# Presentation: 672809

## Managing and Measuring A Review of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) & Performance Management

- Dave Suomi
- ASW Partnership Conference 2005

**Notes:**
This session will cover:
	-Historical approach to making regional discretionary allotments
	-Proposed approach to making future regional discretionary allotments
	-A comparison of both approaches
	-Shortcomings with historical approach and benefits of proposed approach
	-Next steps

## Today’s Objectives

- AIP Overview
- Trends and Areas of Interest
- Opportunities for Change
- Informed Debate, Q & A

## AIP Overview

- FY-05 Funding: $3.4B (vs. $3.3 in FY-04)
- As of March 7:
- 66% total appropriation programmed
- 93% discretionary programmed
- Program through FY-07, discussions starting for shape, size of new program.

##  Trends and Interests

- Increasing Carryover Levels
- FY-04 Carryover at record $417M

**Notes:**
Impacts of Carryover

There are two significant impacts of a large carryover level.  However, only one has meaningful program implications at the current program’s appropriation level.

First, with a low level of appropriations, the priority of funding will result in carryovers being funded at the expense of reductions to apportionments and set-asides.  However, at the current program appropriation levels, there is no impact associated with carryovers.

Second, discretionary set-asides (Noise, Reliever and Military Airport Program) are calculated as a percentage of the available discretionary funds.  Carryover funds are are deducted from the total AIP program before the level of discretionary funds are established.  Thus, an increase in carryover entitlements results in a reduction in the total discretionary funds and a corresponding reduction in set-asides.  For example, the Noise Set-aside, which is calculated at 34% of the total discretionary level, will be reduced by over $140 million in 2005 due to the statutory requirement to fund carryover of $415 million.  (While the $415 million did result in a corresponding increase in discretionary in 2004, it is unlikely that the noise program was funded by a similar amount in FY 2004 as the funds were reprogrammed.)

## Carryover vs. Program (FY1999-2004)

## Trends and Interests (cont.)

- Increasing Carryover Levels
- FY-04 Carryover - Record $417M
- Impacts of Carryover
- Key Findings of Carryover Review
- Reasons for Carryover

**Notes:**
Impacts of Carryover

There are two significant impacts of a large carryover level.  However, only one has meaningful program implications at the current program’s appropriation level.

First, with a low level of appropriations, the priority of funding will result in carryovers being funded at the expense of reductions to apportionments and set-asides.  However, at the current program appropriation levels, there is no impact associated with carryovers.

Second, discretionary set-asides (Noise, Reliever and Military Airport Program) are calculated as a percentage of the available discretionary funds.  Carryover funds are are deducted from the total AIP program before the level of discretionary funds are established.  Thus, an increase in carryover entitlements results in a reduction in the total discretionary funds and a corresponding reduction in set-asides.  For example, the Noise Set-aside, which is calculated at 34% of the total discretionary level, will be reduced by over $140 million in 2005 due to the statutory requirement to fund carryover of $415 million.  (While the $415 million did result in a corresponding increase in discretionary in 2004, it is unlikely that the noise program was funded by a similar amount in FY 2004 as the funds were reprogrammed.)

## Trends and Interests (cont.)

- Regional Discretionary Allocations
- Initial allotments based upon activity
- Less direct relationship to need
- Less consideration to National priorities
- Result: Perception of disparity between Regions

**Notes:**
Impacts of Carryover

There are two significant impacts of a large carryover level.  However, only one has meaningful program implications at the current program’s appropriation level.

First, with a low level of appropriations, the priority of funding will result in carryovers being funded at the expense of reductions to apportionments and set-asides.  However, at the current program appropriation levels, there is no impact associated with carryovers.

Second, discretionary set-asides (Noise, Reliever and Military Airport Program) are calculated as a percentage of the available discretionary funds.  Carryover funds are are deducted from the total AIP program before the level of discretionary funds are established.  Thus, an increase in carryover entitlements results in a reduction in the total discretionary funds and a corresponding reduction in set-asides.  For example, the Noise Set-aside, which is calculated at 34% of the total discretionary level, will be reduced by over $140 million in 2005 due to the statutory requirement to fund carryover of $415 million.  (While the $415 million did result in a corresponding increase in discretionary in 2004, it is unlikely that the noise program was funded by a similar amount in FY 2004 as the funds were reprogrammed.)

## Discretionary Allotments  

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 7

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 8

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 100%

- 9

**100%**

**71%**

**37%**

**13%**

**100%**

**57%**

**63%**

**69%**

**83%**

- 10

- 0%

- 0%

- 0%

- 0%

- 0%

- 0%

- 0%

- 0%

- 0%

- 11

- 0%

- 0%

- 0%

- 0%

- 0%

- 0%

- 0%

- 0%

- 0%

## Optimal Objective

- Allotments based *nationally* upon similar requirements
- Result: *All* similar priority projects funded

## Benefits of Objective

- Nationally, high priority projects are addressed early-on and concurrently
- Minimizes disparities between Regions
- Incentive Regions/Sponsors to minimize carryover, be ready to go
- Transparent Approach - Project priorities are open and understood

## Trends and Interests (cont.)

- ACIP Process
- Currency of information
- Sponsor ability (or not) to proceed
- Scope creep

**Notes:**
Impacts of Carryover

There are two significant impacts of a large carryover level.  However, only one has meaningful program implications at the current program’s appropriation level.

First, with a low level of appropriations, the priority of funding will result in carryovers being funded at the expense of reductions to apportionments and set-asides.  However, at the current program appropriation levels, there is no impact associated with carryovers.

Second, discretionary set-asides (Noise, Reliever and Military Airport Program) are calculated as a percentage of the available discretionary funds.  Carryover funds are are deducted from the total AIP program before the level of discretionary funds are established.  Thus, an increase in carryover entitlements results in a reduction in the total discretionary funds and a corresponding reduction in set-asides.  For example, the Noise Set-aside, which is calculated at 34% of the total discretionary level, will be reduced by over $140 million in 2005 due to the statutory requirement to fund carryover of $415 million.  (While the $415 million did result in a corresponding increase in discretionary in 2004, it is unlikely that the noise program was funded by a similar amount in FY 2004 as the funds were reprogrammed.)

## Opportunities for Change

- Managing for Performance
- Reasons for interest
- Defining the objectives
- Measuring results

**Notes:**
Impacts of Carryover

There are two significant impacts of a large carryover level.  However, only one has meaningful program implications at the current program’s appropriation level.

First, with a low level of appropriations, the priority of funding will result in carryovers being funded at the expense of reductions to apportionments and set-asides.  However, at the current program appropriation levels, there is no impact associated with carryovers.

Second, discretionary set-asides (Noise, Reliever and Military Airport Program) are calculated as a percentage of the available discretionary funds.  Carryover funds are are deducted from the total AIP program before the level of discretionary funds are established.  Thus, an increase in carryover entitlements results in a reduction in the total discretionary funds and a corresponding reduction in set-asides.  For example, the Noise Set-aside, which is calculated at 34% of the total discretionary level, will be reduced by over $140 million in 2005 due to the statutory requirement to fund carryover of $415 million.  (While the $415 million did result in a corresponding increase in discretionary in 2004, it is unlikely that the noise program was funded by a similar amount in FY 2004 as the funds were reprogrammed.)

## Managing for Performance

- Reason for Interest
- Most effective use of funding
- Identify superior performance, areas of concern
- Focus on National objectives
- Administration’s “Performance Budgeting”
- Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)

**Notes:**
Impacts of Carryover

There are two significant impacts of a large carryover level.  However, only one has meaningful program implications at the current program’s appropriation level.

First, with a low level of appropriations, the priority of funding will result in carryovers being funded at the expense of reductions to apportionments and set-asides.  However, at the current program appropriation levels, there is no impact associated with carryovers.

Second, discretionary set-asides (Noise, Reliever and Military Airport Program) are calculated as a percentage of the available discretionary funds.  Carryover funds are are deducted from the total AIP program before the level of discretionary funds are established.  Thus, an increase in carryover entitlements results in a reduction in the total discretionary funds and a corresponding reduction in set-asides.  For example, the Noise Set-aside, which is calculated at 34% of the total discretionary level, will be reduced by over $140 million in 2005 due to the statutory requirement to fund carryover of $415 million.  (While the $415 million did result in a corresponding increase in discretionary in 2004, it is unlikely that the noise program was funded by a similar amount in FY 2004 as the funds were reprogrammed.)

## Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)

- Aspects of Performance
- Purpose / Planning / Management /Results
- AIP Scoring = 80% / 71% / 64% / 80%
- Scores
- Effective / Moderately Effective / Adequate / Ineffective
- AIP = “Adequate”

**Notes:**
Impacts of Carryover

There are two significant impacts of a large carryover level.  However, only one has meaningful program implications at the current program’s appropriation level.

First, with a low level of appropriations, the priority of funding will result in carryovers being funded at the expense of reductions to apportionments and set-asides.  However, at the current program appropriation levels, there is no impact associated with carryovers.

Second, discretionary set-asides (Noise, Reliever and Military Airport Program) are calculated as a percentage of the available discretionary funds.  Carryover funds are are deducted from the total AIP program before the level of discretionary funds are established.  Thus, an increase in carryover entitlements results in a reduction in the total discretionary funds and a corresponding reduction in set-asides.  For example, the Noise Set-aside, which is calculated at 34% of the total discretionary level, will be reduced by over $140 million in 2005 due to the statutory requirement to fund carryover of $415 million.  (While the $415 million did result in a corresponding increase in discretionary in 2004, it is unlikely that the noise program was funded by a similar amount in FY 2004 as the funds were reprogrammed.)

## Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)

- Administration is serious about Performance Reviews
- 399 Programs evaluated (“PARTed”)
- Correlation to Budget Decisions
- “Effective”: +7.2%
- “Moderately Effective”: +8.3%
- “Adequate”: + 1.7%
- “Ineffective”: -38%

**Notes:**
Impacts of Carryover

There are two significant impacts of a large carryover level.  However, only one has meaningful program implications at the current program’s appropriation level.

First, with a low level of appropriations, the priority of funding will result in carryovers being funded at the expense of reductions to apportionments and set-asides.  However, at the current program appropriation levels, there is no impact associated with carryovers.

Second, discretionary set-asides (Noise, Reliever and Military Airport Program) are calculated as a percentage of the available discretionary funds.  Carryover funds are are deducted from the total AIP program before the level of discretionary funds are established.  Thus, an increase in carryover entitlements results in a reduction in the total discretionary funds and a corresponding reduction in set-asides.  For example, the Noise Set-aside, which is calculated at 34% of the total discretionary level, will be reduced by over $140 million in 2005 due to the statutory requirement to fund carryover of $415 million.  (While the $415 million did result in a corresponding increase in discretionary in 2004, it is unlikely that the noise program was funded by a similar amount in FY 2004 as the funds were reprogrammed.)

## Managing for Performance

- Defining the Objectives
- Minimize idle grants funds
- Accelerate development
- Focus on National priorities

**Notes:**
Impacts of Carryover

There are two significant impacts of a large carryover level.  However, only one has meaningful program implications at the current program’s appropriation level.

First, with a low level of appropriations, the priority of funding will result in carryovers being funded at the expense of reductions to apportionments and set-asides.  However, at the current program appropriation levels, there is no impact associated with carryovers.

Second, discretionary set-asides (Noise, Reliever and Military Airport Program) are calculated as a percentage of the available discretionary funds.  Carryover funds are are deducted from the total AIP program before the level of discretionary funds are established.  Thus, an increase in carryover entitlements results in a reduction in the total discretionary funds and a corresponding reduction in set-asides.  For example, the Noise Set-aside, which is calculated at 34% of the total discretionary level, will be reduced by over $140 million in 2005 due to the statutory requirement to fund carryover of $415 million.  (While the $415 million did result in a corresponding increase in discretionary in 2004, it is unlikely that the noise program was funded by a similar amount in FY 2004 as the funds were reprogrammed.)

## Managing for Performance

- Minimize Idle Grants Funds
- Based on Bid
- Closeouts

**Notes:**
Impacts of Carryover

There are two significant impacts of a large carryover level.  However, only one has meaningful program implications at the current program’s appropriation level.

First, with a low level of appropriations, the priority of funding will result in carryovers being funded at the expense of reductions to apportionments and set-asides.  However, at the current program appropriation levels, there is no impact associated with carryovers.

Second, discretionary set-asides (Noise, Reliever and Military Airport Program) are calculated as a percentage of the available discretionary funds.  Carryover funds are are deducted from the total AIP program before the level of discretionary funds are established.  Thus, an increase in carryover entitlements results in a reduction in the total discretionary funds and a corresponding reduction in set-asides.  For example, the Noise Set-aside, which is calculated at 34% of the total discretionary level, will be reduced by over $140 million in 2005 due to the statutory requirement to fund carryover of $415 million.  (While the $415 million did result in a corresponding increase in discretionary in 2004, it is unlikely that the noise program was funded by a similar amount in FY 2004 as the funds were reprogrammed.)

## Goal: Issue grants based on bids

**Notes:**
Regional Tracking- Interim regional goal status is shown as:

Green: At or exceeding 90% of total construction/equipment grant elements based on bids
Yellow: Between 85 –90% of total construction/equipment grant elements based on bids
Red: Less than 85% of total construction/equipment grant elements based on bids.

National Tracking:
ARP-1 will be briefed on our progress toward the annual goal as of the end of February, May, and August.
National goal status for reporting on the ARP Business Plan will be based on whether the national total is:

Green: At or exceeding interim goal; on track to meet annual goal of 90% of applicable grants based on bids.
Yellow: Within 5% of interim goal; in danger of not meeting annual goal of 90% of applicable grants based on bids. 
Red: More than 5% away from interim goal; not on track to meet annual goal of 90% of applicable grants based on bids.

## Goal: Close out grants (except those covered by special circumstances) issued for FY 2001 & prior years

**Notes:**
Regional Tracking
Interim regional goal status is shown as:

Green: At or exceeding regional interim goal for closeout of older grants.
Yellow: Within 5% of regional interim goal for closeout of older grants.
Red: Not meeting regional interim goal for closeout of older grants.

National Tracking
ARP-1 will be briefed on our progress toward the annual goal as of the end of February, May, and August.
National goal status for reporting on the ARP Business Plan will be based on whether the national total is:

Green: At or exceeding interim goal; on track to meet annual goal of closing out 95% of older grants.
Yellow: Within 5 % of interim goal; in danger of not meeting annual goal of closing out 95% of older grants. 
Red: More than 5% away from interim goal; not on track to meet annual goal of closing out 95% of older grants.

## Managing for Performance

- Accelerate Development
- Release of funds
- Inactive grants

**Notes:**
Impacts of Carryover

There are two significant impacts of a large carryover level.  However, only one has meaningful program implications at the current program’s appropriation level.

First, with a low level of appropriations, the priority of funding will result in carryovers being funded at the expense of reductions to apportionments and set-asides.  However, at the current program appropriation levels, there is no impact associated with carryovers.

Second, discretionary set-asides (Noise, Reliever and Military Airport Program) are calculated as a percentage of the available discretionary funds.  Carryover funds are are deducted from the total AIP program before the level of discretionary funds are established.  Thus, an increase in carryover entitlements results in a reduction in the total discretionary funds and a corresponding reduction in set-asides.  For example, the Noise Set-aside, which is calculated at 34% of the total discretionary level, will be reduced by over $140 million in 2005 due to the statutory requirement to fund carryover of $415 million.  (While the $415 million did result in a corresponding increase in discretionary in 2004, it is unlikely that the noise program was funded by a similar amount in FY 2004 as the funds were reprogrammed.)

## Goal: Submit for OST approval, AIP discretionary funds within 60 days after funds are available to regions

**Goal: Submit for OST approval, AIP discretionary funds within 60 days after funds are available to regions**

**90%**

**Notes:**
Regional Tracking: Interim regional goal status is shown as:

Green: At or exceeding regional interim goal*; on track to meet annual goal.
Yellow: Within 5 % of interim goal; in danger of not meeting regional goal. 
Red: Not meeting regional interim goal*; not on track to meet annual goal.
(*interim goal is a straight-line proration of 60 day goal (50% at 30 days and 75% at 45 days))

National Tracking:
ARP-1 will be briefed on our progress toward the annual goal as of end of February and mid-March
National goal status for reporting on the ARP Business Plan will be based on whether the national total is:

Green: At or exceeding interim goal; on track to meet annual goal for congressional notification of discretionary funds.
Yellow: Within 5 % of interim goal; in danger of not meeting annual goal for congressional notification of discretionary funds.
Red: More than 5% away from interim goal; not on track to meet annual goal for congressional notification of discretionary funds.

## Goal: No grants will be inactive for 18 months or more

**Notes:**
Regional Tracking
Interim regional goal status is shown as:

Green: At or exceeding interim goal; on track to meet annual goal.
Yellow: Within 5 % of interim goal; in danger of not meeting annual goal.
Red: Not meeting interim goal; not on track to meet annual goal.

National Tracking
ARP-1 will be briefed on our progress toward the annual goal as of the end of February, May, and August.
National goal status for reporting on the ARP Business Plan will be based on whether the national total is:

Green: At or exceeding interim goal; on track to meet annual goal for inactive grants.
Yellow: Within 5 % of interim goal; in danger of not meeting annual goal for inactive grants. 
Red: More than 5% away from interim goal; not on track to meet annual goal for inactive grants.

## Managing for Performance

- Focus on National Priorities
- RSAs
- Noise benefits

**Notes:**
Impacts of Carryover

There are two significant impacts of a large carryover level.  However, only one has meaningful program implications at the current program’s appropriation level.

First, with a low level of appropriations, the priority of funding will result in carryovers being funded at the expense of reductions to apportionments and set-asides.  However, at the current program appropriation levels, there is no impact associated with carryovers.

Second, discretionary set-asides (Noise, Reliever and Military Airport Program) are calculated as a percentage of the available discretionary funds.  Carryover funds are are deducted from the total AIP program before the level of discretionary funds are established.  Thus, an increase in carryover entitlements results in a reduction in the total discretionary funds and a corresponding reduction in set-asides.  For example, the Noise Set-aside, which is calculated at 34% of the total discretionary level, will be reduced by over $140 million in 2005 due to the statutory requirement to fund carryover of $415 million.  (While the $415 million did result in a corresponding increase in discretionary in 2004, it is unlikely that the noise program was funded by a similar amount in FY 2004 as the funds were reprogrammed.)

## Goal: Complete 41 RSA improvements by 9/30/05

**Notes:**
Regional Tracking:
Interim regional goal status is shown as:

Green: Reported by region to be on schedule to meet RSA completion date of 9/30/05.
Red: Reported by region likely to miss RSA completion date of 9/30/05

National Tracking:
ARP-1 will be briefed on our progress toward the annual goal as of the end of February, May, and August.
National goal status for reporting on the ARP Business Plan will be based on whether the national total is:

Green: At goal; on track to meet annual goal of completing 41 RSA improvements. 
Yellow: Within 5% of interim goal; in danger of not meeting annual goal of completing 41 RSA improvements.
Red: Not on track to meet annual goal of completing 41 RSA improvements.

## Goal: Ensure that 20,000 residents & school students in DNL 65dB or greater benefit from AIP projects by 9/15/05

**Notes:**
Regional Tracking:
Interim regional goal status is shown as:

Green: At or exceeding interim regional goal
Yellow: Within 5% of meeting interim regional goal
Red: More than 5% away from meeting interim regional goal

National Tracking:
ARP-1 will be briefed on our progress toward the annual goal as of the end of February, May, and August.
National goal status for reporting on the ARP Business Plan will be based on whether the national total is:

Green: At or exceeding interim goal; on track to meet annual goal of 20,000 people benefited
Yellow: Within 5% of interim goal; in danger of not meeting annual goal of 20,000 people benefited
Red: More than 5% away from interim goal; not on track to meet annual goal of 20,000 people benefited.

## Closing

- Comments, Questions?