Workshop on State and EPA Tools and Strategies for Implementing Performance-based Programs

“Using Performance Partnership Agreements and Grants to Institutionalize and Fund State Leadership Programs”

Jack Bowles, EPA

January 23, 2006

Indicators Initiative

Report on the

Environment

Performance

Partnership

Grants

& State Grants

Information ExchangeNetwork

Performance

Measures

The Environmental Delivery System: Partnering for Results with States, Tribes, and Local Governments

Performance

Partnership

Agreements

EPA Strategic

Plan

State & Local

Innovation

Better Protected LandCleaner Air, Purer Water

Regional

Plans

EffectiveOversight

VisionAchieve environmental results through performance-based partnerships that focus on agreed-upon priorities andtake best advantage of the unique capacities of each partner

The Principles• Maintain core level of environmental protection• Make continuous environmental improvements• Plan together based on mutual environmental goals• Allocate resources to highest priorities while ensuring fiscal

and programmatic accountability (PPGs)• Use mix of environmental indicators and program measures• Facilitate public understanding• Tailor oversight based on state performance

The National Environmental Performance Partnership System

• Four pilots in 1995 to create administrative savings give states flexibility to achieve greater environmental results.

• Appropriations authority and Agency guidance in 1996. Codified in EPA’s grant rules in 2001.

• States and tribes can combine up to 19 categorical grants into one multimedia grant.

• PPGs and categorical grants are subject to the same administrative requirements

• Now EPA’s largest state program grant. In FY 05:– About 30% ($346 million) of state program grant funds were awarded in

PPGs. – Around 70 PPGs have been awarded in 50 States and territories, mainly to

environmental and agriculture agencies.• PPGs and Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs) are two key

tools for driving results in state grant agreements.• States have used flexibility at the margin – demonstrated benefits have

been anecdotal and mostly qualitative.• The major issue facing PPGs is same as for all state grants –

demonstrating results and linking clearly to EPA’s strategic plan.

PPG History and Highlights

Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs)

Flexibility to Address Priorities

Partnership principles are built into the EPA’s grant rule governing all state andTribal environmental program grants; the rule provides for a range of flexibility

All State/Tribal Program Grants

• Link program activities to program outcomes and environmental goals• Provide some flexibility to direct resources to state/tribal priorities within a program

Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs)

• Allow states/tribes to combine up to 19 categorical program grants into a single multi-program grant • Provide flexibility to achieve maximum environmental results.• All PPGs provide administrative flexibility and reduced costs

• Streamlined paperwork and accounting procedures• Composite match requirements rather than by individual program• Easier funding of cross-cutting and multi-media projects

• In the most flexible use of a PPG, a state/tribe can increase efforts in some program areas and decrease them in others based on need; or fund innovative programs to maximize environmental results.

26 32 30 31

48

5 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1997 2000 2003 2004

State Environmental Agencies

2434 33 39

16

23 2929

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1997 2000 2003 2004

State Agriculture Agencies

Trends in Performance Partnerships1997-2004

Performance Partnership Grants

Performance Partnership Agreements

Distribution of State and Tribal Assistant Grant FundsFY 2004

CW State Revolving Fund,

$1,342

Categorical funds (PPG-eligible),

$1,168

DW State Revolving fund,

$845

Congressional Projects, $327

All Other, $195

35%

22%

30%

8%5%

$3,877 Million Total

In FY 04, About 30% ($326 million) of categorical grant funds were awarded in PPGs.

Grants Included in Performance Partnership GrantsState Environmental & Agriculture Agencies

FY 2004

the average # of grants combined in environmental agency PPGs has remained stable at 6-7

Total # of PPGs = 68

3666

530

242020

1817

1411

99

777

22

292929

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Water CWA 106Pest. Prog. Implmt.Pest. Enforcement

Pest. Appl. Cert. & TrainAir CAA 105

Haz Waste SWDA 3011aUndergnd Water SDWA 1443b

UST SWDA 2007(f)2Drinking Water SDWA 1443a

Water NPS CWA 319Water Qual. CWA 104(b)3

Toxics Comp. TSCARadon TSCA 306

Pollution Prev. PPA 6605Lead-based Paint TSCA 404g

Wetlands CWA 104(b)3Sector (Comp./Enf.)

Brow nfileds CERCLA 128aEnv. Info. Ex. Netw ork

Use of Flexibility in Performance Partnership GrantsState Environmental Agencies FY 2004

39

16

11

17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Administrativeflexibility

Cross-cuttingprojects/initiatives

Shifts from onemedia to another

media

Shifts among grantprograms in a single

media

Total PPGs = 39

MS – used funds from CAA 105, CWA 106, RCRA enforcement to conduct multi-media inspections in high priority watersheds

CO – used funds from multiple programs to supplement PWSS program to provide emergency support to water systems impacted by forest fires/drought

NH- tapped water grants to fund increasing wetlands work, and the lakes program, which had lost funding

NE - used excess state air & water funds to meet state match for RCRA, which had

insufficient state funds

• It makes a difference whether one includes innovation language in the strategic section of a PPA or the body of a state grant workplan.

• Non-workplan PPAs (or the non-workplan sections) do not usually have binding commitments.

• PPG and categorical workplans usually commit the state (and sometimes Region) to certain outputs or outcomes.

• For states and regions that are developing innovation programs, inclusion in just the PPA or other joint priorities document could be a useful approach.

• For more mature efforts, developing grant outputs and outcomes may be appropriate, and could provide the innovation with access to core program funding.

• Innovation commitments could be stand-alone, or integrated into core program workplan commitments.

PPAs, State Grants, and Innovation

Individual Media Program Grants

Individual Media ProgramGrants/ Some type of anagreement with the RA

PPA/PPG with lessup-front flexibility

PPA/PPG with high flexibility,multimedia focus (R8, CO)

Higher Chance of Success

Lower Chance of Success

! Mostly output measures

! Single Media, Stovepipe

! Only commitments with STAG$ have a chance

! PT/PB programs last in line toget $

! Media turf issues greater atFederal level

! Greater number of outcomemeasures

! PT/PB Programs are often givenhigher priority for funding

! States can more easily negotiate w/EPA to fund PB programs

! States work out their own turf issues

Characteristics

Likelihood that Integration Workgroup Recommendations on PT and Performance Leadership Programs Will Be Implemented Based on Type and Characteristics of Grant Agreements

Characteristics

Range of Flexibility in State Grants

PPGs and State Grants: Institutionalizing Innovation

• The need to demonstrate results and show links to EPA’s strategic goals is changing state grants – common templates, core performance measures and workplan components.

• These changes can provide an opportunity to better institutionalize and fund innovation programs in PPAs, PPGs, and categorical program grants.

• For Innovation programs to be included successfully in grant workplans, they likely will have to demonstrate results comparable or even superior to core or base program activities.

• We need the common currency (measures) or the conversions (functional equivalence) that will enable success. . .