Application of Comparative Risk to Strategic Planning and Budgeting at the U.S. EPA. J. M. Greenblott and M. S. Brody, Office of Planning, Analysis and Accountability, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M. Street, S.W. (2722), Washington, DC 20460
This presentation provides an overview of the context and methodology of a preliminary comparative risk analysis for strategic planning and budgeting at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The application of comparative risk to EPA’s strategic planning has received increased attention due to several recent developments, including a new Planning, Budgeting, Analysis and Accountability (PBAA) process within EPA, the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), recommendations of the National Academy of Public Administration and Congress, and the likelihood that future budgets will require the Agency to make difficult strategic decisions about its priorities, strategies, and use of resources. Both GPRA and PBAA are intended to facilitate goal setting, performance-based budgeting, accountability and outcome-oriented management at EPA. A significant result of the PBAA process has been the development of a structure of goals, objectives, and sub-objectives that organizes all EPA activities and resources around intended results. In this structure, the sub-objective is a common currency for planning, budgeting, and accountability. It is necessary to be able to objectively analyze and compare sub-objectives to provide useful information for setting priorities and making resource decisions. As a result, quantitative and qualitative comparative methodologies for human health, ecological, and quality of life risks are having an increasingly important role in informing decisions on EPA’s priorities, evaluating program performance, and improving program management and effectiveness.
Go to . . .