# Presentation: 741975

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

*Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, ORD*

**Introduction to ORD**

## Overview

- ORD Role, Mission, and Profile
- Organizational Structure and Locations
- ORD Strategic Planning
- Performance Management
- Summary

## U.S. EPA

- Administrator
- Deputy Administrator

- Assistant Administrator
- for Air and Radiation

- Assistant Administrator
- for Water

- Assistant Administrator
- for Solid Waste and
- Emergency Response

- Assistant Administrator
- for Prevention, Pesticides,
- and Toxic Substances

**Assistant Administrator**
**for Research and**
**Development**

- Assistant Administrator
- for Enforcement and
- Compliance Assurance

- Assistant Administrator
- for International Affairs

- Assistant Administrator
- For Environmental
- Information

- Assistant Administrator
- for Administration and
- Resources Management

- Office of the Chief
- Financial Officer

- Office of General
- Counsel

- Office of Inspector
- General

- Region 1
- Boston

- Region 2
- New York

- Region 3
- Philadelphia

- Region 4
- Atlanta

- Region 5
- Chicago

- Region 6
- Dallas

- Region 7
- Kansas City

- Region 8
- Denver

- Region 9
- San Francisco

- Region 10
- Seattle

**U.S. EPA**
**Organizational**
**Chart**

## ORD Role

**EPA Mission:**
-    Protect human health and safeguard
-    the natural environment – air, water, land –
-    upon which life depends.

**PROGRAM OFFICES**
- (Air, Water, Waste, Pesticides/Toxics)

- Policies,
- Regulations

- Congressional
- deadlines

**OFFICE OF **
**RESEARCH AND **
**DEVELOPMENT**

**National**
**Decisions**

**Scientific Foundation**

**REGIONAL OFFICES**
- Primary interface with states

**Implementation**

## ORD’s Mission

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

**ORD’s Mission**

## ORD Profile

- 1858 full time equivalents*
- $551.3 million budget*
- $55 million extramural research grant program*
- 13 labs, research facilities, and offices
- Credible, relevant, and timely research results
- Technical support that inform EPA policy decisions
- 	          	           * FY09 Revised President’s Budget Level

## ORD Organization

**Immediate Office**
**of the Assistant Administrator**
- George Gray, Assistant Administrator & Agency Science Advisor
-  Lek Kadeli, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Management
- Kevin Teichman, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science

**Office of Resources**
**Management and **
**Administration**
- Howard Cantor (Acting)

**Office of Science **
**Policy**
- Fred Hauchman

**National**
**Risk Management**
**Research Laboratory**
- Sally Gutierrez

**National Center for**
**Environmental**
**Research**
- Bill Sanders

**National Homeland**
**Security Research**
**Center**
- Jonathan Herrmann

**National Center for**
**Computational**
**Toxicology**
- Robert Kavlock

**National Center for**
**Environmental**
**Assessment**
- Peter Preuss

**National Health and**
**Environmental Effects**
**Research Laboratory**
- Hal Zenick

**National Exposure**
**Research Laboratory**
- Larry Reiter

**Office of the **
**Science**
**Advisor**
- Pai-Yei Whung

**               ****National Program Directors**
-   Air:  Dan Costa
-   Drinking Water:  Audrey Levine
-   Water Quality:  Chuck Noss
-   Endocrine Disruptors:  Elaine Francis
-   Pesticides and Toxics:  Elaine Francis
-   Land:  Randy Wenstel
-   Human Health:  Sally Darney (Acting)
-   Ecosystem Protection:  Rick Linthurst
-   Global Change/Mercury:  Joel Scheraga

**Notes:**
Provided detailed explanation of roles and responsibilities.

## ORD Locations

**Cincinnati, OH**

- Narragansett, RI

**Research Triangle**
**Park, NC**

- Athens, GA

- Las Vegas, NV

- Duluth, MN

**Washington, DC**

- Gulf Breeze, FL

- Ada, OK

- Corvallis, OR

- Edison, NJ

- Newport, OR

- Grosse lle, MI

## How ORD Evolves its Research Program

**NPDs**
- Decide _What_ Research Area-Specific Work We Do and _When_ We Do It

*      **Planning the Program*

**Decision Inputs**
- Programs and Regions (RCTs)
- EPA Strategic Plan
- Administration’s priorities
- Congressional mandates
- BOSC Reviews
- SAB, NAS, other external advice
- Stakeholders
- NPDs, SC, MC, EC

**ORD Executive Council**
- _Corporate_ Decisions on
*          **What We Do* . . .       and* . . .         **How We Do It*

**Evaluation**
- Program and Regional Office Feedback
- BOSC Program Evaluations
- NAS, NAPA, and other advisory bodies
- PART Reviews

*   **Implementing the Program*

**L/C Directors**
- Decide _How_ ORD Produces its Research Products

**NPDs**
- Responsible for _Communicating_ Products to Clients

**L/C Directors**
- Responsible for** **_Developing_ ORD’s  Research Products

## Implementing an ORD Evaluation Framework

**Implementing an ORD ****Evaluation Framework**

**Research**
**Activities**

**Research**
**Outputs**

**Short-Term**
**Outcomes**

**Mid-term**
**Outcomes**

**Long-Term**
**Outcomes**

**Resources**

**Strategic Goals**

**Strategic **
**Objectives**

**Research Program**** **

**Environmental Outcomes**
** ****& Results**

** ****Partners **

_**Independent Expert Evaluation:**_*   *
_**Focus**_**:****	****Outcome-oriented progress; R&D investment criteria**
_**Evidence**_**:**  	**MYPs; synthesis products; performance data; partner feedback**
_**Attribution**_:  	**Sphere of influence that includes ORD and EPA  Partners **

** ****Policy**
**Development**

## ORD’s Strategic Planning Activity

**ORD’s National Program Directors**
- Annually develop strategic research directions for their research programs, reflected in Multi-Year Plans
- Identify areas of growing, as well as decreasing, research emphasis
- Inform annual research planning and budgeting efforts
**Multi-Year Plans (MYPs)**
- Planning & accountability tools that address EPA’s high-priority science questions
- Provide information to assist and support research decisions
- Demonstrate how ORD program contributes to Agency strategic goals
- Communicate research internally and externally (see www.epa.gov/ord/npd)
**Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)**
- Assigns a qualitative performance rating and provides a summary assessment of progress on each program’s long-term goals
- Rating incorporates elements of relevance, quality, and program performance (*i.e.*, Research and Development Investment Criteria, as identified in the President’s Management Agenda) as they relate to research outcomes

## Multi-Year Plan Elements

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

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

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

## Cross-Program and Program-Targeted Research

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

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

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

## BOSC Program Evaluations

- Help answer the questions:
- Are we doing the *right science?*
- Are we doing the *science right?*
- Provide guidance for evolving the research/assessment program
- Provide evidence for OMB evaluations using the Performance Assessment Rating Tool

## Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)

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

## R&D Criteria

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

## R&D Criteria:  Relevance

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

## R&D Criteria:  Quality

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

## R&D Criteria:  Performance

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

## Summary

- ORD seeks input from many sources to enhance and evolve its research program
- BOSC program evaluations are one of the most important inputs
- Your review of ORD’s Human Health Research Program will be of great value, and is much appreciated