Supporting Statement A and B_Facilitated Meeting Services 33200007_07 25 08

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
(PART A AND B)

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST
for the
Evaluation of the Facilitated Meeting Services
(Control Number 3320-0007, Expiring 09/30/2008)

The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

July 22, 2008

Table of Contents
A. Justification .................................................................................................................... 3 
1. Circumstances that Make the Collection of Information Necessary. ....................... 3 
2. How, by Whom, and for What Purpose the Information is to Be Used. .................. 5 
3. Collection Technology .............................................................................................. 5 
4. Duplication................................................................................................................ 5 
5. Impact on Small Businesses or Other Small Entities................................................ 5 
6. Consequences of Not Conducting Collection ........................................................... 6 
8. Federal Register Notice............................................................................................. 7 
9. Payment/Gifts to Respondents .................................................................................. 7 
10. Confidentiality Protocols .......................................................................................... 7 
11. Justification of Questions of a Sensitive Nature ....................................................... 7 
12. Hours Burden of the Collection of Information ........................................................ 7 
13. Estimate of Total Annual Cost Burden ..................................................................... 9 
14. Annualized Costs to the Federal Government ........................................................ 10 
14a. Total Capital and Start-Up Costs ..................................................................... 10 
14b. Total Operational and Maintenance and Purchase of Services Component.... 11 
15. Reasons for Program Changes/Adjustments........................................................... 11 
16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication ...................................................................... 11 
17. Display Of Expiration Date For OMB Approval .................................................... 11 
18. Explanations to "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions".......... 12 
B. Collections of Information Employing Statistical Methods ......................................... 12 
1. Respondent Universe and Sample Size/Selection Methods.................................... 12 
2. Procedures for the Collection of Information ......................................................... 12 
2a. Statistical Methodology for Stratification And Sample Selection ....................... 12 
2b. Estimation Procedure ......................................................................................... 12 
2c. Degree of Accuracy Needed for the Purpose Described in the Justification...... 12 
2d. Unusual Problems Requiring Specialized Sampling Procedures ....................... 12 
2e. Periodic Data Collection to Reduce Burden....................................................... 12 
3. Testing Procedures .................................................................................................. 12 
4. Statistical Consultants ............................................................................................. 12 
Appendix A. Statutes and Regulations Authorizing the Collection of Information ......... 15 
Appendix B. Facilitated Meeting Evaluation Design Overview ...................................... 26 
Appendix C. Public Comments in Response to the First Federal Register Notice ........... 29 

2

A. Justification
1. Circumstances that Make the Collection of Information Necessary.
The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (the U.S. Institute) is a
federal program established by the U. S. Congress to assist parties in resolving
environmental, natural resource, and public lands conflicts. The U.S. Institute was
created by the Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Act of 1998 (P.L. 105156) and is part of the Morris K. Udall Foundation, an independent federal agency of
the executive branch overseen by a board of trustees appointed by the President. (A
copy of P.L. 105-106 is included Attachment 1.) The U.S. Institute serves as an
impartial, non-partisan institution providing professional expertise, services, and
resources to all parties involved in such disputes, regardless of who initiates or pays
for assistance. The U.S. Institute helps parties determine whether collaborative
problem solving is appropriate for specific environmental conflicts, how and when to
bring all the parties to the table, and whether a third-party facilitator or mediator might
be helpful in assisting the parties in their efforts to reach consensus or to resolve the
conflict. In addition, the U.S. Institute maintains a roster of qualified facilitators and
mediators with substantial experience in environmental conflict resolution, and can
help parties in selecting an appropriate neutral. (See www.ecr.gov for more
information about the U.S. Institute.)
Program evaluation is necessary for the achievement of the U.S. Institute’s goals – to
resolve federal environmental disputes in a timely and constructive manner; to
increase the appropriate use of ECR; to improve the ability of federal agencies and
other interested parties to engage in ECR effectively; and to promote collaborative
problem solving and consensus building during the design and implementation of
federal environmental policies so as to prevent and reduce the incidence of future
environmental disputes. Effective program evaluation will provide information on
how well these functions are performed, and will stimulate improvement in
performance as needed. Furthermore, the Government Performance and Reporting
Act (GPRA) requires all Federal agencies to report annually on their performance by,
in essence, answering the following questions: What is your program or organization
trying to achieve? How will its effectiveness be measured? How well is it meeting its
objectives? (A copy of the relevant part of GPRA is included in Attachment 1.)
The U.S. Institute began the program evaluation process by articulating its mission in
terms of desired outcomes for its programs. Standards are being established for each
outcome, and information will be collected and interpreted to measure performance in
relation to the standards. Achievement of the standards can then be tied to activities
and staff responsibilities. This is the framework envisioned by GPRA for all federal
agencies. Properly designed and implemented, program evaluation will assist the U.S.
Institute in continually improving the delivery of its services and products.
The U.S. Institute’s evaluation plan focuses on measuring the articulated program
outcomes. Information will be collected from a variety of sources for use in judging

3

the degree to which the outcomes are achieved. Key sources of information are users
of the U.S. Institute’s services and others involved in U.S. Institute projects.
Gathering information on observations and experiences of these people and their
satisfaction with the U.S. Institute’s services is accomplished by administering
questionnaires. Some information about the U.S. Institute’s programs can be obtained
without administering questionnaires (e.g., the number of facilitated meetings handled
by the U.S. Institute). However, to evaluate the quality of the U.S. Institute’s services
and the many aspects of success in building consensus or resolving disputes (reaching
agreements being but one), administering questionnaires is essential.
The U.S. Institute has partnered with several agencies to allow the benefits of the
program evaluation system to be realized more broadly. In 2003, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center (CPRC)
was granted the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to act as a
named administrator of the U.S. Institute’s currently approved information collections
for evaluation. The CPRC and the U.S. Institute are seeking approval as part of this
proposed collection to continue this evaluation partnership. In addition, the U.S.
Institute is seeking to add the Department of Interior, Office of Collaborative Action
and Dispute Resolution (CADR) as a second named administrator under this proposed
collection. Other agencies have approached the U.S. Institute seeking (a) evaluation
services and (b) assistance in establishing their own internal evaluation systems.
Therefore, the U.S. Institute is requesting OMB approval to administer the evaluation
questionnaires on behalf of other agencies. The U.S. Institute is seeking approval to
make minor conforming revisions to questionnaires to allow for the broader
application of the instruments (e.g., change return address on cover).
The burden estimates in this information collection request (ICR) take into
consideration the multi-agency usage of the evaluation instruments. The broad interest
in the U.S. Institute's evaluation system has fostered an evaluation collaborative
among several state and federal agencies. The sharing of evaluation resources and
expertise is advantageous on several fronts: (a) design and development efforts are not
duplicated across agencies; (b) common methods for evaluating collaborative
processes are established; (c) knowledge, expertise and resources are shared, realizing
cost-efficiencies for the collaborating agencies; and (d) learning and improvement on a
broader scale will be facilitated through the sharing of comparable multi-agency
findings.
As part of its overall program, the Institute facilitates discussions and policy dialogs
on a broad range of topics related to collaborative problem solving and environmental
conflict resolution. Institute staff and contractors facilitate and provide leadership for
these meetings, ranging from small working groups to large public meetings of several
hundred attendees.
The Institute’s evaluation of its Meeting Facilitation program area will provide the
basis for improving and enhancing meeting facilitation services. Since the facilitated
discussions and policy dialogs are often of national importance, increasing the
effectiveness of these discussions and dialogs can help achieve the Institute’s core
mission of improving environmental decision-making, resolving environmental
conflicts more effectively, and reducing the incidence of future disputes.
4

2. How, by Whom, and for What Purpose the Information is to Be Used.
One questionnaire will be administered to the meeting attendees at the conclusion of
the meetings. Attendees will be asked to evaluate the facilitator and the effectiveness
of the meeting process. Design details of the program evaluation system are contained
in Attachment B.
The information collected by the U.S. Institute to-date has been used to comply with
the Government Performance and Results Act. The U.S. Institute is required to
produce an Annual Performance Plan (Performance Budget), linked directly to the
goals and objectives outlined in the U.S. Institute’s five-year Strategic Plan. The U.S.
Institute is also required to produce an Annual Performance and Accountability
Report, evaluating progress toward achieving its performance commitments. Results
of evaluating each of the U.S. Institute’s program areas have and will be included in
its Annual Performance Reports. Simple summaries and tabulations of information
will be used. In addition, the evaluation results will be made available to wide
audiences of program administrators, users, practitioners, and researchers who are
interested in learning what factors most influence successful outcomes in specific
situations. The U.S. Institute's evaluation partners will make similar use of the
evaluation information collected.
3. Collection Technology
The questionnaires will be administered in person at the conclusion of each facilitated
meeting. Electronic administration would modestly reduce respondent burden, but
may not always be practical given that respondents may not have computer or internet
access at meeting sites.
4. Duplication
No other source currently exists that can be used to obtain information on the quality
of facilitated meeting services.
5. Impact on Small Businesses or Other Small Entities
Although some of the attendees of the facilitated meeting sessions will be small
entities, many will be government employees and individuals. Moreover, the total
number of expected respondents per year is estimated to be relatively small – less
than 3,150 per year – and the financial burden to be modest – approximately $4.50
per respondent.

5

6. Consequences of Not Conducting Collection
Evaluation of the facilitated meeting services would not be possible without the
information that can be obtained only by administering questionnaires to users (e.g.,
facilitated meeting attendees). Only descriptive information about the facilitated
meeting services is available from other sources (e.g., the number of meetings and the
number of attendees). Such information cannot be used as a surrogate for service
quality, and cannot substitute for information obtained through surveys of attendees.
With respect to the frequency of information collection, the information will be
collected only once for each event.

7. Special Circumstances of Information Collection
This ICR does not require respondents to:
•
•
•
•

report information to the Agency more often than quarterly,
prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days
after receipt of a request,
submit more than an original and two copies of any document, or
retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid or
tax records, for more than three years.

Nor will information be collected in a manner:
• connected with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and
reliable results than can be generalized to the universe of study,
• requiring use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and
approved by OMB,
• requiring a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority
established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and
data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which
unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible
confidential use, or
• requiring proprietary, trade secret or other confidential information unless the
Agency can demonstrate that it has procedures to protect the information's
confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

6

8. Federal Register Notice
A comprehensive Federal Register Notice was published on March 20, 2008. It
opened a 60-day public comment period. The notice described in detail the need for
and use of the information. The notice also provided access to copies of the proposed
questionnaires via the Institute’s website:
http://ecr.gov/Resources/EvaluationProgram.aspx
In late July 2008, a second Federal Register Notice was published to announce that the
U.S. Institute forwarded seven information collection requests to OMB. The second
notice opened a 30-day public comment period.
One comment was received in response to the 60-day public comment notice. This
comment expressed concern about the funding of the Morris K. Udall Foundation and
the U.S. Institute generally (Appendix C). This comment did not provide any specific
feedback on the evaluation instruments or the burden estimates pertaining to the
instruments.
9. Payment/Gifts to Respondents
The collection of information does not provide any payment or gift to respondents.
10. Confidentiality Protocols
It is U.S. Institute policy to disclose information collected from the process/project
participants only in summary fashion (e.g., project-level reports). Social Security
numbers, company tax identifiers or other personal or specific organizational
identifiers will not be requested as part of the evaluation.
In the event of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the U.S. Institute takes
the general position that information that could lead to identification of respondents,
or the invasion of the personal privacy of individuals about whom evaluation
information is collected, are exempt from disclosure under the personal privacy
exemption (5. U.S.C. 552(b)(6)). The use of the personal privacy exception is subject
to passing a balancing test to determine if the public interest in disclosure outweighs
the personal privacy interest. FOIA requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
11. Justification of Questions of a Sensitive Nature
This information collection request (ICR) does not involve collecting any information
of a sensitive nature or any information commonly considered private.
12. Hours Burden of the Collection of Information

7

Burden means the total time and financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This
section focuses on the time to read instructions and answer questions on the
appropriate questionnaire. Hour burdens are then monetized using fully burdened
labor rates for appropriate occupations derived from Bureau of Labor Statistics tables
(U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation”, Table 2: Civilian Workers, by Occupational and Industry
Group – September, 2007. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm).
The following table is based on several assumptions:
ƒ

105 facilitated meeting sessions will be evaluated each year on average.

ƒ

Each case will involve an average of 30 participants.

ƒ

The total number of responses will average 3,150 per year

ƒ

The average cost per respondent per is $4.50.

The time estimates to complete each questionnaire are based on experience with prior
information collection authorized under OMB control number 3320-0007 (Expiring
09/30/08).

8

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
Respondent Burden and Cost (Annualized)
Facilitated Meeting Services (3320-0007)
Annual
Number
of
Cases

Agency

Average
Number of
Respondents
per Case

Annual
Number
of
Responses

Average
Minutes
per
Response

Annual
Number
of
Minutes

Annual
Number
of
Hours

Labor
Rate Per
Hour
($)

Annual
Cost
($)

6

4,500

75

45

3,375

6

11,700

195

45

8,775

2,700

45

45

2,025

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
Participant - end of
process

25

30

750

U.S. EPA Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center
Participant - end of
process

65

30

1,950

U.S. DOI Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution
Participant - end of
process

15

Total

105

30

450

6

3,150

315

13. Estimate of Total Annual Cost Burden
There are no capital or start-up costs.

9

14,175

14. Annualized Costs to the Federal Government
14a. Total Capital and Start-Up Costs
Evaluation of the Facilitated Meeting Sessions
Agency Cost - Start-up (One-Time Costs)
Position
Management
Program Manager
Administrative Staff

Activity
Oversight
Design and
Management
Administrative
Support

TOTAL

Total
Hours

Labor Rate
per Hour

5
20

$95
$62.50

8

$18

33

Cost
$475
$1,250
$144
$1,869

The costs above reflect total start-up costs for the U.S. Institute and its evaluation
partners (i.e., agencies acting as named administrators of the U.S. Institute's evaluation
instruments and agencies contracting with the U.S. Institute for evaluation services).

10

14b. Total Operational and Maintenance and Purchase of Services Component
Evaluation of Facilitated Meetings - Agency Cost (Annualized)
Questionnaire/Activity

Administer Questionnaires
Attendees End of Process
Data Entry Verification
and Data Cleaning
Attendees End of Process
Analysis and Reporting
Case-level Reporting
Program-level Reporting
Oversight
Program Manager
Management
Supplies
TOTAL

Minutes per
Questionnaire

Number of
Questionnaires

Total
Hours

Labor
Rate per
Hour

Cost

4

3,150

210

$18

$3,780

2

3,150

105

$18

$1,890

N/A

N/A

40
10

$18
$62.5

$720
$625

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

5
2

$62.50
$95

$313
$190
$100
$7,618

The costs in the table above are average annual operational and maintenance costs for
the next three years once the evaluation system is operational. The estimate includes
costs for the U.S. Institute and its evaluation partners (i.e., agencies acting as named
administrators of the U.S. Institute's evaluation instruments or agencies contracting
with the U.S. Institute for evaluation services).
15. Reasons for Program Changes/Adjustments
The annual burden has decreased in terms of the number of responses and the annual
number of hours for this collection.
16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication
To comply with the Government Performance and Results Act, agencies are required
to produce an Annual Performance Plan (Performance Budget), linked directly to the
goals and objectives outlined in the agencies five-year Strategic Plan. The agencies
are also required to produce an Annual Performance and Accountability Report,
evaluating progress toward achieving its performance commitments. Results of
evaluating facilitated meetings will be included in the agencies Annual Performance
and Accountability Report. Simple summaries and tabulations of information will be
used.
17. Display Of Expiration Date For OMB Approval

11

The OMB approval number and expiration date will be displayed on each evaluation
questionnaires.
18. Explanations to "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions"
This collection of information is in full compliance with the provisions of the
"Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions"
B. Collections of Information Employing Statistical Methods
1. Respondent Universe and Sample Size/Selection Methods
All facilitated meeting services provided with the assistance of the U.S. Institute will
be evaluated. An overall response rate over 70% is expected given that respondents
will be asked to complete the evaluation questionnaire in person at the conclusion of
the facilitated session. Since all (100%) of the U.S. Institute facilitated meeting
services will be evaluated, sample selection methods are not applicable. With respect
to other agencies acting as a named administrator of the U.S. Institute's information
collections, no attempt will be made to generalize the initial evaluation results. (For
collections conducted previously under control number 3320-0007, an overall
response rate above 70% was experienced.)

2. Procedures for the Collection of Information
2a. Statistical Methodology for Stratification And Sample Selection
2b. Estimation Procedure
2c. Degree of Accuracy Needed for the Purpose Described in the Justification
2d. Unusual Problems Requiring Specialized Sampling Procedures
2e. Periodic Data Collection to Reduce Burden
This section is not applicable as detailed in Section B(1) above.
3. Testing Procedures
Experience with the previously approved collection (3320-0007 expiring 09/30/2008)
provided the opportunity to extensively assess and improve on the previous version of
the evaluation design, instruments, administration, data entry and data processing
procedures.
4. Statistical Consultants
Agency Contact:
Patricia Orr

12

Program Evaluation Coordinator
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
520-670-5658
520-322-9918

13

List of Appendices
Appendix A. Statutes and Regulations Authorizing the Collection of Information
Appendix B. Facilitated Meeting Evaluation Design Overview
Appendix C. Public Comments in Response to the First Federal Register Notice

14

Appendix A. Statutes and Regulations Authorizing the Collection of Information
1. Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Act
2. Government Performance and Reporting Act

15

[DOCID: f:publ156.105]
[[Page 8]]
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION ACT OF 1998
[[Page 112 STAT. 9]]
Public Law 105-156
105th Congress
An Act

To amend the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National
Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992 to
establish
the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to
conduct environmental conflict resolution and training, and for other
purposes. <>
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress <> assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT <>

TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Policy and Conflict
Resolution Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Section 4 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in
National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992
(20
U.S.C. 5602) is amended-(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and (7) as
paragraphs (5), (9), (7), and (8), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) the term `environmental dispute' means a dispute or
conflict relating to the environment, public lands, or natural
resources;'';
(3) by inserting after paragraph (5) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(6) the term `Institute' means the United States
Institute
for Environmental Conflict Resolution established pursuant to
section 7(a)(1)(D);'';
(4) in paragraph (7) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by
striking ``and'' at the end;
(5) in paragraph (8) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by
striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
(6) in paragraph (9) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))-(A) by striking ``fund'' and inserting ``Trust
Fund''; and
(B) by striking the semicolon at the end and

16

inserting a period.
SEC. 3. BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
Section 5(b) of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in
National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992
(20
U.S.C. 5603(b)) is amended-(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) of the second
sentence, by striking ``twelve'' and inserting ``thirteen'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
[[Page 112 STAT. 10]]
``(7) The chairperson of the President's Council on
Environmental Quality, who shall serve as a nonvoting, ex
officio member and shall not be eligible to serve as
chairperson.''.
SEC. 4. PURPOSE.
Section 6 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in
National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992
(20
U.S.C. 5604) is amended-(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``an Environmental
Conflict Resolution'' and inserting ``Environmental Conflict
Resolution and Training'';
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) establish as part of the Foundation the United States
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to assist the
Federal Government in implementing section 101 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331) by providing
assessment, mediation, and other related services to resolve
environmental disputes involving agencies and instrumentalities
of the United States; and
``(9) complement the direction established by the President
in Executive Order No. 12988 (61 Fed. Reg. 4729; relating to
civil justice reform).''.
SEC. 5. AUTHORITY.
Section 7(a) of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in
National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992
(20
U.S.C. 5605(a)) is amended-(1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Institute for environmental conflict
resolution.-``(i) In general.--The Foundation shall-``(I) establish the United States
Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution as part of the Foundation;

17

and
``(II) identify and conduct such
programs, activities, and services as
the Foundation determines appropriate
to
permit the Foundation to provide
assessment, mediation, training, and
other related services to resolve
environmental disputes.
``(ii) Geographic proximity of conflict
resolution provision.--In providing assessment,
mediation, training, and other related services
under clause (i)(II) to resolve environmental
disputes, the Foundation shall consider, to the
maximum extent practicable, conflict resolution
providers within the geographic proximity of the
conflict.''; and
(2) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``and Training '' after
``Conflict Resolution''.
SEC. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND.
(a) Redesignation.--Sections 10 and 11 of the Morris K. Udall
Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native
American
Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5608, 5609) are redesignated as
sections 12 and 13 of the Act, respectively.
[[Page 112 STAT. 11]]
(b) Environmental Dispute
Scholarship and Excellence in
American
Public Policy Act of 1992 (20
subsection (a)) is amended by

Resolution Fund.--The Morris K. Udall
National Environmental and Native
U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) (as amended by
inserting after section 9 the following:

``SEC. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION <>
FUND.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of the
United States an Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund to be
administered by the Foundation. The Fund shall consist of amounts
appropriated to the Fund under section 13(b) and amounts paid into the
Fund under section 11.
``(b) Expenditures.--The Foundation shall expend from the Fund such
sums as the Board determines are necessary to establish and operate the
Institute, including such amounts as are necessary for salaries,
administration, the provision of mediation and other services, and such
other expenses as the Board determines are necessary.
``(c) Distinction From Trust Fund.--The Fund shall be maintained
separately from the Trust Fund established under section 8.
``(d) Investment of Amounts.-``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of
the Secretary, required to meet current withdrawals.
``(2) Interest-bearing obligations.--Investments may be
made

18

only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States.
``(3) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of
investments under paragraph (1), obligations may be acquired-``(A) on original issue at the issue price; or
``(B) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the
market price.
``(4) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the
Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the market
price.
``(5) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds
from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the
Fund
shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund.''.
SEC. 7. USE OF THE INSTITUTE BY A FEDERAL AGENCY.
The Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National
Environmental and Native American Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5601 et
seq.) (as amended by section 6) is amended by inserting after section
10
the following:
``SEC. 11. USE OF THE INSTITUTE BY A FEDERAL <>
AGENCY.
``(a) Authorization.--A Federal agency may use the Foundation and
the Institute to provide assessment, mediation, or other related
services in connection with a dispute or conflict related to the
environment, public lands, or natural resources.
``(b) Payment.-``(1) In general.--A Federal agency may enter into a
contract and expend funds to obtain the services of the
Institute.
``(2) Payment into environmental dispute resolution fund.-A
payment from an executive agency on a contract entered into
under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the Environmental
Dispute
Resolution Fund established under section 10.
``(c) Notification and Concurrence.-[[Page 112 STAT. 12]]
``(1) Notification.--An agency or instrumentality of the
Federal Government shall notify the chairperson of the
President's Council on Environmental Quality when using the
Foundation or the Institute to provide the services described
in
subsection (a).
``(2) Notification descriptions.--In a matter involving two
or more agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal
Government,
notification under paragraph (1) shall include a written
description of-``(A) the issues and parties involved;
``(B) prior efforts, if any, undertaken by the

19

agency to resolve or address the issue or issues;
``(C) all Federal agencies or instrumentalities
with
a direct interest or involvement in the matter and a
statement that all Federal agencies or
instrumentalities
agree to dispute resolution; and
``(D) other relevant information.
``(3) Concurrence.-``(A) In general.--In a matter that involves two or
more agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal
Government (including branches or divisions of a single
agency or instrumentality), the agencies or
instrumentalities of the Federal Government shall
obtain
the concurrence of the chairperson of the President's
Council on Environmental Quality before using the
Foundation or Institute to provide the services
described in subsection (a).
``(B) Indication of concurrence or nonconcurrence.The chairperson of the President's Council on
Environmental Quality shall indicate concurrence or
nonconcurrence under subparagraph (A) not later than 20
days after receiving notice under paragraph (2).
``(d) Exceptions.-``(1) Legal issues and enforcement.-``(A) In general.--A dispute or conflict involving
agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal Government
(including branches or divisions of a single agency or
instrumentality) that concern purely legal issues or
matters, interpretation or determination of law, or
enforcement of law by one agency against another agency
shall not be submitted to the Foundation or Institute.
``(B) Applicability.--Subparagraph (A) does not
apply to a dispute or conflict concerning-``(i) agency implementation of a program or
project;
``(ii) a matter involving two or more
agencies
with parallel authority requiring facilitation
and
coordination of the various Government agencies;
or
``(iii) a nonlegal policy or decisionmaking
matter that involves two or more agencies that
are
jointly operating a project.
``(2) Other mandated mechanisms or avenues.--A dispute or
conflict involving agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal
Government (including branches or divisions of a single agency
or instrumentality) for which Congress by law has mandated
another dispute resolution mechanism or avenue to address or
resolve shall not be submitted to the Foundation or
Institute.''.

20

[[Page 112 STAT. 13]]
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 13 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and
Excellence in National Environmental and Native American Public Policy
Act of 1992 (as redesignated by section 6(a)) is amended-(1) by striking ``There are authorized to be appropriated
to
the Fund'' and inserting the following:
``(a) Trust Fund.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the
Trust Fund''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund
established under section 10-``(1) $4,250,000 for fiscal year 1998, of which-``(A) $3,000,000 shall be for capitalization; and
``(B) $1,250,000 shall be for operation costs; and
``(2) $1,250,000 for each of the fiscal years 1999 through
2002 for operation costs.''.
SEC. 9. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) The second sentence of section 8(a) of the Morris K. Udall
Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native
American
Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5606) is amended-(1) by striking ``fund'' and inserting ``Trust Fund''; and
(2) by striking ``section 11'' and inserting ``section
13(a)''.
(b) Sections 7(a)(6), 8(b), and 9(a) of the Morris K. Udall
Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native
American
Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5605(a)(6), 5606(b), and 5607(a))
are each amended by striking ``Fund'' and inserting ``Trust Fund'' each
place it appears.
Approved February 11, 1998.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3042 (S. 399):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol. 143
(1997):
Nov. 13, considered and passed
House.
Vol. 144
(1998):
Jan. 29, considered and passed
Senate.

21

22

Government Performance and Reporting Act
(Relevant Portions)
•

United States Code
o TITLE 31 - MONEY AND FINANCE
ƒ SUBTITLE II - THE BUDGET PROCESS
ƒ CHAPTER 11 - THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET,
AND PROGRAM INFORMATION

U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1115. Performance plans
(a) In carrying out the provisions of section 1105(a)(29),
(FOOTNOTE 1) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall require each agency to prepare an annual performance plan
covering each program activity set forth in the budget of such
agency. Such plan shall (FOOTNOTE 1) See References in Text note below.
(1) establish performance goals to define the level of
performance to be achieved by a program activity;
(2) express such goals in an objective, quantifiable, and
measurable form unless authorized to be in an alternative form
under subsection (b);
(3) briefly describe the operational processes, skills and
technology, and the human, capital, information, or other
resources required to meet the performance goals;
(4) establish performance indicators to be used in measuring or
assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes of
each program activity;
(5) provide a basis for comparing actual program results with
the established performance goals; and
(6) describe the means to be used to verify and validate
measured values.
(b) If an agency, in consultation with the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget, determines that it is not feasible to
express the performance goals for a particular program activity in
an objective, quantifiable, and measurable form, the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget may authorize an alternative
form. Such alternative form shall (1) include separate descriptive statements of (A)(i) a minimally effective program, and
(ii) a successful program, or
(B) such alternative as authorized by the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget,
with sufficient precision and in such terms that would allow for
an accurate, independent determination of whether the program
activity's performance meets the criteria of the description; or
(2) state why it is infeasible or impractical to express a
performance goal in any form for the program activity.
(c) For the purpose of complying with this section, an agency may

23

aggregate, disaggregate, or consolidate program activities, except
that any aggregation or consolidation may not omit or minimize the
significance of any program activity constituting a major function
or operation for the agency.
(d) An agency may submit with its annual performance plan an
appendix covering any portion of the plan that (1) is specifically authorized under criteria established by an
Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national
defense or foreign policy; and
(2) is properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.
(e) The functions and activities of this section shall be
considered to be inherently Governmental functions. The drafting
of performance plans under this section shall be performed only by
Federal employees.
(f) For purposes of this section and sections 1116 through 1119,
and sections 9703 (FOOTNOTE 2) and 9704 the term (FOOTNOTE 2) See References in Text note below.
(1) ''agency'' has the same meaning as such term is defined
under section 306(f) of title 5;
(2) ''outcome measure'' means an assessment of the results of a
program activity compared to its intended purpose;
(3) ''output measure'' means the tabulation, calculation, or
recording of activity or effort and can be expressed in a
quantitative or qualitative manner;
(4) ''performance goal'' means a target level of performance
expressed as a tangible, measurable objective, against which
actual achievement can be compared, including a goal expressed as
a quantitative standard, value, or rate;
(5) ''performance indicator'' means a particular value or
characteristic used to measure output or outcome;
(6) ''program activity'' means a specific activity or project
as listed in the program and financing schedules of the annual
budget of the United States Government; and
(7) ''program evaluation'' means an assessment, through
objective measurement and systematic analysis, of the manner and
extent to which Federal programs achieve intended objectives.

U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1116. Program performance reports
(a) No later than March 31, 2000, and no later than March 31 of
each year thereafter, the head of each agency shall prepare and
submit to the President and the Congress, a report on program
performance for the previous fiscal year.
(b)(1) Each program performance report shall set forth the
performance indicators established in the agency performance plan
under section 1115, along with the actual program performance
achieved compared with the performance goals expressed in the plan
for that fiscal year.
(2) If performance goals are specified in an alternative form
under section 1115(b), the results of such program shall be
described in relation to such specifications, including whether the
performance failed to meet the criteria of a minimally effective or
successful program.
(c) The report for fiscal year 2000 shall include actual results

24

for the preceding fiscal year, the report for fiscal year 2001
shall include actual results for the two preceding fiscal years,
and the report for fiscal year 2002 and all subsequent reports
shall include actual results for the three preceding fiscal years.
(d) Each report shall (1) review the success of achieving the performance goals of
the fiscal year;
(2) evaluate the performance plan for the current fiscal year
relative to the performance achieved toward the performance goals
in the fiscal year covered by the report;
(3) explain and describe, where a performance goal has not been
met (including when a program activity's performance is
determined not to have met the criteria of a successful program
activity under section 1115(b)(1)(A)(ii) or a corresponding level
of achievement if another alternative form is used) (A) why the goal was not met;
(B) those plans and schedules for achieving the established
performance goal; and
(C) if the performance goal is impractical or infeasible, why
that is the case and what action is recommended;
(4) describe the use and assess the effectiveness in achieving
performance goals of any waiver under section 9703 (FOOTNOTE 1)
of this title; and
(FOOTNOTE 1) See References in Text note below.
(5) include the summary findings of those program evaluations
completed during the fiscal year covered by the report.
(e) An agency head may include all program performance
information required annually under this section in an annual
financial statement required under section 3515 if any such
statement is submitted to the Congress no later than March 31 of
the applicable fiscal year.
(f) The functions and activities of this section shall be
considered to be inherently Governmental functions. The drafting
of program performance reports under this section shall be
performed only by Federal employees.

25

Appendix B. Facilitated Meeting Evaluation Design Overview

26

Evaluating Facilitated Meetings:
Design Overview
Meeting facilitation services are provided for many meetings, ranging from small group
meetings to large public convenings of several hundred attendees. The purpose of the
facilitated meetings varies widely, depending on the attendees and their specific meeting
objectives.
The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution has designed an evaluation
system to (a) measure and report on the performance of facilitated meeting services and
(b) to facilitate continual learning and improvement when evaluative information is
gathered, analyzed, and shared with facilitators, program managers/administrators, and
other appropriate audiences.
Design Elements and Data Collection
Participants at facilitated meetings run by agency staff or contractors will be asked to
complete a voluntary questionnaire at the conclusion of the meeting. The questionnaire
used in this case contains five questions, requiring fill-in-the blank and open-ended
responses. Information from this questionnaire will help evaluate topics such as the
effectiveness of meeting organization, effectiveness of facilitator(s), and meeting
accomplishments. Entities potentially affected by this action are individuals who
participate in these meetings.
Data Use and Audiences
Information from the questionnaire will permit the (a) measurement and reporting of
performance for specific facilitated meeting sessions, (b), program performance
measurement and reporting when the data are aggregated across all evaluated facilitated

27

meetings, and (c) learning and improvement when the feedback is used to design and
execute future facilitated meetings. The evaluation audiences include the meeting
facilitators, meeting conveners, project managers/administrators, meeting attendees, and
the Office of Management and Budget.

For more information contact:
Patricia Orr, Program Evaluation Coordinator
The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
130 South Scott Avenue
Tucson, Arizona 85701
Telephone (520) 901-8548 or Fax (520) 670-5530

28

Appendix C. Public Comments in Response to the First Federal Register Notice

morris udall scholarship bureaucracy ‐ the taxpayers simply cannot afford 
the endless bureaucracy of all of these agencies. this agency can be shut 
down. if it has worth, it should be able to operate on donations. 
the taxpayers are tapped. out. shut down all of this bureaucracy now. 
b. sachau 
15 elm st 
florhampark nj07932 
> Subject: shut it down ‐ taxpayes cant afford 

29