The Common Measures Lessons Learned Meeting

Agenda

9:00 Continental Breakfast

9:30 Welcome and Introduction
Important Context – Please keep in mind the following questions as we review Phases 1, 2 & 3:

• If you were to duplicate this Project, what aspects worked well?
• Were there any barriers and if so, how did you overcome them?
• If we were to do this again, how could it be improved?

9:40 Review of Phase 1: Orientation and Development

• Project kick-off meeting – goals, preliminary discussion of candidate groups for measurement, understanding performance indicator choices, understanding data quality choices, characteristics and limitations – June 23, 2006
  • What worked well and why?
  • Were there any barriers and if so, how did you overcome them?
  • If we were to do this again, how could it be improved?
• Introductory Measurement and Quality Training Course on indicators, introduction to statistics, benchmarking and comparison, establishing a universe, principles of good data collection – September 28, 2006
• What worked well and why?
• Were there any barriers and if so, how did you overcome them?
• If we were to do this again, how could it be improved?

11:00 Break

11:15 Review of Phase 2: Decisions on Groups, Indicators and Data Choices

• Group preferences exercise
• Group and Indicator Packet Exercise
• Workshop on selecting final draft SQG performance indicators – March 13, 2007
  • Definitions, data source and data quality issues
  • Aggregating and selecting draft performance indicators for SQGs and Auto Body
• Auto Body Workshop – October 23, 2007
  • Definition, universe, applicability issues
  • Draft measurement indicators and desired degree of alignment with the proposed EPA paint striping and miscellaneous coatings rule
• State sign-off on final SQG indicators and final SQG compliance verification strategies
• State sign-off on final auto body indicators and final compliance verification strategy
  • What worked well and why?
  • Were there any barriers and if so, how did you overcome them?
  • If we were to do this again, how could it be improved?

12:15 Lunch Break – (lunch provided)

12:45 Review of Phase 3: Data Collection and Transfer

• Developed statistical methods for SQG and Auto Body data collection including state-specific inspection numbers for a range of confidence intervals based on each states sector universe size
• Universe Identification Methodologies and Random Sample Log for SQGs and Auto Body
• Developed and distributed final SQG and Auto Body model checklist
• Conducted SQG and Auto Body field data collection training for states’ “evaluators” e.g., inspectors, interns. – SQG May 23, 2007, Auto Body January 31, 2008
• Data Quality Certification of Standards for SQG and Auto Body sectors
  • What worked well and why?
  • Were there any barriers and if so, how did you overcome them?
  • If we were to do this again, how could it be improved?

1:45 State-by-State Experience

• Your State’s Overall Experience
  • In doing this Project, what worked well in your state and why?
  • Were there any barriers and if so, how did you overcome them?
  • If we were to do this Project again, how could it be improved?
• Vision Statement of the Project
  • The use of ERP-type performance measurement is used broadly and routinely to make environmental program priority and resource allocation decisions.
  • The use of ERP-type measurement is used to look within and beyond an individual state to identify and adopt the most effective and efficient environmental performance improvement strategies for the groups we are responsible for regulating (or influencing).
• How close did we come to achieving this in your state?
• Do you think your state will do more ERP-type measurement work?
• If yes, what will it take?

3:00 Wrap Up & Next Steps

3:30 Adjourn