Compliance and EnforcementTransformation Steering Group

Kickoff meeting Jan 7, 2011

Steering Group Charter• Why are we here?

– To manage the large scale change initiative within C&E

• Keep focus on measures and results• Understand systems of work• Define key systems that deliver results• Ensure a focus on the customer• Adjust for political and management demands• Prioritize projects for changes to deliver results• Possible oversight of specific projects

– To formalize the group’s work into C&E’s continuous improvement system

Steering Group Charter

• The group will be successful if…

– selected projects address key systems; are supported by solid analysis, clearly showing why they are the priority; and especially how desired results are maximized.

– selected projects are realistic and feasible

C&E’s Transformation Framework• Need for change?

– burning platform• staffing, remaining problems getting harder, etc.

– desire to excel (Monitor article)– Miller’s notion of public service and giving

• How to change?– focus on results (demanded by stakeholders)– understand widgets, systems and customers– prioritize systems based on results– form effective teams to test, refine and deliver

projects • change must live within the bounds of stakeholder

expectations – employ proper change process and team tools

Change Concepts

We only get change in three ways:1. Improve a widget

2. Improve a process

3. Create a new process or widget

All change is affected by teams working on discrete projects, with deliverables and deadlines.

Widget:• Something created by work, which can be given to

someone else to achieve a desired outcome.

• Widgets must meet the following four rules:– Widgets are things – cars, permits, contracts, licenses, NOVs– Widgets are deliverables – rules, regulations, articles, pamphlets– Widgets can be counted – invoices, permits, vendor lists, meetings– Widgets are specific – inspection reports, training classes

• Widgets come in two types: those you can see such as reports, permits, licenses; and those that are invisible such as answers, meetings, assessments.

• Widgets are the link between our “factory” and our customers.

Systems:

Processes (including the inputs, suppliers, and employees who work in the processes) that produce widgets for customers in order to achieve some desired result or outcome.

Customers:

• End users of our widgets• The people we had in mind when we designed the

widget. • They will personally use the widget to achieve a desired

outcome. • There could be multiple customers who have competing

interests. • The customer is the link between our widgets and our

outcomes.

• Note that “the public” or taxpayers are only our customers when they use our widgets. More often our customers are those we regulate.

Investors or Shareholders: • The public, taxpayers

Stakeholders: • All those with an interest in our actions

and especially our success.

• These will include customers, employees and investors/shareholders/taxpayers.

What did the stakeholder meetings accomplish?

• Largely confirmed current strategic plan

• Authorized innovation in new directions

• Defined high-level results we must deliver

C&E’s widgets, systems and the results they lead to

A theory of the current situation:

What do we affect now to achieve environmental improvement?

If we were a business making money on environmental improvement, where would we

invest? Where are the opportunities?

no influence – out of state

limited influence – mobile sources

Small sources

Large sources

Reduction

over time

Universe of actors ++++++++++++++++

Universe of actors +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++++

Reductions possible through complianceHigh influence – limited potential

High influence and potential Reduction

over time

Reduc

tion

over

time

TOTAL IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENT

Data to understand the current situation:

Comparison of resource levels

Are we critically short, over-invested or in the middle

compared to other states?

FTE Per Title V Air Permit for Each State. (Redline represents the average for the combined states)

FTE per Title V Facility

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

FTE Per Major Clean Water Act (CWA) Permit for Each State.

(Redline represents the average for the combined states)

FTE per Major CWA Facility

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Miss

ouri

New M

exico

Alask

aIo

wa

South

Car

olina

Wyo

min

g

Mich

igan

New J

erse

y

Rhode

Isla

nd

Nebra

ska

Avera

ge

FTE per total RCRA Facilities (TSDF, LGQ, SGQ)

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0.045

0.05

Nebras

ka

Rhode

Islan

d

Arizona

New Jers

ey

Mich

igan

Wyo

ming Io

wa

South

Car

olina

Alaska

New Mexic

o

State

Data to understand the current situation:

Analysis of time investment as reported in NJEMS

Where do we spend most of our time? What does this say about

key systems?

2009 C&E time investment from NJEMS by Activity Class

Prescribed Enforcement Action

NJPDES Sampling

Standard Compliance Inspection

Submittal Review

Stewardship Review

Compl. Assist. (program specific)

Data Compliance Review

HW/SW Sampling

Investigations (Central File)

Investigations (incident screen)

Negotiated Enforcement Action

Batch Enforcement Action

Brief Compliance Inspection

Compl. Assist. (Multi-media)

Data to understand new efforts:

Analysis of compliance rates and stewardship.

What is the compliance value of stewardship?

2009 Compliance Rates of Stewards vs. Non-stewardsUsing published, inspection-based, compliance rate report

76.00%

78.00%

80.00%

82.00%

84.00%

86.00%

88.00%

90.00%

Stewardship Sites with aPolicy

All Stewardship Sites Non-stewardship Sites

Percent of checklist requirements found In Compliance (IC) in 2009for: Air; Hazardous waste; Solid Waste; Water Quality; Water Supply

In Compliance

66.00%

68.00%

70.00%

72.00%

74.00%

76.00%

78.00%

80.00%

Stewardship Sites with aPolicy

All Stewardship Sites Non-stewardship Sites

Percent of checklist requirements found Out of Compliance (OC) in 2009

for: Air; Hazardous waste; Solid Waste; Water Quality; Water Supply

Out of Compliance

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

Stewardship Sites with aPolicy

All Stewardship Sites Non-stewardship Sites

What next?

• More data for analysis? • Discussions with customers?

• Key systems decided • Form more focused teams (one per

system)• Teams evaluate and refine projects• White paper on each recommendation