals, to the degree allowed by the grant restrictions. The partners and all pertinent Agency offices (OECA/OC and ORE, and OPPTS/OPP) collaborate in a variety of ways to monitor national grant program implementation, resolve issues, and ensure progress on grant program goals. In addition to regular conference calls, all participate in meetings of AAPCO and in doing committee work addressing particular issues. This office participates in SFIREG, which was organized to focus on and resolve specific issues. Underpinning these formal collaborative structures are numerous staff and/or management level workgroups.

Evidence: Consolidated Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Guidance. FIFRA Project Officers Manual. (Example workplans negotiated by EPA regions and states are also available if requested. EPA Form 5700-33H. See http://AAPCO.ceris.purdue.edu.

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: There has been nor evaluation of sufficient scope and quality to justify a yes answer, although the pesticide worker protection program, a significant component of the pesticide enforcement grant program, has been evaluated by the General Accounting Office. The program deficiencies identified by GAO have been corrected though a collaborative process involving all of the pertinent Agency offices in addition to state pesticide regulators. To further address GAO's comments, EPA internally reviewed regional offices program management. That review, in turn, ultimately identified specific additional actions to tighten management and address weaknesses. EPA has taken those actions (e.g. Project Officer training, updating of the worker protection inspection guidance). Additionally, grantees are subject to continuous evaluation based upon commitments they make in grant work plans. (See Program Management section).

Evidence: GAO Report, National WPS Inspection Guidance Workgroup Accomplishments and Summary of Revisions. U.S. EPA Worker Protection Standard Agricultural Inspection Guidance.

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: EPA budgets for this program by reviewing previous annual amounts and accomplishments, taking into consideration any changes in performance, policy and legislative changes. All spending categories and the resource levels and activities associated with them are included in the annual Congressional Justification and are fully transparent. Performance data are considered at every step in EPA's planning and budgeting process (i.e. developing the OMB submission, Congressional Justification, and annual Operating Plan and reporting our results in the Annual Report). EPA managers use up-to-date financial, policy, and regulatory information to make decisions on program management and performance. The Agency's financial information is integrated with performance and other program data to support day-to day decision making of managers and executives. EPA shares requested and final budget numbers with our partners.

Evidence: Annual Congressional Justification, Budget Automation System (BAS) reports. [EPA was selected as a government-wide finalist for the 2002 President's Quality Award in the area of budget and performance integration].

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

Explanation: See response to question 2.1 relating to new grant policy. We already have alerted our Regional Offices and partners that we intend to develop measures that will allow more effective achievement of long term and annual goals/targets.

Evidence: EPA Grants Policy Issuance 04-02. Consolidated Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Guidance.

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 pesticide enforcement grant program is a compliance monitoring and enforcement program. EPA works with grantees to develop work plans which include compliance monitoring and enforcement activities, which they commit to achieve during the period of the grant. Grants typically run for a one year period because the funds for this program are provided by Congress on a year-to-year basis. Pursuant to OECA grant program guidance, the Agency receives data on the number and type of inspections and resulting enforcement actions on a quarterly basis. Regions also conducts program evaluations two yearly. In addition there are weekly, if not daily contacts with grantees regarding pesticide compliance issues. Each program evaluation reviews grantees' progress in meeting work plan commitments. Should there not be adequate progress in meeting commitments, EPA will work with the grantee on a corrective action plan to improve performance. Should there continue to be poor performance, EPA may determine that it is in the best interest of the program to discontinue the cooperative agreement and no longer fund an entity's grant. In recent years this has happened with two tribal grant programs. As a part of the grant program, and within the framework outlined by program guidance pursuant to FIFRA and Strategic goals, EPA asks grantees to develop individual priority- setting plans. These plans are designed to focus compliance monitoring and enforcement efforts on those activities and problems that are of the highest priority to the state, territory, or tribe. This process is supplemented by periodic collective data review by the Agency and grantees together of the national picture provided by individual grantees. In this way, all program partners ensure that focus is being directed to high risk, high priority activities and concerns to most effectively advance program goals.

Evidence: Pesticide Program Cooperative Agreement Guidance, FIFRA Project Officers Manual

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: Everyone involved with the pesticide enforcement grant program is held accountable for their part of the program. Federal managers, both program administrators and grant managers, must ensure that funds are distributed in a timely manner and for the purpose of the program, and that an individual grantee's performance meets work plan expectations. Federal project officers are subject to these requirements by virtue of their annual performance agreements. Grantees likewise must ensure that funds are spent only for approved purposes and during the grant period. Grant agreements include conditions that specify performance requirements and mandate performance and progress reporting. Grantees are also responsible for achieving the results negotiated in the grant work plan. Regional offices review results with States in mid-and end-of-year meetings. Corrective action plans are used to improve performance.

Evidence: FIFRA Project Officers Manual. Project officer standards in performance agreements. Grant agreements with conditions. Results reports. (Latter three available upon request.)

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

Explanation: Prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the program develops an operating plan which reflects how it plans on spending its budget (as requested in the President's Budget). Resources are allocated by goal, objective, subobjective, program and object class. Programs then adjust the operating plan to reflect appropriated levels. EPA's budget and annual Operating Plan are aligned with the Agency's Strategic Plan and approved by OMB and Congressional Appropriations Committees. EPA works with grantees to ensure that their work plans reflect the Agency's Strategic Plan and Operating Plan and that recipient spending is consistent with the approved work plan. Each program office and grants management office conducts post-award monitoring of assistance agreements, including monitoring the draw-down of funds against grantee progress on work plan tasks and deliverables. This monitoring ensures that recipients are spending the funds designated to each program area for the intended purpose. All grantees are required to submit annual or more frequent financial status reports. EPA obligates the funding for this program as soon as it has an approved budget and an approvable work plan from the grantee.

Evidence: EPA's annual Operating Plan and Congressional Justification, EPA's Strategic Plan, Budget Automation System (BAS) data, EPA's Annual Report and Financial Statemetns, FIFRA Project Officers Mannual

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 collects data on inspection targeting efficiency (ratio of number of inspections resulting in some enforcement action to total number of inspections). The costs associated with a compliance monitoring and enforcement program can vary from state to state and among territories and tribes. It simply costs more to hire staff and run a program in a more urban setting than in a largely rural setting because of factors like cost of living. Additionally, different types of inspections incur different costs depending on complexity and time to complete. Competitive sourcing is not used because for the most part only one agency within state, territorial or tribal governments has the authority to regulate and enforce pesticide activities. That agency usually is the agency designated by the governor or other appropriate official as the lead for compliance and enforcement activities.

Evidence: FY 1999-FY 2003 FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System, Enforcement Actions Resulting from Inspections, Reporting Method: State & Cooperative Activity, Totals for National Activity.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (both the Office of Compliance and the Office of Regulatory Enforcement) collaborates and coordinates with the Office of Pesticide Programs to ensure that priorities for the compliance/enforcement and program sides of the program are shared. The results of this coordination is demonstrated in the joint Consolidated Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Guidance issued by OECA and OPP which serves as guidance for both federal grant programs (i.e., the pesticide enforcement grant program and the pesticide program grant). This joint guidance provides the grantees with an opportunity to see the priorities for the entire national pesticide program and how they mesh together, and results in a more cohesive grant work plan.

Evidence: Consolidated Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Guidance

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. 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. EPA received an unqualified audit opinion on its FY02 financial statements and had no material weaknesses associated with the audit. No control weaknesses have been reported to OECA as a result of an audit conducted on a pesticide enforcement grant. EPA's grants administration program and the regional pesticide offices have procedures in place to ensure that grant funds are utilized for their intended purpose. Evaluations of the grants are conducted frequently by the regional offices to ascertain that work plan commitments are being met and where necessary, corrective action plans are put in place.

Evidence: Annual Congressional Justification, Budget Automation System (BAS) reports, FIFRA Project Officers Manual

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

Explanation: We conducted an internal Agency review of our Regional Offices' program management of the worker protection component of the pesticide enforcement grant program. That review ultimately identified specific additional actions needed to be done by both Agency Headquarters offices and Regional offices to tighten management. We have taken those actions (eg. Project Officer training, updating of the inspection guidance). Project officer training is continuing and after data is received under the new guidance, we will evaluate the need for additional changes.

Evidence: Project Officer Manual. U.S. EPA Worker Protection Standard Agricultural Inspection Guidance

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

Explanation: As previously explained, the program has a variety of oversight practices that give the Agency detailed knowledge of grantee activities. There are mid and end-of-year evaluations, frequently conducted on the grantee's site. Such evaluations report on grantee's accomplishments vis-a-vis the work plan commitments. EPA staff accompany grantee inspectors and conduct oversight inspections. Grantees have been asked to develop priority setting plans, enforcement response policies, and other tools of a successful compliance and enforcement program. These have been shared with EPA and provide good insight. Finally, EPA has had a cooperative enforcement partnership with many of the state regulatory programs for more than 25 years, and, as a result, is in a position to have a thorough understanding of existing programs and genuine progress.

Evidence: FIFRA Project Officers Manual

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 data on inspections and associated enforcement actions from grantees. This data is compiled in a data base and disseminated back to grantees in an aggregated and disaggregated manner. Specific data concerning the high priority worker protection compliance program is being compiled and placed on Agency web pages. All data collected from grantees is available to the public.

Evidence: WPS Inspection and Enforcement Accomplishment Report. FIFRA Inspection and Enforcement Accomplishment Report.

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

Explanation: An overall goal of the pesticide enforcement cooperative agreement program is to achieve compliance with pesticide laws and regulations. The Agency and its regulatory partners used the funding provided by this grant program to further that purpose. Measuring progress in meeting the overall goal of compliance is a very difficult task. National and local priorities change, and the regulated community is vast. There are literally millions of pesticide users every year, all with the potential to misuse a pesticide. Even when the program focuses on high risk activities, such as the pesticide worker protection compliance program does, the complexity of the regulations and the size of the regulated community makes meaningful measurement difficult. Nevertheless, EPA and its pesticide regulatory partners are in their third year of collecting WPS specific inspection and enforcement data that is aimed at measuring progress in achieving compliance. Increases in compliance should lead to improved human health benefits through reduced exposure to pesticides.

Evidence: WPS Inspection and Enforcement Data and Analyses. NCDB/FTTS inspection and enforcement reports.

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

Explanation: Without baselines and targets, which are under development, progress can not be assessed.

Evidence: NCDB/FTTS inspection and enforcement reports

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

Explanation: Linkage between 3.4 and 4.3 drive this to "no". Program efficiencies are achieved through better coordination between EPA and its partners, and between OECA and OPP, clearer program direction and focus, and similar methods. The program has an inspection targeting efficiency measure (ratio of number of inspections resulting in some enforcement action to total number of inspections/dollar). The greater effectiveness and efficiency in inspection targeting should yield greater efficiency in the use of grant funds.

Evidence: FY 1999-FY 2003 FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System, Enforcement Actions Resulting from Inspections, Reporting Method: State & Cooperative Activity, Totals for National Activity.

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

Explanation: This grant program is unique in the variety of compliance monitoring and enforcement activities that take place under this program, driven by national and local priorities and conditions, coupled with the extremely large regulated community [millions of pesticide users, hundreds of thousands using highly toxic restricted use pesticides alone; hundreds of thousands of sale and distribution transactions each year]. The level of funding available for this program is small [less than $20 million] compared to EPA's other media program grants, yet the scope of monitoring achieved is significant, between 70,000-80,000 inspections per year. There are no other programs, federal or state, that regulate pesticide activities.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: Although each grantee's compliance program undergoes yearly evaluations to ensure that work plan commitments are met and the overall direction of the compliance program is in sync with the grantee's priority setting plan., these evaluations are not independent nor of sufficient overall scope to justify a "yes" answer.

Evidence: FIFRA Project Officers Manual