Detailed Information on the
EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Criminal) Assessment

Developing a baseline and targets for the outcome measure, pounds of pollutants reduced, that is characterized as to risk.

Created standardized definitions (completed) and merging databases from within the agency to allow easier implementation and evaluation of measures.

Developing baselines and targets to measure recidivism.

Measure: Pounds of pollution reduced treated or eliminated

Explanation:The aggregate amount of pollution reduced, eliminated or treated, characterized as to risk.

Measure: Change in behavior to use Improved Management practices.

Explanation:This measure indicates the long term success of the enforcement program in expanding the use of improved environmental management practices to promote long term compliance.

Measure: Reduction in recidivism

Explanation:This measures a change in behavior and shows effectiveness of enforcement effort.

Measure: Change in behavior to use Improved Management practices.

Explanation:Indicates annual progress in meeting long term goals.

Measure: Pounds of pollution reduced, treated or eliminated

Explanation:To be characterized as to risk. The target and baselines will be developed in FY 2006

Measure: Reduction in recidivism

Explanation:Measures change in criminal behavior.

Measure: Pollutant Impact

Explanation:

Measure: Lbs. Of Pollutant Reduction per FTE

Explanation:Pollutant reductions/FTE need to ensure that the temporal relationships of outcome to resource use is aligned.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The core purpose of EPA's Criminal Enforcement Program is to conduct criminal investigations of violations that represent egregious conduct and that cause or threaten significant harm to human health and the environment, and to refer cases to the Department of Justice or states for criminal prosecution. Criminal enforcement is the only enforcement mechanism available for prosecuting non-regulated entities. Congress has charged EPA with primary responsibility for enforcement of statutory provisions and added criminal enforcement authorities to most major environmental statutes and mandated levels of investigative resources and enforcement training capability. The program conducts investigations in priority areas of potential criminal non- compliance, maintains expert investigative, forensic, scientific, technical, and legal components for case support, develops a highly skilled national enforcement workforce through training, and develops partnerships with other units of government. The program gained two new responsibilities following September 11, 2001. First, it assists the FBI and other federal agencies in the investigation of environmentally-related threats to homeland security. Second, it provides physical protection to the EPA Administrator. The program purpose is articulated in the Agency's Strategic Plan, the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training (OCEFT) Strategic Plan, the OECA Mission Statement and the 1990 Pollution Prosecution Act (PPA).

Evidence: EPA 2000 Strategic Plan (EPA 190-R-00-002) Goal 9; EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan (EPA-190-R-03-003);Citations to Regulatory Authority (Appendix C, EPA Strategic Plan); OCEFT Five Year Strategic Plan, 2002-2006; 1990 Pollution Prosecution Act, P.L. 101-593, Presidential Decision Directive 39, June 21 1995; Management Review of the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training, December 15, 2003, pps. 35-36

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

Explanation: Congress has charged EPA's criminal enforcement program with the nationwide responsibility to lead criminal enforcement of federal environmental laws. No other component of the federal government has this mission. EPA's criminal enforcement program investigates all manner of environmental crime, with emphasis on the Agency's priorities. Besides covering the universe of regulated pollution sources, the program also addresses illegal behavior by entities that operate 'outside' of the formal regulatory system, e.g., so-called 'midnight dumpers' and other non-permit holders whose activities are more difficult to detect and oversee. Unlike civil enforcement, criminal enforcement carries the potential sanction of incarceration. Therefore, criminal enforcement is generally reserved for willful and deliberate violations, as well as those which have the most potentially serious consequences for human health and the environment that cannot easily be addressed through civil enforcement, e.g., data fraud or false reporting. Congress recognized this specific need for expanding EPA's criminal Enforcement program through the enactment of the 1990 Pollution Prosecution Act (PPA), which authorized 200 criminal investigators. The program also supports the Agency's civil enforcement goals. Directly, the National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) provides inspection and technical support for complex civil enforcement cases that result in millions of pounds of pollutant reduction. Indirectly, the criminal program supports compliance assistance and compliance incentives goals, since criminal sanctions provide substantial incentives for regulatees to voluntarily comply with the law.

Evidence: Regulatory citations (Appendix C, EPA Strategic Plan); 1990 Pollution Prosecution Act (P.L.101-593)

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

Explanation: EPA's criminal enforcement program has a unique role in the enforcement of the nation's environmental laws. Unlike its civil counterpart, criminal enforcement is not delegated to States, so primary responsibility for criminal enforcement of federal environmental law rests with EPA. The cases often contain general criminal code (Title 18) violations (e.g., mail fraud, conspiracy, witness tampering) in additional to environmental violations. The EPA criminal enforcement program has unique expertise to investigate and prosecute traditional environmental crimes, as well as emerging areas such as cyber crime. The criminal enforcement program is also uniquely qualified among EPA programs to train state, local, and tribal investigators in the skills needed to investigate environmental crimes, many of whom then can become partners in federal investigations. Following the recommendation of the December 15, 2003 OCEFT management review, most of the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) will be reassigned to OECA's Office of Compliance, although the law enforcement training component at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center will remain in OCEFT. The criminal enforcement program also provides investigative, technical, and legal support to the federal government's homeland security efforts.

Evidence: Presidential Decision Directive 39; Criminal Enforcement Addendum to the 'Revised Policy Framework on State/EPA Agreements;' 1990 Pollution Prosecution Act. Management Review of the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training, December 15, 2003, page 34.

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

Explanation: EPA's criminal enforcement program, through its structure, organization, and procedures, focuses on environmental crimes that either constitute a significant threat to human health or the environment or that most clearly demonstrate criminal intent. The program conducts analyses of enforcement and compliance data to identify risk-based trends and patterns of noncompliance that warrant criminal enforcement investigation and uses this information, along with tips from the public and confidential informants and referrals from the civil enforcement program, to target the program's investigative resources. In conducting these investigations, Special Agents rely on the technical expertise of the NEIC, the nation's only nationally accredited environmental forensics center, to collect and analyze forensic evidence of environmental crimes. The criminal program has Special Agents located in 47 offices across the country, who work with or are members of federal/ state/local task forces. Congress has vested EPA's special agents with the full array of law enforcement powers required to effectively discharge their mission (See 18 U.S.C. § 3063). DuringFY 2003, two reviews of the criminal enforcement program were conducted ' an audit by the EPA Office of Inspector General and the management reviewed onducted by OECA. These reviews identified organizational, operational, and management changes to enhance the effectiveness of the organization, and OCEFT has developed an action plan with timelines for implementing these recommendations. Some of the major ones currently underway include: determining how best to deploy its criminal investigators, who are currently working in 47 offices nationwide; improving communications with the regional enforcement offices by having a single Special Agent in Charge (SAC) as the primary point of contact for each region; reviewing current case screening practices on a region-by-region basis.

Evidence: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report (EPA 190-R-03-001) and December 15, 2003 OECA Press Release on FY 2003 Enforcement Accomplishments for examples of specific criminal cases and activities;Memorandum from the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance: Operating Principles for an Integrated Enforcement and Compliance Assistance Program, November 27, 1996; Memorandum from the AA, OECA on Smart Enforcement, April 15, 2003; Management Review of the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training, December 15, 2003; Congressional Request on EPA Enforcement Resources and Accomplishments, Office of the EPA Inspector General, Report 2004-S-00001, October 10, 2003, page 25; and OCEFT Action Plan Summary for Implementation of the Management Review, April 16, 2004.

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

Explanation: The EPA criminal enforcement program focuses its resources on the most serious federal environmental crimes and builds partnerships with state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. The program has a formal policy and criteria for determining when a violation warrants a criminal, rather than civil, enforcement response. 'Case screening'committees meet in each EPA region to decide whether a violation should be addressed via criminal or civil enforcement, and a workgroup has been established to recommend additional enhancements to the case screening process. The criminal program also has expanded its participation in the OECA bi-annual MOA Strategic Planning and Priority Setting to promote more effective integration between the criminal and civil enforcement programs and to ensure that the criminal program supports the Agency national priority enforcement areas, e.g., children's health and environmental justice. This targeting of investigative resources ensures that, on the whole, the strongest cases against the worst violators are developed and prosecuted, maximizing both the specific and general deterrence that naturally results from criminal enforcement of the environmental laws. The criminal enforcement program also receives regular feedback on investigations and case development from the Regional State Enforcement Associations, the Environmental Crimes Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Attorneys' Offices. The criminal enforcement program also helps State, local, and tribal governments, which often lack formal criminal environmental enforcement programs. For example, EPA Special Agents serve on Federal/state/local Law Enforcement Coordinating Committees (LECCs) and Task Forces across the country and develop local strategic plans that highlight community-based environmental enforcement priorities. The criminal program's expertise has been used to support the federal government's Homeland Security efforts following September 11, 2001, e.g., its National Counterterrorism Evidence Response Team (NCERT) provided investigative and forensic support at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Hart Senate Office Building (anthrax investigation), and designated National Security Special Events in FY 2002 and FY 2003.

Evidence: See U.S. EPA Annual Reports for FY 2002 and FY 2003 for examples of priority or sector-specific criminal enforcement initiatives; 'The Exercise of Investigative Discretion in Criminal Enforcement,' January 12, 1994, eps. pps 3-6; Fiscal Year 2002/3 MOA Guidance; Presidential Decision Directives 39, 62, and 63; Assistant Administrator's Memorandum on 'Smart Enforcement,'April 15, 2003.

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 criminal enforcement program supports and contributes to the two long-term compliance performance measures identified under Goal 5 (Compliance and Environmental Stewardship) of EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan. In addition another new measure, a change in behavior as measured by a reduction in recidivism, is under development. Under Objective 1 (Improve Compliance) those two long term measures are: 1) pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated; and 2) the change in behavior of regulated entities (percentage of regulated entities) that make improvements in their environmental management practices. Pollutant reduction is an end outcome and environmental management practices is an intermediate outcome on EPA's measures hierarchy. Both measures are aggregate ones which includes contributions from concluded civil and criminal enforcement actions. Finally the new recidivism measure tracks the impact of deterrence upon long-term compliance.

Evidence: EPA Strategic Plan: 2003-2008 (EPA-190-R-03-003); see esp. Goal 5, Objective 1, page.111.

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

Explanation: The targets for the long-term performance measures contained in the Agency 2003-2008 Strategic Plan are; 1) a 5% increase in the pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated, and 2) a 5% increase in the number of regulated entities making improvements in environmental management practices. Both these targets are not sufficiently ambitious and fall within the normal range of variation. Setting of baselines and targets must be the next priority. The time frame for both of measures is the five year period ending in FY 2008. As identified in the Strategic Plan, baselines will be set for these measures in FY 2005. Though five percent is not a large percentage increase, it does result in a significant contribution in absolute terms. It should also be noted that a five percent increase in pollution reduction may be more difficult to reach for the criminal enforcement program than its civil counterpart since many criminal enforcement cases are 'after the fact' prosecutions that apply sanctions (i.e., fines, incarceration), but do not reduce or remediate pollution which has already entered the environment (e.g., cases involving CFC smuggling, illegal asbestos removal, false reformulated gasoline, lab data fraud, etc.). That is why the criminal enforcement program is developing a companion measure of pollution impact (see accompanying Measure Implementation Plan). The targets are also ambitious given the case-dependent nature of the program's outcome measures, the concomitant fluctuation in results from one year to the next, and the resulting difficulty in making long term forecasts.

Evidence: EPA Strategic Plan: 2003-2008 (EPA-190-R-03-003); see esp. Goal 5, Objective 1, p.111.

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 annual performance measures both directly and indirectly support attainment of the long term measures. For example, the current pollution reduction measure will be revised as feasible to incorporate a risk-based approach (e.g., hazardous or exposure) by employing the same methodology being developed by the civil enforcement program. In addition to the annual measure, pounds of pollutants reduced, the program is currently developing two new intermediate annual outcome measures and one new output measure. One of the new outcome measures, the number of criminal enforcement cases which require a change in behavior by improving environmental management practices, will reflect the criminal enforcement program's contribution to the long term measure to produce a 5% increase in the number of regulated entities making improvements in environmental management practices by 2008. The other new annual measures are level of recidivism among criminal violators (intermediate outcome) and pollutant impact. These new measures are under development. In addition, there is an annual efficiency measure of pounds of pollutants reduced/FTE .

Evidence: OECA FY 2003 Press Release on Accomplishments, December 15, 2003; OCEFT Five Year Strategic Plan, pages 6-7; OCEFT December 15, 2003 Management Review, pages 60-61; Attached OMB Measures Implementation Plans

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

Explanation: Currently, the targets are not sufficiently ambitious. However, new measures, targets and baselines are being developed that are expected to contain more ambitious targets. To date, the criminal enforcement program uses as a baseline or target either the previous years performance (e.g., the annual number of criminal enforcement investigations opened) or an average of the previous three years performance (e.g., annual amount of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated). Normally, the three year average is used for measures that are more case-specific and, therefore, can vary widely from year to year. However, targets and baselines for the recidivism, pollutant impact, and environmental management improvement measures are still under development. The program expects the baseline and targets to be developed for the baseline and targets for its new recidivism and improved environmental management measures in in FY 2006; and targets and baselines for the pollutant impact measure will be developed in FY 2007.

Evidence: FY 2002 OECA Accomplishments Report; OECA FY 2003 Press Release on Accomplishments, December 15, 2003; Attached OMB Measures Implementation Plans

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

Explanation: A limited amount of funding goes to "partners". The partners all cooperate in the overall goals of criminal enforcement, which result in reduction of pollution and contamination. Some 'partners' are recipients of cooperative agreement funds; others cooperate with the criminal enforcement program on environmental crimes. The program provides cooperative agreements to the four State Regional Associations, whose members are state law enforcement agencies with an emphasis on criminal enforcement. Funds are used for training to enhance state environmental enforcement. The organizations report their training statistics to EPA annually. States and tribes participate in EPA's biannual development of national enforcement priorities, an essential tool for deciding which cases will be jointly prosecuted by EPA and its non-federal partners in support of EPA's enforcement goals. EPA Regions also support criminal enforcement priorities through the biannual MOA process. EPA's criminal enforcement Special Agents serve on federal/state/ tribal/ local Law Enforcement Coordinating Committees (LECCs), which investigate national and local criminal enforcement priorities.

Evidence: U.S. EPA Annual Reports, FY 2002 and FY 2003 ; Criminal Enforcement Case Conclusion Report Data; EPA Region I-X FY 2002/2003 MOA's

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: As previously noted, during FY 2003, major reviews or evaluations of the criminal enforcement program were conducted by the EPA Office of Inspector General and OECA. Those reviews covered the major components of the criminal enforcement program, including its field structure, management operations, deployment of personnel, statutory and policy responsibilities, personnel policies, and the methods used to measure, report and demonstrate the results of the criminal enforcement program. These reviews were more comprehensive and in-depth than any previous reviews. A number of specific recommendations from these reviews are currently being implemented to enhance program performance and management. In addition to these reviews, in FY 2002, The National Enforc. Investigations In Center (NEIC), the criminal enforcement program's scientific and forensics division, was formally granted accreditation by the National Forensic Science Technology Center (NFSTC) after an intensive 3-year process. In 2003, NEIC received the next step in accreditation by being certified in the international standard for quality management in testing facilities. NEIC is the first forensics environmental center in the country to be granted this accreditation for environmental measurement (field measurement/ monitoring , field sampling and laboratory measurements) and overall forensic activities (evidence management, facility security, witness testimony).

Evidence: NFSTC Accreditation letters and certificates of March 2003 and January 2001; NEIC receipt of Excellence in Government Quality Improvement Award for 2002 from the Denver Federal Executive Board; OCEFT Memorandum on Office Assessment Program (OAP), January 3, 2003. Management Review of the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training, December 15, 2003; Congressional Request on EPA Enforcement Resources and Accomplishments, Office of the EPA Inspector General, Report 2004-S-00001, October 10, 2003; and OCEFT Action Plan Summary for Implementation of the Management Review, April 16, 2004.

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 criminal enforcement program is aligned with EPA's Strategic Plan and requests are tied to both annual and long-term performance measures. Within Goal 5, resources are allocated by objective, sub-objective, and object class . The resources supporting the Criminal Enforcement Program are also tracked as a key program in the budget formulation process. The Agency estimates and budgets for the full annual costs of operating its programs, taking into consideration any changes in funding, policy, and legislative changes. All spending categories and the resource levels and activities associated with them are included in the annual Congressional Justification. 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. Finally, the Agency's financial information is integrated with performance and other program data to support day-to-day decision making by managers and executives. To give one example, the program will use its proposed new measure on prosecutorial acceptance by DOJ to analyze trends regarding the characteristics (environmental media, nature of violation, area of country where violations arise, etc.) of cases that are ultimately prosecuted. This will enable the program to target its resources in areas that are most likely to result in real world environmental and health benefits as a result of successful prosecutions. The program also will analyze the utility of this measure as an additional criminal enforcement program efficiency measure.

Evidence: EPA Annual Congressional Justification; Budget Automation System (BAS) reports; OCEFT Operating Plans; 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: The criminal enforcement program is addressing strategic planning deficiencies identified in the OCEFT management review. The program has created a performance measures workgroup which has recommended additional outcome and output measures to senior management. Those measures ' both for external GPRA and internal management use -- have been accepted. The criminal program also has expanded its participation on the Agency's Enforcement Planning Council and in the OECA strategic planning process and is reassessing its case screening procedures to ensure that its operations are better integrated with and reflect Agency enforcement and compliance priorities. In 2002, criminal enforcement senior program managers published a five-year Strategic Plan to articulate the program's mission and its vision for implementing it. It covers the major areas of: criminal investigations; scientific, forensic, and legal case support; developing a skilled national criminal enforcement workforce through training; and expanding partnerships with other EPA program offices as well as other units of government. The plan will be updated in FY 2005 to reflect some of the new strategic directions of the organization. OCEFT and the Office of Compliance are also discussing ways to share and integrate the criminal and civil enforcement data systems to enhance targeting and long term compliance monitoring.

Evidence: Management Review of the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training, December 15, 2003; OCEFT Action Plan Summary for Implementation of the Management Review, April 16, 2004;Congressional Request on EPA Enforcement Resources and Accomplishments, Office of the EPA Inspector General, Report 2004-S-00001, October 10, 2003; OCEFT Five Year Strategic Plan, FY 2002-2006; U.S. EPA 2002 Annual Report; Enhanced Criminal Program Case Report System

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: Every week, the Special Agents-in-Charge (SAC) in criminal enforcement program offices throughout the country prepare and submit activity reports, called Projected Activities and Agenda Reports, that inform headquarters of upcoming activities, significant judicial and investigative developments in criminal investigations, and describe and update significant cases, including indictments, arrests, please, trials, and sentences. The reports provide budget details and reflect current statistical data. The Area Offices also must provide HQ with copies of case reports for all active Criminal Investigation Division (CID) cases every two months ((less frequently after defendants have been charged or if the case is on appeal). Headquarters receives and processes the Area Office's formal requests for prosecutive support of CID cases. These requests, which are sent to United States Attorneys, contain detailed descriptions of the cases and legal analyses prepared by the Regional Criminal Enforcement Counsel. Much of this 'real time' information is entered into The Criminal Docket System (CRIMDOC), a criminal case management, tracking and reporting system which contains information about criminal cases investigated by CID (from their inception as opened investigations through prosecution and conclusion). CRIMDOC also identifies those cases that are related to homeland security or counter- terrorism. The system administrator performs regularly scheduled quality assurance/quality control checks of the CRIMDOC database to validate data and to evaluate and recommend enhancements to the system. A new case management, tracking and reporting system (Case Reporting System or CRS), with greater tracking, management, and reporting capabilities, is currently being developed that will replace CRIMDOC. The system is expected to be fully on line by the end of FY 2004. This new system will also contain the relevant information for OCEFT's homeland security activities and reporting requirements.

Evidence: OCEFT Projected Activities and Agenda (PAAR) Reports (one example of PAAR report included); OCEFT Criminal Docket System (CRIMDOC) and enhanced Case Report System scheduled for completion by end of FY 2004.

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: Performance standards for Federal managers are based on program goals and managers are evaluated on whether they have achieved program goals. Bonuses and awards reflect program accomplishments. Project Officers for contracts work closely with Contracting Officers to ensure that all billings and work products are on schedule, within budgetary limitations, and meet contract requirements. In addition, upcoming procurement requirements are being reviewed to identify ones that can be structured as performance-based service contracts. They will contain clear, specific, and objective standards with measurable outcomes to evaluate contractors' performance and will increase the burden and the cost risk of contract performance from the government to contractors. Project Officers on grants and cooperative agreements work closely with Grants Specialists and Award Officials to ensure grantees make progress on projects, perform work consistent with work plans, and costs expended are appropriate, fair, and reasonable.

Evidence: SES Performance Management System; Memorandum: OECA Post-Award Assistance Management Plan, January 8, 2004; Contract and grant award spending plans. Performance Standards for Grants management Memorandum, Nov. 2003; Performance Standards for OCEFT individuals with Contract, Grant and/or IAG Management Responsibilities (OCEFT Memorandum, January 20, 2004)

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

Explanation: Prior to the start of the fiscal year, the program develops a spending plan by activity based on the President's Budget request. Resources are allocated by goal, objective, sub-objective, and object class and are aligned with EPA's Strategic Plan. Adjustments are made to reflect changes in the enacted appropriation. Fund transfers between program objectives in excess of Congressionally established limits require Congressional notification and/or approval. Obligations and expenditures are tracked in the Agency's Integrated Financial Management System against the Operating Plan. Status of funds are monitored on a monthly basis with reports to management. In FY 2003, the program obligated over 99% of expiring funds. EPA works with grantees to ensure that their work plans reflect the Agency's Strategic Plan and Operating Plan and the 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 of draw-down of funds against grantees progress on work plans and deliverables. The 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.

Evidence: EPA's Annual Plan and Congressional Justifications; Memo: Budget Automation System Reports; Agency and OCEFT Operating Plan Guidance; OCEFT Operating Plans and Monthly Status Reports; Carryover data for FY 2003 shows minimal balances in expiring accounts.

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: Most of the criminal enforcement program's extramural resources are spent via simplified acquisitions, cooperative agreements, and interagency agreements. For simplified acquisitions, program staff work with Agency procurement officials who follow the Federal Acquisition Regulations and EPA Acquisition Regulations to ensure competition and best price. For requirements where technical quality and other factors are more important than price to achieve program results, a 'best value' approach is used to evaluate and select vendors/contractors. Under such an approach, evaluation criteria such as past performance of a contractor, are established before solicitation of offers. In procurement requirements that can be structured as performance-based contracts, consideration is being given to use of incentives to induce contractors to provide better quality performance..In FY 2002 EPA implemented a grants competition policy (EPA Order 5700.5) that promotes competition in the award of grants and cooperative agreements to the maximum extent practicable, thereby allowing a fair and open process for sources to obtain financial assistance. Through the competitive process, a wider audience of organizations is reached and encouraged to submit applications and provides a greater base from which to select the ones with the most meritorious proposals. Where authority is provided, Interagency Agreements promote the economy and efficiency of government by utilizing the programs of other federal agencies specifically designed to provide these services (i.e. Public Health Service, Treasury's Federal Law. However, competitive sourcing has not been applied.

Evidence: OECA Post Award Assistance Management Plan, Dec. 30, 2002.; Contract and grant spending plans.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: EPA's criminal enforcement program is unique; it is the only law enforcement program in the country that focuses on environmental crimes with a national jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the program collaborates effectively with other federal investigatory agencies and prosecutorial agencies (e.g., the offices of the U.S. Attorneys and the Environmental Crimes Section at the Department of Justice) that have complementary missions and responsibilities regarding specific aspects of environmental law. Examples include: EPA's cooperative efforts with the U.S. Coast Guard on prosecutions of the Cruise Line Industry for illegal dumping of wastewater and hazardous materials at sea; cooperation with HUD on prosecutions of violations of the lead paint disclosure rule; and EPA's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Customs Service regarding joint investigations of illegal cross-border movements of hazardous wastes and CFCs. EPA also has extensive cooperative efforts with other federal agencies regarding Homeland Security. For example, EPA's criminal program participates in the Department of Justice's National Joint Terrorism Task Forces, and, under Presidential Decision Directive 39, supports the FBI in the event of a terrorist attack. EPA's criminal program also provides counter terrorism support at National Security Special Events when requested by the U.S. Secret Service. The EPA criminal enforcement program also works closely with the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) on international environmental crimes, e.g., by obtaining international criminal histories on suspects and defendants and setting up a training program on the use of international criminal enforcement tools. EPA's criminal program also works closely with the District of Columbia's Environmental Crimes Task Force. Under the Agency's recently articulated 'Smart Enforcement' Approach, the criminal enforcement program is also expanding its relationships with the civil enforcement program (e.g., through enhanced case screening procedures) in determine the most efficient and appropriate way to resolve violations and achieve the best environmental result.

Evidence: U.S. EPA Annual Accomplishment Reports, 2002-2003; Criminal Investigations Division Annual Report, 2002; Presidential Decision Directives 39 ( June 21, 1995), 62 (May 22, 1998), and 63 (May 22, 1998); Memorandum from the AA, OECA on Smart Enforcement, April 15, 2003

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. EPA has a system of controls and accountability, based on GAO and other principles, to ensure that improper payments are not made. EPA trains staff to ensure that they understand requirements for invoice review and the financial aspects of program objectives. EPA received an unqualified audit opinion on its FY 2002 financial statements and had no material weaknesses associated with the financial audit. EPA is taking steps to meet the new accelerated due dates for financial statements. The OIG's January 2003 report on improper contract payments concluded that the number of improper contract payments found is minimal and EPA appears to provide high quality and accurate contract payments. EPA provides guidance and directives on resource operations and management for each fiscal year. The "Advice of Allowance Letter" provides specific information on the current operating plan, budget ceilings, reprogramming limitations, Congressional limits and directives, unliquidated obligations, and recertification guidance. During the fiscal year, OECA updates its subobjective descriptions, which guide where spending will be charged based on the type of work being performed, and holds quarterly status of funds meetings with the AA on resource spending issues.

Evidence: The resource policies can be found at: http://intrasearch.epa.gov/ocfo/policies.; Annual Congressional Justification; Budget Automation System (BAS) reports; Unqualified audit opinion on EPA FY 2002 financial statements, Fiscal Year 2002; Advice of Allowance Letter; OIG's January 26, 2003, Final Status Results on The Review of Improper Payments at EPA.

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

Explanation: OECA continuously reviews policies, procedures, and guidance to assure that they support Agency and OECA goals and objective. During FY 2002, OCEFT worked with EPA's Quality Staff to implement changes to the OCEFT Quality Management Plan, (QMP) and the program conducted QMP-related training and began QMP implementation. The NEIC was granted accreditation from the National Forensic Science Technology Center, confirming that NEIC implements a recognized and systematic approach to planning, conducting, documenting, and assessing forensic and environmental data collection activities. Per FMFIA, the criminal enforcement program performs an annual program review and identifies proposed areas of material weakness for consideration by OECA's Assistant Administrator. In FY 2003, none of the criminal enforcement program's recommended material weaknesses were forwarded by OECA for Agency level review; however, the program has continually sought additional resources from the Agency and redirected available base resources to begin addressing areas of concern. As part of the FY 2003 FMFIA reporting process, OCEFT improved management of assistance agreements, long an Agency vulnerability.OCEFT's percentage of post award monitoring reviews far exceed Agency policy. As the result of OCEFT's activities, along with those of other OECA offices, OECA received an Excellence in Grants Management Award. The 2003 OCEFT Management Review identified some management weaknesses that needed to be addressed, particularly in the areas of internal communications and personnel policies. The criminal enforcement program is currently implementing the recommendations in these areas, e.g., it is drafting a new hiring, promotion and reassignment policy in order to both attract, develop and retain the highest quality workforce and to ensure a positive work environment consisting of open communication, equal opportunity and fair treatment of all employees.

Evidence: OCEFT Management Review Executive Summary and April 14, 2004 Action Plan for Implementation ; FMFIA Annual Review Process;OCEFT Quality Management Plan ;NEIC Accreditation; FY2003 Year End Report and Assurance Letter, FMFIA" August 1, 2003; Memo " Announcement of Excellence in Grants Management Program Awards," April 14, 2003.

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

Explanation: The EPA's criminal enforcement program has produced some measurable results and adequate progress for the long term goal of reducing, treating or eliminating pollution during the last several years. For fiscal years 2002-3, the criminal enforcement program reduced 60.5 million lbs. of pollution through its concluded actions. As noted above, this amount deals only with pollution formally 'reduced' and does not include the pollution impacts of enforcement cases. Both the criminal enforcement program and the civil enforcement program are currently looking at existing Agency models or templates to characterize the risk associated with pollution reduction. The criminal program is currently developing its annual measure relating to environmental management improvements by regulated entities, so it cannot demonstrate long term progress towards meeting this goal at this time. In FY 2005, the criminal program will begin internal tracking of the other long-term goal of a 5% increase in proved environmental management practices by 2008 and will report externally beginning in FY 2007.

Evidence: FY 2002 EPA Annual Report, pps. 105-108; FY 2003 EPA Annual Report, pps. 99-101; December 15, 2003 Press Release on Enforcement Accomplishments (data supplied by OCEFT Case Conclusion Reporting System and CRIMDOC); Attached Measure Implementation Plans

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

Explanation: Under Goal 9 of the Agency's former (2000) Strategic Plan, the criminal enforcement program contributed to the enforcement-wide pollution reduction measure [Pounds of pollution required to be reduced through enforcement actions settled this year. Goal: 300 million pounds Actual' 600 million pounds (criminal enforcement contribution 40 million pounds)]. The program also achieved its homeland security-related APG in FY 2002 and FY 2003 (Goal 100% response Actual 100% response in both FY 2002 and FY 2003) and its annual targets for initiating criminal investigations in FY 2002 and FY 2003 (Criminal Investigations:. Goal 400 in both FY 02 and FY 03; Actual: 481 in FY 02 and 458 in FY 03). As noted in question 2.3, the target for the number of criminal investigations may be revised after FY 2005, consistent with the OCEFT Management Review recommendation that the program emphasize more "complex" cases. Since the program will be bringing additional annual measures "on line" over the next several years (pollution impact, prosecution acceptance rate, recidivism, etc.), these measures can also be used to help develop new targets for the number of criminal investigations in addition to enabling the program to better demonstrate its progress in meeting both its short-term and long-term compliance and enforcement goals.

Evidence: EPA FY 2002 Annual Report pps.II-99 to II-103; OECA December 15, 2003 Press Release on FY 03 Accomplishments(data supplied by CRIMDOC and Case Conclusion Report Analyses)

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

Explanation: The current criminal enforcement program efficiency measure is pollutant reductions per FTE. This measure can vary, since annual results are based upon the universe of cases that are concluded within a given fiscal year. The results are: FY 2002: 77,651 lbs; FY2003: 153,787 lbs. This efficiency measure is an internal measure ' not an external APG or PM, and no annual target is developed for it . During FY 2004, OCEFT will be developing additional internal management measures, including those which might be appropriate as future efficiency measures, e.g., percentage of cases accepted for prosecution by DOJ.

Evidence: CRIMDOC and Case Conclusion Report System; OCEFT Five Year Strategic Plan, FY 2002-2006; Measure Implementation Plan for Prosecution Acceptance Rate for Referrals; Measure Implementation Plan for Pollution Reduction

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

Explanation: The EPA criminal enforcement program is the only national environmental crime enforcement program mandated by Congress . EPA Special Agents are fully-authorized federal law enforcement officers, like their counterparts in other federal law enforcement agencies, and agents receive basic criminal enforcement training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia. Nevertheless, the EPA criminal enforcement program does not function as a local police force. Instead, it specializes in the investigation of environmental crimes, which are often legally and technically complex. While there are other federal law enforcement agencies who jurisdictions overlap with EPA in some areas (e.g., U.S. Coast Guard ), and EPA's criminal enforcement program also investigates general criminal conduct under Title 18 of the U.S. Code if such violations are associated with environmental crimes, the other law enforcement agencies have regulated universes that do not generally align with the regulated universe of entities covered by the environmental laws under EPA's jurisdiction. This makes valid comparisons between EPA's criminal enforcement program and other federal law enforcement difficult. Nor do most states have comprehensive environmental crime law enforcement components, so comparisons with the states are not valid. There is no comparable private sector program.

Evidence: Citations to Regulatory Authority (Appendix C, EPA Strategic Plan); 1990 Pollution Prosecution Act, P.L. 101-593.

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

Explanation: The reports, while acknowledging activities that are performing, found many items that required change. The IG Report raised some questions about its management operations and whether the criminal enforcement program has been stretched too thin over the last several years, the audit stated that 'Despite management problems, CID (the criminal investigations division) is carrying out its mission to investigate criminal violations of the environmental statutes' (page 25). The OCEFT Management Review concluded that the criminal enforcement program had become too insular in its culture and that it needed to better integrate its operations with the Agency and Regions. The Review recommended a series of actions to improve program operations, the large majority of which are currently being implemented. As opposed to these Agency-based reviews, it would be unusual for an outside entity to do a complete audit of a law enforcement organization, given the need for maintaining the enforcement confidentiality of files and case-related material. As previously noted, however, in Section 2, Question 6, the investigations conducted by EPA are analyzed by the Department of Justice during the referral process and there has been an independent evaluation of the program's forensic component through the NFSTC's accreditation of NEIC.

Evidence: Management Review of the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training, December 15, 2003; Congressional Request on EPA Enforcement Resources and Accomplishments, Office of the EPA Inspector General, Report 2004-S-00001, October 10, 2003, page 25; and OCEFT Action Plan Summary for Implementation of the Management Review, April 16, 2004. NFSTC Accreditation letters and certificates of March 2003 and January 2001; NEIC receipt of Excellence in Government Quality Improvement Award for 2002 from the Denver Federal Executive Board;