U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

FY 2000 ANNUAL PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REPORT

AND

FY 2002 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN
Secretary’s Foreword

As America moves forward in the 21st century, the Commerce

Department’s programs are more vital than ever to our Nation’s economy

and the living standards of our people; to our leadership in key areas of

science, technology, and information; and to the management and

stewardship of our resources.

Two years ago, we published our second Department-wide performance

plan, for fiscal year (FY) 2000. This year we are pleased to report on the

measures and targets we aimed to achieve in that plan and that we have

met or exceeded 71 percent of our goals. In order to make these goals and

results more useful to our stakeholders, we have chosen to combine our

report on 2000 results with our plan for 2002 performance to create one

document —The FY 2000 Annual Program Performance Report and FY 2002

Annual Performance Plan. By putting this information into one document,

we hope we have created a tool that is more relevant and useful to you,

the reader.

The FY 2000 Annual Program Performance Report and FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan also includes summaries of

our key management challenges facing the Department. These include the implementation of a Departmentwide financial management system; strengthening Department–wide information security; and strengthening

financial management controls in order to maintain a “clean” opinion on the Department’s consolidated

financial statements.

The plan also includes summary tables specifying those targets that were met or not met. We continue to

strengthen our capacity to implement the Government Performance and Results Act’s requirements. However,

we are still in the process of establishing the procedures which will give assurances that our performance

information is not only appropriate, but also complete and reliable. It should be noted that the measures

included in this Annual Program Performance Report and Annual Performance Plan were subject to basic

review procedures, and we will be strengthening our data validation and verification methods.

The Department’s first combined Annual Program Performance Report and Annual Performance Plan reports

on our measures and targets for FY 2000 and presents our operational plans for FY 2002 as these were

developed in concert with our FY 2002 budget request to Congress. The plan also discusses what the Commerce

Department’s programs will do with the resources that are being entrusted to us. Our new leadership team

looks forward to working with Congress to ensure that the Department’s mission and programs serve the

American people most effectively. I am pleased to present this plan as a demonstration of all that this

Department does to foster economic growth, technological advancement, and sustainable development. 

Donald L. Evans 

Secretary of Commerce

4 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Secretary’s Foreword
Table of Contents

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Department of Commerce’s History and Recent Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Overview of the FY 2000 APPR/FY 2002 APP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Adjustments to the Strategic Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Integrating the Strategic Goals and Bureau Activities/Summarizing the Strategic Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Bureau-by-Bureau Sections

Economic Development Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Economics and Statistics Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Bureau of Economic Analysis

Bureau of the Census

International Trade Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Bureau of Export Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Minority Business Development Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

US Patent and Trademark Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Technology Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

Office of Technology Policy

National Institute of Standards and Technology

National Technical Information Service

National Telecommunications and Information Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

Departmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

Appendix A: Comparison of FY 2000 Targets and FY 2000 Actual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

Appendix B: Comparison of FY 2001 and FY 2002 Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350

Appendix C: Alphabetical List of Acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 5

Table of Contents
Executive Summary

Overview

This combined FY 2000 Annual Program Performance Report (APPR) and FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan

(APP) responds to the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The combined

volume is a highly important one, because it: 

• Presents our Strategic Goals and explains how they integrate our program activities

• Discusses bureau-by-bureau performance goals and measures that are used in managing the Department’s

programs

• Provides a review of our accomplishments for FY 2000

• Sets out reasonable goals that define what we will be accomplishing in FY 2002

• Gives members of the new Administration crucial information to use in directing the Commerce

Department’s activities in FY 2002 and beyond. 

In this FY 2000 APPR/FY 2002 APP, we have provided consistent information for each of the Commerce

Department’s major programs, using a standardized information gathering and assessment approach. As a

result, we provide the significant information for each bureau, including:

• Mission statement and organization structure

• Ongoing priorities, and management and administrative challenges

• Summary of the performance goals and measures used, and the resources devoted to them

• Rationale behind the goal

• Year-by-year information about performance measure targets and accomplishments

• Explanation for how we validate and evaluate our measures

At the end of this Executive Summary is a table that lists our performance goals and measures, and shows if we

met (or did not meet) our targets for FY 2000.

The Commerce Department Mission Statement and Strategic Goals

The Department of Commerce promotes job creation and improved living standards for all Americans by creating an

infrastructure that encourages economic growth, technological competitiveness, and sustainable development.

We pursue this mission through three Strategic Goals and a Management Integration Goal that are supported by

outcome-oriented objectives. Each bureau in the Department of Commerce has specific performance goals and

measures tied directly to this structure, and most of the information contained in this FY 2000 Annual Program

Performance Report/FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan illustrates bureau-by-bureau the Department’s progress

in meeting our program goals. Our Strategic Goals are:

• Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and equitably.

In this Goal, we will encourage and support economic expansion and increase the prosperity of all

Americans. We recognize the importance of job creation, the need for sound information for effective

decision-making, and the need to build strong communities that can support economic expansion.

• Strategic Goal 2: Provide the infrastructure for innovation to enhance U.S. competitiveness. In pursuing this Goal,

we will provide the infrastructure that will enable U.S. businesses to maintain their technological advantage

in world markets. Globalization and the technology-driven productivity gains of the new economy are

providing us with new challenges. Continued partnership, collaboration, and cooperation between the

Department of Commerce and industry will enhance and promote the technological edge of the U.S.

6 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Executive Summary
• Strategic Goal 3: Observe and manage the Earth’s environment to promote sustainable growth. Under this Goal, we

envision a 21st century in which environmental stewardship, assessment, and prediction serve as keystones

for enhancing economic prosperity and quality of life, improving the protection of lives and property, and

strengthening the U.S. balance of trade.

Our Management Integration Goal — To strengthen management at all levels — adds a crucial overlay to the

Strategic Goals. Achievement of this goal is essential to establishing and maintaining the

administration/management within which our programs may operate, and using our resources effectively to

support program operations.

Highlights of Commerce Activities

As one of the Federal government’s most diverse departments, the Department of Commerce affects the lives of all

Americans, every day, due to the array of services we provide. We make possible the weather reports that are heard

every morning; we facilitate use of the technology that is familiar in the workplace and in the home; we gather the

data that are used by the public and private sectors to assist important policy and business decisions; and we

support the environmental and economic health of U.S. communities. As America advances into the 21st century,

the Commerce Department’s ability to support information-based business development will be critical for

supporting overall economic growth. Among our program highlights in 2000 were:

• The Census Bureau conducted the nation’s 22nd decennial census, our Nation’s largest peacetime mobilization

of resources. Due to the strong management of this build-up and excellent performance of automated systems,

every major operation performed better than or as expected, and costs were below budget. Most significantly,

the Census achieved a 67 percent response rate from American households that returned their Census forms

by mail or completed a questionnaire via the Internet or telephone. This reversed a 30-year slide in census

participation. The General Accounting Office (GAO) commended the Census Bureau on successfully

completing the data collection phase of the census and removed it from the list of high-risk programs.

• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) celebrated its 30th anniversary as a Federal

agency on October 3, 2000. The anniversary was an important milestone for NOAA, particularly because it

came as we are facing the growing challenges of describing and predicting changes in the Earth’s

environment and of conserving and managing the nation’s coastal and marine resources.

• The International Trade Administration (ITA) established an ITA-wide China Team and sent a compliance

officer to work with and to assess the needs of the U.S. business community in China. In addition, we

organized a technical training group that traveled to China to provide support to Chinese government

officials in their efforts to comply with World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations.

• The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) commissioned a new atomic clock based on NISTpioneered laser-cooling and trapping science. The new clock’s extraordinary accuracy — to one second in

nearly 20 million years — is critical for navigation using the Global Positioning System (GPS), synchronizing

telecommunications, cutting-edge scientific research, and commercial applications including the financial

markets, which use NIST time to ensure the proper sequence of hundreds of billions of dollars of electronic

transactions every day. 

• The effort to close the digital divide and promote digital inclusion lies at the heart of the mission of the

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). In October 2000, NTIA released their

fourth report (“Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion”), which assessed the availability of

computers and Internet access and, for the first time, included statistical information on the deployment of

broadband telecommunications services for persons with disabilities. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 7

Executive Summary
• On December 10, 1999, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued its 6 millionth patent in a special

ceremony at the Herbert C. Hoover Auditorium. The recipient was 3Com Corporation, which was awarded a

patent for its HotSync Technology, regarding handheld devices. 

• With the successful implementation of the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) in

August 2000, the National Weather Service (NWS) completed its modernization effort. AWIPS gives

forecasters the tools to rapidly analyze the data, integrate it with the information provided by weather service

guidance centers, and prepare timely and accurate warnings and forecasts. The NWS will be removed from the

Office of Inspector General’s (OIG’s) list of top 10 management challenges and from the GAO’s high-risk

report.

• In October 1998, Congress passed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), implementing legislation that

was subsequently signed into law. The Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) is compiling data and hosting

Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspections at U.S. companies covered by the

CWC. In accordance with the treaty, BXA completed the creation of an information management system to

comply with the treaty’s reporting requirements and held eight outreach seminars around the country.

• NIST organized a worldwide competition to select a new encryption technique to protect computerized

information. The new Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) will be an official U.S. Government information

security standard. AES is expected to be adopted by the private sector to protect credit card numbers

exchanged over the Internet, guarantee the security of computerized medical and personnel records, and

provide security for information exchanges that are vital to the continuing growth of E-commerce. 

• In FY 2000, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) continued to support national brownfields

redevelopment efforts, supporting the revitalization and return to productive use of idle, abandoned, or

under-used former commercial and industrial sites. Three of the ten national Phoenix Awards winners,

including the 2000 Grand Prize winner, are EDA-supported projects. The Phoenix Awards honor groups that

have implemented innovative, practical programs remediating environmental contamination at brownfields

sites and that have simultaneously stimulated economic development and job creation or retention.

• ITA has launched an Internet site, www.trade.gov, to complement the Department’s export portal at

www.export.gov. The new site is organized according to customer interests, making it easy for visitors to find

information. In addition, in FY 2000 we strengthened our trade promotion efforts by developing a series of

dynamic E-business strategies.

• Public Law 106-113 established the USPTO as a performance-based organization (PBO) subject to the policy

direction of the Secretary of Commerce. This allows the USPTO to achieve greater efficiency by operating as a

commercial business and exercising control of its administrative and management decisions. The President

appoints the new Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO. The

patent and trademark operations will be treated as separate operating units, each led by a Commissioner

appointed by the Secretary of Commerce.

The Department of Commerce’s GPRA Activities

Since the inception of GPRA, the Department of Commerce has submitted all required reports, and we have

integrated our established budget process and our GPRA requirements. The Department has also been active in

government-wide activities that directly involve GPRA or share the same purposes as GPRA. For example, the

Secretary of Commerce and several Department of Commerce programs have the lead responsibility for

interagency program planning and integration in specific high-impact areas, such as the Trade Promotion

Coordinating Committee (TPCC). In addition, we are a founding member and the central agency in the National

Academy of Public Administration’s Performance Consortium, which brings together major Federal agencies

including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the General Accounting Office (GAO), and

Congressional staffs, to provide a forum for developing effective approaches for strategic planning and

performance measurement. 

8 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Executive Summary
We are serious about taking every opportunity to improve the usefulness and quality of our GPRA documents.

We have worked closely with GAO in their reviews of Department of Commerce programs, as well as reviews of

our GPRA documents. The Congressional Research Service has examined some of our documents as well. We

have viewed all of these reviews as opportunities to receive constructive comments on ways to sharpen our goals

and measures, and we have examined those reviews carefully in preparing this APPR/APP. As a result, we have:

• Made our Strategic Goals more clear and our performance goal statements more descriptive and outcomeoriented

• Explained the purposes of our performance goals and measures more clearly

• Provided additional information about program evaluation, as well as data verification and validation

• Ensured that corrective or follow-up actions are provided in cases where a program’s annual performance

targets were not met.

As a result of this process, we believe that we have produced an APPR/APP that is more responsive to the

needs of our programs’ users, more helpful to those who have priority-setting and resource allocation

responsibilities, and more effective as management tools for our internal staffs. 

Department of Commerce

FY 2000 APPR Performance

Results by Bureau

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 9

Executive Summary

Bureaus # Goals # Measures MET NOT MET

EDA 2 12 11 1

ESA 3 5 5

ITA 4 6 4 2

BXA 4 10 5 5

MBDA 2 3 1 2

NOAA 7 27 17 10

USPTO 3 6 4 2

TA 6 7 3 4

NTIA 3 3 2 1

DM 3 16 15 1

Totals: 37 95 67 28

% Met 71%
The Department of Commerce’s History and Recent Accomplishments

The Department of Commerce is one of the oldest cabinet-level departments in the United States. Originally

established by Congressional Act on February 14, 1903 as the Department of Commerce and Labor (32 Stat. 826; 5

U.S.C. 591), it was subsequently renamed the U.S. Department of Commerce by President William H. Taft on

March 4, 1913 (15 U.S.C. Section 1512). The new Department’s role was and is to foster, promote, and develop the

foreign and domestic commerce, the mining, manufacturing, and fishery industries of the United States. 

Financial and Personnel Resources

The Department’s FY 2000 budget was approximately $8.67 billion. This was substantially higher than the 

FY 1999 budget of $5.39 billion, in large part due to additional funding provided for the 2000 Census. The enacted

level for FY 2001 is $5.13 billion and 39,714 FTE, and the FY 2002 budget request is $4.75 billion and 37,025 FTE.

Highlights of Commerce Activities

As one of the Federal government’s most diverse departments, the Department of Commerce affects the lives of

all Americans, every day, due to the array of services we provide. We make possible the weather reports that

are heard every morning; we facilitate use of the technology that is familiar in the workplace and in the home;

we gather the data that are used by the public and private sectors to assist important policy and business

decisions; and we support the environmental and economic health of U.S. communities. As America advances

into the 21st century, the Commerce Department’s ability to support information-based business development

will be critical for supporting overall economic growth. 

We provide the basic economic research data necessary for sound business decisions and we promote the use of

science and technology in the production of consumer goods and services. We develop international trade

opportunities through our offices in the United States and in many foreign countries. We administer the

legislation that helps U.S. industry and labor counter unfair trade practices.

Our oceanic and atmospheric programs improve the understanding and rational use of the natural environment

to further the Nation’s safety, welfare, security, and commerce. Our responsibilities include predicting the

weather, charting the seas, protecting ocean resources, and collecting data on the oceans, space, and sun.

Domestically, our programs promote long-term enterprises that create jobs for minority groups and in

underdeveloped areas across the United States. We support these programs with reports, publications,

projections, and business expertise. 

We provide leadership in civilian technology, trade promotion, economic development, sustainable

development, and economic analysis. 

Our programs serve the country’s businesses, communities, and families. Among our major current activities

and accomplishments are:

2000 Decennial Census

The Census Bureau conducted the nation’s 22nd decennial census, our Nation’s largest peacetime mobilization

of resources. This effort included establishing 520 temporary field offices and hiring more than 500,000

temporary census workers to conduct the peak census operations. Due to the strong management of this buildup and excellent performance of automated systems, every major operation performed better than or as

expected, and costs were below budget. We partnered with the private sector to create an automated data

capture system using state-of-the-art optical mark and optical character recognition. This system was a major

success: 99 percent of mark-sense and 80 percent of hand-written responses required no further actions. Actual

10 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

The Department of Commerce’s History
data collection activities proceeded on or ahead of schedule. Most significantly, the census achieved a 67 percent

response rate from American households that returned their Census forms by mail or completed a questionnaire

via the Internet or telephone. This reversed a 30-year slide in census participation. The Census Bureau believes it

can attribute the success of Census 2000 to strong management and the organization of its workforce and

regional office structure; improvements in its use of geographic systems, better design and processing of

questionnaires; and improved publicity and partnering arrangements. The General Accounting Office (GAO)

commended the Census Bureau on successfully completing the data collection phase of the census and removed

it from the list of high-risk programs.

Thirty Years of Excellence at NOAA

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) celebrated its 30th anniversary as a Federal

agency on October 3, 2000. The anniversary was an important milestone for NOAA, particularly because it came

as we were entering a new millennium, facing the growing challenges of describing and predicting changes in

the Earth’s environment and of conserving and managing the nation’s coastal and marine resources. We have

chosen to mark the anniversary as a time to begin to build the next generation of scientists and environmental

stewards. 

Permanent Trade with China

In the past year, the International Trade Administration (ITA) has supported efforts to secure passage of

legislation granting permanent normal trade relations status to China and has supported subsequent efforts to

finalize China’s terms of accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). In FY 2000, we established an ITAwide China Team and sent a compliance officer to work with and to assess the needs of the U.S. business

community in China. In addition, we organized a technical training group that traveled to China to provide

support to Chinese government officials in their efforts to comply with WTO obligations.

Between June and November 2000, the Department of Commerce organized 10 seminars, held throughout the

United States, to highlight information on export opportunities in China and to explain the changes brought

about by WTO regulations. China’s commercial section participated via videoconference link-up in several of

these seminars. The five posts of ITA’s commercial section in China (in Beijing, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Shanghai,

and Shenyang) together hosted 72 trade missions during the course of the year; supported 106 other trade

events; provided 63 Gold Keys; conducted 46 Agent Distributor Searches; and submitted 29 Industry Sector

Analyses and 193 International Market Insights.

NIST Helps the United States Tell Time More Accurately

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) maintains the U.S. national standards for

fundamental measurements, including time. In FY 2000, NIST commissioned a new atomic clock based on NISTpioneered laser cooling and trapping science. The new clock’s extraordinary accuracy to one second in nearly 20

million years is critical for navigation using the Global Positioning System (GPS), synchronizing

telecommunications, and cutting-edge scientific research. NIST also made significant improvements in

disseminating accurate time to our many customers throughout the United States, including the financial

markets, which use NIST time to ensure the proper sequence of hundreds of billions of dollars of electronic

transactions every day. 

NTIA Efforts to Close the Digital Divide

The effort to close the digital divide and promote digital inclusion lies at the heart of the mission of the National

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). In October 2000, NTIA released their fourth

report (“Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion”), which assessed the availability of computers and

Internet access and, for the first time, included statistical information on the deployment of broadband telecomFY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 11

The Department of Commerce’s History
munications services for persons with disabilities. The report, produced by NTIA during FY 2000 and based on

Census data, was compiled jointly with the Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA). NTIA also

established and maintains a government-wide Internet site (www.digitaldivide.gov) that serves as a

clearinghouse for related Federal reports, resources, and initiatives and for information on private sector

initiatives. To address the global digital divide that exists within and between developed and less-developed

countries, NTIA advocated policies and assisted with efforts undertaken by the G-8 Digital Opportunity Task

Force, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the Asia-Pacific Economic

Cooperative (APEC).

Six Millionth Patent Granted

On December 10, 1999, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued its 6 millionth patent in a special

ceremony at the Herbert C. Hoover Auditorium. The recipient was 3Com Corporation, which was awarded a

patent for its HotSync Technology regarding handheld devices. 

Implementation of AWIPS Marks the Completion of NWS’s Modernization Program

With the successful implementation of the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) in August

2000, the National Weather Service (NWS) completed its modernization effort, an effort that should produce

dramatic improvements in our weather services. AWIPS acquires data from advanced observation systems and

gives forecasters the tools to rapidly analyze the data, integrate it with the information provided by weather

service guidance centers, and prepare timely and accurate warnings and forecasts for dissemination to the

public and the media. By successfully completing this modernization effort, the NWS will be removed from the

Office of Inspector General’s (OIG’s) list of top 10 management challenges and from the GAO’s high-risk report.

NIST Helps Open Electronic Books to Blind Readers

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) engineers have developed a new prototype, a low-cost

Braille reader to help blind readers to use electronic books. Braille readers convert electronic text into raised Braille

dots, and currently can cost $15,000 or more. NIST expects to transfer the technology to the private sector, which

should result in Braille readers retailing for about $1,000. In addition, conventional Braille texts are usually not

available until at least 18 months after printed books are published. A low-cost Braille reader will make the

technology accessible to more people and enable America’s blind and visually impaired consumers to read

electronic books as soon as they are released at a cost that makes them affordable for more people.

Implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention 

In October 1998, Congress passed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), implementing legislation that the

President subsequently signed into law. The Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) is the Department of

Commerce’s lead agency responsible for compiling data declaration forms and for hosting Organization for the

Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspections at U.S. companies covered by the CWC. In accordance

with the treaty, BXA has promulgated final regulations that authorize the collection of data on the production,

consumption, processing, import, and export of certain chemicals, and to manage inspections carried out by the

OPCW. In FY 2000, we completed the creation of an information management system to comply with the

treaty’s reporting requirements and held eight outreach seminars around the country. BXA is also responsible

for managing international inspections at U.S. commercial facilities selected from the data submitted to the

OPCW. The first OPCW inspection was held in May, and was followed by 11 more inspections in the remaining

months of FY 2000. In total, we collected almost 3,000 declarations and reports from more than 700 sites.

12 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

The Department of Commerce’s History
NIST Announces Winner of Worldwide Information Security Competition

In October 2000, a National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST)-organized worldwide competition ended

with the selection of a new encryption technique to protect computerized information. The new Advanced

Encryption Standard (AES) will be an official U.S. Federal Government information security standard. AES is

expected to be broadly adopted by the private sector worldwide to protect credit card numbers exchanged over

the Internet, guarantee the security of computerized medical and personnel records, protect the privacy of Email exchanges, and provide security for many other information exchanges that are vital to the continuing

growth of E-commerce. Where advanced computers can crack most current encryption technology, the new AES

is expected to remain uncrackable for the next 30 years. 

EDA Brownfields Redevelopment Project Wins Grand Prize at Phoenix Awards 

In FY 2000, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) continued to champion national brownfields

redevelopment efforts, supporting the revitalization and return to productive use of many idle, abandoned, or

under-used former commercial and industrial sites. Our success in this area is highlighted by the fact that 3 of

the 10 national Phoenix Awards winners, including the 2000 Grand Prize winner, are EDA-supported projects.

The Phoenix Awards honor individuals and groups that have implemented innovative, practical programs

remediating environmental contamination at brownfields sites and that have simultaneously stimulated

economic development and job creation or retention. The winning EDA-funded projects are the Huntington

Industrial Center, Huntington, West Virginia (Grand Prize winner); the Lewis and Clark Redevelopment Area,

Kansas City, Missouri; and the Northside Treatment Plant Redevelopment, Denver, Colorado.

Baldrige National Quality Program

Congress established the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program in 1987 to recognize U.S.

organizations for their achievements in quality and business performance and to raise awareness of the

importance of quality and performance excellence as a competitive edge. Three awards may be given annually

in each of the following categories: manufacturing, service, small business, education, and health care. The

education and health care categories were added in 1999, and have received wide praise and are expected to

generate broad benefits. The 2000 Award winners were the Dana Corporation, Spicer Driveshaft Division

(Toledo, Ohio); Karlee Company, Inc. (Garland, Texas); Operations Management International, Inc. (Greenwood

Village, Colorado); and Los Alamos National Bank (Los Alamos, New Mexico).

Technology Demonstration Center

In September 2000, the Technology Administration established a Technology Demonstration Center at the

Department of Commerce, a public-private collaboration designed to promote a better understanding of

technology’s impact on the United States. The center provides a venue for the public and private sectors to

display and demonstrate emerging technologies in a variety of areas, such as medical and biotechnology, Ecommerce (electronic business via the Internet), wireless communications, manufacturing, and education. It will

serve as a neutral platform for open discussion about the impact of technology on policy and hopes to raise the

collective awareness of technology developments within the government framework.

Electronic Advancements at ITA

The ITA has launched an Internet site, www.trade.gov, to complement the Department of Commerce’s export

portal at www.export.gov. The new site is organized according to customer interests, making it easy for visitors

to find information even if they have little knowledge of ITA’s structure. In addition, in FY 2000 we

strengthened our trade promotion efforts by developing a series of dynamic E-business strategies. These include

the launch of E-ExpoUSA, a virtual trade show of U.S. export products and services that instantly directs

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 13

The Department of Commerce’s History
interested buyers to U.S. suppliers; introduction of a videoconferencing network that is installed at domestic

Department of Commerce offices and at U.S. embassies and consulates overseas; the launch of

www.usatrade.gov, an Internet site for U.S. exporters that offers six video programs addressing a variety of

international trade topics; the launch of the Export Finance Matchmaker Internet site, which helps exporters and

international buyers find financial backers for their cross-border sales or purchases; and the introduction of Push

Technology, which automatically delivers trade leads and market research reports via E-mail alerts. We also

created the United States’ first publicly accessible international trade agreements’ database, available at the

Department’s Trade Compliance Center (TCC) Internet site, TCC Online, at www.mac.doc.gov/tcc. 

USPTO: Performance-Based Organization

At the beginning of FY 2000, Public Law 106-113 established the USPTO as a performance-based organization

subject to the policy direction of the Secretary of Commerce. This approval will allow the USPTO to achieve

greater efficiency by operating as a commercial business and exercising independent control of its

administrative and management decisions. The new office will be headed by an Under Secretary of Commerce

for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, appointed by the President. The patent and trademark

operations will be treated as separate operating units, each led by a Commissioner appointed by the Secretary of

Commerce.

Private Sector Participation Increases in NOAA’s Marine and Aeronautical Collection of Data 

Congress, the OIG, the GAO, and others have long been concerned about how the NOAA can most efficiently

and effectively obtain its marine and aeronautical data. In recent years, NOAA has made considerable progress

in expanding the private sector’s participation in this effort. As a result, NOAA was removed on September 30,

2000 from the OIG list of top ten management challenges and from GAO’s high-risk report.

14 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

The Department of Commerce’s History
Overview of the FY 2000 Annual Program Performance Report/ FY 2002 

Annual Performance Plan 

Purpose

This combined FY 2000 Annual Program Performance Report (APPR) and FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan

(APP) is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA). The combined volume is a highly important one, because it: 

• Is a vital companion document to the Department of Commerce’s FY 2002 budget request

• Provides a review of our accomplishments for FY 2000

• Sets out reasonable goals that define what we will be accomplishing in FY 2002

• Gives members of the new Administration crucial information to use in directing our activities in FY 2002

and beyond. 

The Contents of this Document

This FY 2000 APPR/FY 2002 APP responds to the GPRA annual reporting requirements, and it contains vital

information organized into several key sections:

• A history of the Department of Commerce’s and a review of our recent activities

• A summary and explanation of the Department of Commerce’s strategic goals and how they are used to

integrate our program activities 

• A summary and explanation, bureau by bureau, of our major programs and of the goals and measures that

we use in managing them.

• Summary tables which show planned and actual accomplishments under our performance measures.

We have provided consistent information for each of our major programs, using a standardized information

gathering and assessment format. As a result, we provide the following information for each program bureau:

• Mission statement and organization structure

• Ongoing priorities

• Management and administrative challenges,

• Summary of the performance goals and measures used, and the resources devoted to those goals

• Rationale behind the goal

• Year-by-year information about performance measure targets and accomplishments

• Explanation for how we validate and evaluate our measures

• What we are doing to correct problems found through an analysis of performance measure information

• Discussion on how each program may relate to programs in the Department Commerce or other agencies

• Identification of external factors that may impact the environment within which our programs operate.

The Department of Commerce’s GPRA Activities

To guide its activities under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Department of

Commerce established a 2-tiered Task Force, led by the Office of the Secretary and staffed by our program

bureaus. One Task Force, consisting of senior bureau managers, meets at the start of the annual GPRA cycle and

at several key points thereafter. This group establishes the overall framework that will be followed for the year,

and through its occasional meetings, ensures that the GPRA process remains on course and consistent with

Departmental and bureau policies. The second Task Force consists of senior staff that is knowledgeable about

bureau activities and who make substantive contributions to the GPRA documents themselves. We believe that

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 15

Overview
this approach of engaging both policy officials and operational staff is the most effective way to establish and

implement an overall conceptual structure for linking our diverse program activities into an integrated whole,

while also allowing the substance of our activities the bureaus and their programs to be seen clearly by their

customers. Through this approach, our three Strategic Goals that focus on strengthening the U.S. economy,

enhancing U.S. competitiveness, and supporting environmental management can clearly be translated into

specific bureau programs, and the operations of our programs can be seen through their performance goals and

measures. The ways in which we manage our GPRA process and link the key elements of planning and

budgeting together are seen in the following diagram.

Relationships Within the GPRA Process

Since the inception of GPRA, the Department of Commerce has submitted all required reports, and we have

integrated our established budget process and our GPRA requirements by:

• Placing the lead responsibility for GPRA within the Department-level Office of Budget, to ensure that at the

very top level of the Department, the budget and GPRA processes will be conducted by the same staff

• Encouraging the Department of Commerce’s bureaus to follow this same integrated staffing model

• Modifying our budget reports, especially our budget justifications and our annual Budget in Brief, so that

they integrate the display of budget and GPRA information.

The Department of Commerce has also been active in government-wide activities that directly involved GPRA

or shared the same purposes as GPRA. For example, the Secretary of Commerce and several Department of

Commerce programs have the lead responsibility for interagency program planning and integration in specific

high-impact areas, such as the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee. In addition, we are a founding

member and the central agency in the National Academy of Public Administration’s Performance Consortium,

which brings together major Federal agencies including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), GAO,

and Congressional staffs to provide a forum for developing effective approaches for strategic planning and

performance measurement.

16 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Overview

Budget Estimate Submission:

Should match Annual Performance Plan

and break out resource requirements

Accountability Report:

Financial summary describes resources

used in meeting targets

Strategic Plan:

Five Year Goals and Objectives

Annual Performance Plan:

One year plan describes what programs

will do this year to meet five year plan

Annual Program Performance Report:

Year in review document describes 

how programs did this year in 

meeting targets
We are serious about taking every opportunity to improve the usefulness and quality of our GPRA documents,

and we have sought to learn from the constructive comments made by official reviewers of our and other

agencies’ GPRA documents. We have worked closely with GAO in their reviews of Department of Commerce

programs, as well as reviews of our GPRA documents. These reviews have been conducted according to

established GAO models of evaluation and reporting, and cumulatively have focused on our GPRA documents

as a whole, and on bureau-specific performance goals and measures. The Congressional Research Service has

examined some of our documents as well. We have viewed all of these reviews as opportunities to receive

constructive comments on ways to sharpen our goal and measures, and we have examined those reviews

carefully in preparing this APPR/APP.

House and Senate Committees have taken an interest in all Federal agencies’ GPRA documents, and have

produced summary reviews, including scores of these documents. Although the scores were unfavorable to

many agencies, the Department of Commerce has found merit in the overall set of review comments and has

sought to identify ways in which they may be used to strengthen our GPRA documents. As a result, we have

taken a series of substantive actions, all of which are clearly evident in our FY 2000-2005 Strategic Plan, as well

as this combined APPR/APP. Specifically, we have:

• Focused our FY 2000-2005 Strategic Plan more on the specific roles and responsibilities of the individual

bureaus, and less on the Department as a whole

• Made our Strategic Goals more clear and our performance goal statements more descriptive and outcomeoriented

• Reduced the number of performance goals for our programs to focus on a tighter group of priority areas

• Reduced the number of performance measures to increase focus on the vital few measures

• Increased the number of outcome measures and reduced the number of output measures, so that the more

substantive benefits of our programs can be seen

• Explained the purposes of our performance goals and measures more clearly

• Provided additional information about program evaluation, as well as data verification and validation

• Identified other Federal programs that we work with, and described the linkage between the two

• Ensured that corrective or follow-up actions are provided in cases where a program’s annual performance

targets were not met.

As a result of this process, we believe that we have produced GPRA documents that are more comprehensible to

our programs’ users, more helpful to those who have priority-setting and resource allocation responsibilities,

and more effective as management tools for our internal staffs. 

At the same time, the Department of Commerce is an agency with complex missions, and some of our program

missions remain especially difficult to measure in simple terms. 

• Under a variety of different laws, we share responsibilities with several other Federal agencies in areas as

diverse as trade promotion, export controls, assistance to small business, developmental assistance for

communities, economic analysis, scientific research and development, technological advances, environmental

protection, and education and training. We have cataloged our relationships with other agencies effectively, but

at the same time, we are among the agencies that recognize the challenge of developing consistent and

compatible performance goals and measures that can cut across agency and statutory lines. The Department of

Commerce plans to address this challenge by seeking additional opportunities to develop common performance

goals and measures with related agencies in the coming year.

• The Department of Commerce contains several vital programs that present additional measurement

challenges because their nature is inherently longer-term. Our scientific research and development programs,

technology development programs, community assistance programs, and job-creation programs are examples

of activities that may have low-yield start-up phases and high-yield outyear payoffs. A methodology for

measuring long term program success, that can demonstrate clear and compelling results, must be found to

so that these programs can compete for funding in an environment that focuses on individual fiscal years.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 17

Overview
How We Will Achieve Our Strategic Goals

Although the Department of Commerce’s budget has usually been the smallest of any cabinet Department

(except in Decennial Census years), the breadth of our activities and the legislatively mandated responsibilities

that drive them has taken us into many different arenas, and it is through these that we achieve our strategic

goals. These include:

• Direct operations, such as our trade promotion and weather prediction activities

• Infrastructure investment, such as our telecommunications and technology development programs

• Capital investment, such as our programs that bring public works facilities to communities in need of

economic development

• Financial tools to help small or minority businesses to develop access to capital markets

• Economic and demographic information, which provides input for economic investment and business

decisions all across the United States, supports the awarding of billions of dollars in Federal funding to state

and local governments, and results in Congressional districting and redistricting

• Law enforcement, such as our export control and national security responsibilities

• Technology development and application, through our world-class scientific and technology laboratories and

our intellectual property protection activities.

Although the Department of Commerce operates a number of its activities directly, we also conduct a number of

programs in cooperation with other Federal agencies, with state and local governments, and with grantees and

contractors. This sharing of responsibilities is essential if the Department of Commerce is to engage other

agencies and levels of government especially those in closest contact with the American people in the day-today decision-making and service delivery activities essential to making these programs work successfully.

This combined APPR/APP focuses on our program accomplishments for FY 2000 in the areas cited above (and

compares them to pre-set performance goals and measures), and it also lays out our intentions for the activities

to be conducted with the resources contained in the FY 2002 budget request. In addition, the report provides

insight into the Department of Commerce’s internal activities as a Federal agency that are necessary to our

successful operation and our effective support of program activities. These internal activities include financial

management, human resource management, and related tasks. 

How and Why We Select Our Performance Goals and Performance Measures

Other sections of this APPR/APP list and describe our performance goals and measures. This section explains

how they were selected, and why the selection of measure can be a complex task.

Each Department of Commerce program is led by appointed or career staffs that have considerable experience

in their fields, and the programs are operated under specific laws or Executive Orders. Based on these

requirements, and over time and in consultation with stakeholder groups, program managers have outlined

their core responsibilities, which must be contained in performance goals and measures. Starting with the

passage of GPRA and through the specific approaches required by the Act, we undertook a rigorous and

consistent look at the goals of our programs and how we will accomplish them. We wanted to ensure that this

was visible at two levels — the immediate payoff (what we were accomplishing) in quantifiable terms, and the

longer-term payoff (more difficult to measure), showing the impact of our accomplishments over time. For this

reason, the APPR/APP includes both output measures (i.e., what we were accomplishing) as well as outcome

measures (i.e., what impact we had).

The Department of Commerce, and all other Federal agencies, have found this challenge of identifying

performance goals and measures that tell a full story to be difficult, but one which had to be addressed.

Different stakeholders, and even different units within our programs, view goals or measures differently, and

one reviewer’s outcome may be another reviewer’s output. Nevertheless, the Department of Commerce has paid

18 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Overview
considerable attention to refining its list of performance goals and measures since the start of GPRA, and this

APPR/APP reflects the latest and best effort to provide a comprehensive and balanced listing of outputs and

outcomes.

Because most Department of Commerce programs are ongoing ones, it is natural to discuss our activities for the

past year and the coming year together. Our tables and our program narratives in the bureau sections of this

report provide information for the previous year, the current year, and the coming year to give the reader a

more complete picture of where we have been, what we have accomplished, and where we are going. This

cumulative presentation of data also clarifies and supports our resource request for the coming year. 

But readers must be aware that understanding an agency’s performance goals and measures, and the process of

developing clear and easily grasped ones, can be a significant challenge. While some Department of Commerce

programs produce easily measured results, others show results that are more complex, and some of the factors

that cause this are:

• There is not always a one-for-one relationship between activities and resources, and observed results. Many

Department of Commerce activities that are conducted in one year — technology innovation, economic

development, business stimulation — will not produce results until one or more years in the future, and

conversely, program results that take place in any one year may be the result of cumulative effort and/or

previous years’ funding.

• The Department of Commerce does not have direct control over much of the information needed to explain

program results. For example, key information about how companies benefit from our international trade

counseling may focus on areas that many companies consider proprietary, and they do not wish to divulge

the information for fear of giving away a competitive advantage. Other information, which is produced over

time by state or local grantees, is lost when the grantee ceases operation or when key staff leaves.

• Some topics do not lend themselves to simple quantitative measurement. The Department of Commerce has

government-wide policy-setting responsibilities in telecommunications, science and technology, and other

fields. While we believe that our policy-setting actions lead to more well informed decision-making processes,

this outcome is difficult to measure — the results of policy-setting can really only be described by observers

of the decision-making process or by peers in that specific field of science.

• Some Department of Commerce programs are influenced by factors beyond our control, such as the global

economy, forces of nature, or the creative genius of U.S. science and technology, while other programs are

influenced by the actions and decisions of other agencies or levels of government that are not subject to our

legislation.

• Some programs do not show progress or results in a constant and ever-improving way yearly results of many

programs must be examined in the context of a positive trend, rather than only one year. At the same time,

other programs seek to maintain a certain level of output and ensuring a continuation of the status quo, such

as 100 percent compliance with a goal or requirement, is an ideal result.

• For FY 2002, our performance goals and measures are linked to specific funding requests contained in our

budget and shown in each bureau’s section of the APPR/APP. In some instances, the levels of performance

are dependent upon the availability of the specified level of funding, and lower funding will necessarily

produce lower results.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 19

Overview
Adjustments to the Strategic Plan

The FY 2000-FY 2005 Strategic Plan, upon which this APPR/APP is based, was issued while the APPR/APP was

already under development, so much of the work on the two documents was performed at the same time, by

essentially the same staff. Nevertheless, in preparing the APPR/APP, we revalidated the Strategic Plan’s

Strategic Goals, and reviewed our bureaus’ performance goals. Other than minor clarifications of wording, there

are no substantive differences between the performance goals in the Strategic Plan, and this APPR/APP.

20 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Adjustments to the Strategic Plan
Integrating the Strategic Goals and Bureau Activities

The three Strategic Goals form the framework within which all of our bureaus and programs operate. The

dynamic linkage between the Goals and the bureau activities are our Strategic Objectives. This portion of the

APPR/APP — in the very heart of the document — activates that linkage and details the performance goals and

objectives of our programs.

The Strategic Objectives are presented and discussed here, and those discussions are followed by bureau-bybureau detail in the next section of this APPR/APP.

STRATEGIC GOAL 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to

operate efficiently and equitably

The Department of Commerce’s first goal is to encourage and support economic expansion and to increase the

prosperity of all Americans, regardless of their geographical location or ethnic origin. 

Objective 1.1

Provide the infrastructure to enable the participation of all Americans in the new economy.

Within the Department of Commerce, the NTIA is responsible for determining the policies and technical

research necessary to provide access to the latest telecommunications technology and services to all Americans;

for identifying the means, including the potential use of electronic signatures, by which privacy on the Internet

may be assured and infrastructure protected; and for encouraging innovative use of the radio frequency

spectrum. The ITA is responsible for assisting the growth of small export businesses; for enforcing U.S. trade

laws and trade agreements; for maintaining U.S. trade with established markets and promoting new business in

emerging markets, such as China; and for improving access to overseas markets by identifying and pressing for

the removal of nontariff barriers. The EDA assists technology-based development in areas where local

communities have fallen behind national levels of development, supporting those communities in their

implementation of long-range, technology-based strategies for economic growth. The MBDA works with the

Small Business Administration (SBA) and the EDA to facilitate access of minority-owned businesses to funding

and loan guarantee programs to help these businesses grow.

Objective 1.2

Promote responsible economic growth and trade while protecting U.S. security.

The BXA seeks to advance U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic interests by regulating exports of

critical goods and technologies that could damage those interests while furthering the growth of legitimate U.S.

exports to maintain our economic leadership. The BXA intends to accomplish this by enforcing compliance with

those regulations; cooperating with like-minded nations to obtain global support for this effort; assisting nations

that are key exporters or transit points for sensitive goods and technologies to strengthen their own transit and

export controls; and monitoring the U.S. defense industrial base to ensure it remains strong. The ITA is

responsible for improving access to foreign markets by enforcing compliance with U.S. trade agreements. The

NTIA manages the radio spectrum, with the joint objectives of promoting the use of spectrum that most

efficiently serves all Americans and by maintaining readiness to administer the U.S. telecommunications

infrastructure in time of crisis. The responsibilities of the NOAA, the EDA, and the ITA include providing

leadership for national and global efforts to protect the environment through education and awareness

programs and trade negotiations that seek overseas’ observance of laws governing dumping and subsidies.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 21

Integrating the Strategic Goals and Bureau Activities
Objective 1.3

Support the effective decision-making of policymakers, businesses, and the American public.

The ESA monitors and measures socioeconomic and macroeconomic trends. The BEA measures gross domestic

product (GDP). An accurate assessment of the GDP is vital to decision-making on monetary policy, projections

of Federal budget surpluses, and the allocation of federal funds to the States. The Census Bureau also provides

statistical information about the economy and society. In the past this information has been gathered primarily

through a decennial nationwide census; full implementation of the American Community Survey will, in the

future, provide annual data revolutionizing the survey methodology of the federal statistical system. The

Census Bureau also plans to develop official measures of electronic business (E-business) activity and evaluate

how E-business affects existing measures of economic activity. The ITA further refines Census data, compiling

and disseminating statistics on exports and trade in an effort to better monitor trade flows. The EDA supports

effective decision-making by local officials through its capacity-building programs.

STRATEGIC GOAL 2: Provide infrastructure for innovation to enhance U.S. competitiveness

The Department of Commerce’s second goal is to provide the infrastructure that will enable U.S. businesses to

maintain their technological advantage in world markets. Globalization and the technology-driven productivity

gains of the new economy are providing new challenges. Continued partnership, collaboration, and cooperation

between the Department of Commerce and industry will enhance and promote the technological edge of the

United States.

Objective 2.1

Provide infrastructural tools and capabilities that improve the productivity, quality, and efficiency of

research and innovation processes. 

The Technology Administration serves as the focal point for leadership on civilian technology policy in the

federal government, and it conducts various programs to support government and industry through the

provision of comprehensive technical services (measurements and standards) and the development and

application of new technology. The NIST is strengthening the international system of standards and

measurements to facilitate U.S. trade by building the Advanced Measurement Laboratory to provide the world’s

best facility for highly demanding measurements and research and helping manufacturing supply chains

increase productivity and competitiveness. The NTIS continues to meet the challenge of permanent preservation

and ready access of the taxpayers’ investment in research and development through the acquisition,

organization, and preservation of the titles added annually to the permanent collection. NTIS promotes the

development and application of science and technology by providing technologically advanced global Ecommerce channels for dissemination of specialized information to business, industry, government, and the

public; ensuring public access to the bibliographic database; and implementing an initiative that will enable

users to locate and download information directly from agency Internet sites.

Objective 2.2

Protect Intellectual Property

Intellectual property is a potent force in the competitive free enterprise system. By continuing to protect

intellectual endeavors and encouraging technological progress, the USPTO seeks to preserve the United States’

technological edge, which is key to current and future competitiveness. The ITA oversees negotiations

concerning trade-related aspects of intellectual property.

22 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Integrating the Strategic Goals and Bureau Activities
Objective 2.3

Provide the infrastructure for a digital economy and a digital government. 

The Department of Commerce’s strategy to promote E-commerce requires that a sound legal framework be

constructed to govern the entire process. The Department will advocate a legal framework that balances the

interests of businesses, consumers, and governments at all levels and ensures the reliability, security, and

integrity of E-commerce transactions. The Department of Commerce will also promote broad access to 

E-commerce technology, both domestically and internationally.

STRATEGIC GOAL 3: Observe and manage the Earth’s environment to promote sustainable growth.

The Department of Commerce envisions a 21st century in which environmental stewardship, assessment, and

prediction serve as keystones for enhancing economic prosperity and quality of life, improving the protection of

lives and property, and strengthening the U.S. balance of trade.

Objective 3.1

Enhance conservation of the natural environment.

NOAA is responsible for promoting global environmental stewardship, with the goal of conserving and wisely

managing the U.S. marine and coastal resources. Our vision is that by 2005, U.S. Ocean and coastal regions will

be places of healthy ecosystems. This vision includes:

• Adding to the Nation’s wealth and to the quality of life of millions of Americans by improving the use of

fishery resources

• Leading in the preservation of marine biodiversity by balancing the exploitation of natural resources with the

management of protected species

• Ensuring that coastal ecosystems are managed to maintain biodiversity and long-term productivity for

sustained use.

Objective 3.2

Improve Understanding and Prediction of the Natural Environment

NOAA monitors and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment to ensure and enhance sustainable economic

opportunities. Our vision is that by 2005, the United States will have an integrated and reliable environmental

observation, assessment, and forecasting service that will enable us to make informed decisions regarding public

safety, economic development, and environmental quality. This vision will require:

• Improved short-term warning and forecast services

• Reliable seasonal-to-interannual climate forecasts

• Better understanding of decadal-to-centennial environmental changes

• Modernization of navigation and positioning services through the application of new positioning and

bathymetric sensing technologies.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 23

Integrating the Strategic Goals and Bureau Activities
24 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP
Economic Development Administration

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 25

Economic Development Administration

Mission Statement

To create a climate conducive to the development of private enterprise in America’s

distressed communities.

The Economic Development Administration (EDA) is authorized by the Public Works and Economic

Development Act (PWEDA) of 1965, as amended to provide assistance to economically distressed communities

in both rural and urban areas. EDA programs address conditions of substantial unemployment, low per capita

income, and other severe economic distress. Congress recently reauthorized EDA programs by enacting the

Economic Development Administration Reform Act of 1998 with strong bipartisan support.

EDA works with local, State, and national organizations to help distressed communities overcome barriers that

inhibit economic growth and limit their ability to compete effectively in regional, national, and global markets.

While the United States has experienced sustained economic growth in recent years, many of the Nation’s

communities do not share in this prosperity. Under-served rural and urban communities often lack access to the

knowledge, skills, and technology required to keep pace with changes driving world commerce. Many of these

communities must rebuild physical, social, and financial assets in order to create better opportunities for jobs

and private investment.

EDA works through public-private partnerships to build local capacity to plan and implement economic

development programs in distressed communities. These partnerships encourage local governments, businesses,

and civic organizations to identify common goals and development priorities. EDA grants for planning,

technical assistance, research, and evaluation support sound local planning and development decisions, and

promote the effective use of local, State, and Federal resources for successful development projects.

EDA provides grants for public works and development facilities that will provide lasting benefits for

economically distressed communities. These grants serve as catalysts to mobilize other public and private

investments for the establishment or expansion of commercial and industrial facilities that will promote

sustainable development in distressed communities. EDA also provides economic adjustment grants for

infrastructure improvements and revolving loan funds to help communities and businesses respond to severe

economic dislocations such as those caused by major layoffs, plant shutdowns, trade impacts, natural disasters,

and the closure of military bases and energy labs. 
Organizational Structure

Priorities

EDA program activities support two major performance goals. 

Goal 1: Create jobs and private enterprise in economically distressed communities 

Public works and development facilities—priorities include projects that provide direct benefits to highly distressed

communities; critical investments in water, sewer, and transportation facilities; modern infrastructure,

technology, and communication facilities; and the renovation and construction of industrial facilities. Long-term

objectives are to stimulate permanent employment and private investment, stabilize local economies, and

promote sustainable development. This program also supports the redevelopment of older industrial facilities,

and blighted commercial properties, including brownfields redevelopment.

Special economic adjustment assistance—priorities include flexible funding for communities experiencing or

threatened by the loss of a major employer or key industry sector; innovative proposals for development finance

and revolving loan funds; new market and product development; and enterprise development, training, and

technology transfer. This program also supports defense adjustment, base reuse, redevelopment of Federal

energy facilities, and economic recovery efforts in response to major disasters and other emergencies. 

Goal 2: Build local capacity to achieve and sustain economic growth

Planning and technical assistance—priorities include planning partnerships, and technical assistance and

community outreach to areas of highest distress. EDA encourages local communities to form partnerships

within neighboring towns, counties, State and regional planning organizations, and Indian tribes to make more

effective use of limited Federal, State, and local resources. These programs also support sustainable

development through sound local planning and conservation of scarce resources. Technical assistance grants

support University Centers and local technical assistance to help local officials explore new opportunities and

solve complex problems.

Research and national technical assistance—priorities include research on development issues that affect distressed

communities to provide a better understanding of local, State, and regional economies; studies of effective

development strategies and ways to improve Federal assistance for local development efforts; and EDAprogram

evaluations. Recent evaluations demonstrate that EDA public works and economic adjustment projects create

26 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Economic Development Administration

Office of Chief

Counsel

Office of Finance

and Administration

Office of Program

Operations

Regional Offices

Office of

Congressional Liaison

& Program Research

& Evaluation

Office of the Assistant

Secretary
jobs, private investment, and other lasting benefits in economically distressed communities.1 This research also

shows that EDA planning and technical assistance programs allow EDA to provide early and sustained support

for local development priorities, which contributes to successful completion and positive outcomes for EDA

projects.

Intergovernmental cooperation—The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) recently convened a

panel to assess the Federal role in local economic development; the panel issued a report entitled A Path to

Smarter Federal Leadership in Economic Development: Learning, Leveraging, and Linking (November 1998).

EDA is working with other Federal agencies and the National Coalition for Economic Development on ways to

improve Federal assistance for local development efforts, as recommended by NAPA:

• Learning—creating a better understanding of how State, regional, and local economies function and about

which development strategies work best;

• Leveraging—providing incentives to counteract pressures on State and local agencies to focus on highly

visible projects in prosperous areas rather than on long-term regional development strategies that would

benefit disadvantaged as well as prosperous people; and 

• Linking—making it easier for States and local officials to use Federal resources more effectively. 

Brownfields redevelopment—EDA’s partnership with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an important

example of intergovernmental cooperation. EDA has a long history of redeveloping abandoned industrial,

commercial, and military facilities, investing over $250 million to date for such projects. Public and private

support has declined dramatically owing to the increased environmental, legal, and financial risks associated

with such projects. To address this issue, EDA joined EPA in 1995 to support State and local efforts to increase

planning and development assistance for brownfields—particularly those that blocked economic development

in distressed urban areas and rural communities. As a result, EDA has assisted in the review of over 300 pilot

projects and the design of planning and financial incentives that will help distressed communities reclaim

hundreds of prime industrial and commercial sites to support new jobs and investment.

Management Challenges

EDA obtained an unqualified opinion on financial statements for FY 2000, the third clean audit in three years

(FY 1998—FY 2000). Working closely with the Department of Commerce’s Office of Financial Management,

prior-year findings have been addressed and recommendations implemented on grant accruals and time

records. 

During FY 2000, EDA converted accounting data to the Commerce Administrative and Management Systems

(CAMS) and is implementing audit recommendations to update policies and procedures for the new system to

support the timely production of year-end reports and financial statements. 

Also during FY 2000, EDA successfully implemented two new systems: the Operational Planning and Control

System (OPCS) to support project processing and grants management activities; and the Loan Management

System to support debt collection activities for older EDA loan and guarantee portfolios. These Y2K-compliant

systems ensured uninterrupted service to external clients. 

EDA has taken steps to improve Information Technology (IT) security, and will continue to focus on general and

environmental electronic data processing controls. This includes improvements in three areas: entity-wide

security program planning and management, access controls, and service continuity. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 27

Economic Development Administration

1 Public Works Program: Performance Evaluation (Rutgers et al. 1997); Defense Adjustment Program: Performance Evaluation 

(Rutgers et al. 1997).
EDA continues to improve program performance measures and reporting systems in accordance with the

General Accounting Office (GAO) recommendations and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). Specifically:

• EDA has obtained data on actual performance for all FY 2000 performance measures and targets, and reports

data as they become available for long-term measures. Trend data are provided to support long-term

measures.

• EDA has adjusted performance targets to exclude indirect effects of EDA projects on long-term jobs and

investment. This step was taken to address GAO concerns (GAO/RCED-99-11) and produces extremely

conservative targets for direct jobs created and retained.

• Planning is underway to address GAO’s recommendations that EDA collaborate with other Federal agencies

on ways to evaluate and measure cross-cutting activities to improve economic development assistance for

distressed communities (GAO/RCED/99-135 and 00-220).

• EDA continues to work closely with the Department to explore improvements for future performance plans

and reports. 

• Enhancing the capacity of information systems to support data collection and analysis is an ongoing

management challenge for OPCS and EDA financial management systems. EDA is proposing a new initiative

for FY 2002 to enhance information technology and use of the Internet to support EDA program activities and

management functions.

Targets and Performance Summary

See individual Performance Goal section for further description of each measure.

28 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Economic Development Administration

Performance Goal 1: Create jobs and private enterprise in economically distressed communities

5,698 by FY 2002

28,492 by FY 2005

56,983 by FY 2008

5,651 by FY 2003

28,254 by FY 2006

56,509 by FY 2009

12,056 jobs4

7,201 by FY 2004

36,003 by FY 2007

72,006 by FY 2010

5,790 by FY 2005

28,948 by FY 2008

57,895 by FY 2011

Number of permanent jobs

created or retained in

distressed communities 

FY 1999 

Targets

FY 2000 

Targets

FY 2000 Actual

(for FY 1997

Targets)

FY 2001 

Target2

FY 2002 

Target3

Program Outcome

Measures (Long-term)

0.21 B by FY 2002

1.04 B by FY 2005

2.08 B by FY 2008

0.20 B by FY 2003

1.02 B by FY 2006

2.04 B by FY 2009

199 million5

0.24 B by FY 2004

1.20 B by FY 2007

2.41 B by FY 2010

0.19 B by FY 2005

0.97 B by FY 2008

1.94 B by FY 2011

Private sector dollars

invested in distressed

communities

2 FY 2001 targets adjusted based on FY 2001 enacted appropriations.

3 FY 2002 targets based on requested FY 2002 appropriation levels.

4 Actual job performance exceeds FY 2000 target (snapshot of performance at first reporting interval for FY 1997 grants). 

5 Actual amount performance exceeds FY 2000 target (snapshot of performance for first reporting interval for FY 1997 grants).
Goal 1 includes program activities authorized by PWEDA Section 201 (public works and development facilities

grants) and Section 209 (economic adjustment infrastructure and revolving loan grants). 

EDA performance targets for long-term program outcomes are based on nine-year projections for jobs and

private dollars invested. Performance data is obtained at three-year intervals to provide “snapshots” of current

progress in achieving the full, nine-year performance projection. FY 2000 is the first year for which data is

available on long-term outcomes. Actual performance exceeds the FY 2000 target for FY 1997 grants, indicating

significant progress toward achieving the full nine-year projection of 50,400 permanent jobs by 2006. See Goal 1

measures.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 29

Economic Development Administration

199 Million

($ .66)

383 Million

($1.21)

197 Million

($ .66)

347 Million

($1.17)

344 Million

($1.00)

277 million

($1.00)

State and local

dollars committed

(amount per EDA

dollar)

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual 

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

Interim and

Process Measures

20% 36% 30% 45% 40% 40%

Percent of grants to

areas of highest

distress

74.7 Median

days 

(6% decrease)

72.5 Median

Days

(7% decrease)

68.1 Median

Days

(6% decrease)

64.0 Median

Days

(6% decrease)

Reduce application

processing times 

Two-year

Average

Baseline

FY 2000–FY 2001

FY 2002 Target New Interim

Measure

New Measure New Measure New Measure New Measure TBD6 TBD6

Dollars invested in

technology-related

projects in distressed

areas

Adjusted baseline

Two-year average

for FY 98–FY 99

79.5 Median Days

6 EDA will establish targets upon completion of the baseline analysis for this new measure in September 2001.
FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual 

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

Goal 2 includes program activities authorized by PWEDA Sections 203 and 206 (planning grants for Economic

Development Districts, Indian tribes, and other planning organizations); Sections 207 and 208 (technical

assistance grants for University Centers, Local and National Technical Assistance, Research and Evaluation);

and Section 209 (economic adjustment strategy grants only). Performance measures for trade adjustment

assistance to firms authorized by the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, are also included under this goal. 

FY 2000 is the first year for which data is available for the new measures shown above. EDA developed

reporting methods during FY 1999 and obtained the first reports during FY 2000. EDA is developing multi-year

trend data and is reviewing the process for adjusting and validating targets for each measure. See Goal 2

measures.

30 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Economic Development Administration

Performance Goal 2: Build local capacity to achieve and sustain economic growth

New Measure New Measure 75% 95% 85% 85%

Percentage of sub-State

jurisdiction members

actively participating in

the Economic

Development District

Program.

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual 

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

Program Outcome

Measures

New Measure New Measure 75% 46% 60% 65%

Percentage of Economic

Development District

and Indian tribe

planning grantees

whose Comprehensive

Economic Development

Strategy (CEDS) is on

time and acceptable.

New Measure New Measure 75% 84% 75% 75%

Percentage of

University Center

clients rating technical

assistance received as a

7 on a 1 to 10 scale. (10

is best)

New Measure New Measure 75% 95% 85% 85%

Percentage of Trade

Adjustment Assistance

Center clients rating

assistance received as a

7 on a 1 to 10 scale. (10

is best)

5 6 5 7 8 8

Number of Research

and National Technical

Assistance results

published or presented

nationally each year.

Interim & Process

Measures

20% 31% 25% 35% 30% 30%

Percentage of local

technical assistance and

economic adjustment

strategy grants awarded

in areas of highest

distress.

4.0% decrease

(49.4 days)

5.8% decrease

(48 days)

8% decrease 

(47.4 days)

12% decrease

(45.3 days)

Reduction in

certification processing

time for trade-impacted

firms 

Adjusted Baseline

2-year average

51. 5days
Resource Requirements

(Dollars in Millions. Funding amounts reflect total obligations.)

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)

* IT Funding included in Total Funding

** Reimbursable Funding is not included in Total Funding. Total Funding also does not include one-time,

disaster grants.

Skill Summary—Economic development policy and planning; community outreach and project development;

program and project management; civil rights; engineering; environmental, legal, and financial management;

research and evaluation; program and management analysis; grants management and general administration.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 31

Economic Development Administration

7 Total Funding includes program dollars, salaries, and expenses. 

8 Total FTE includes reimbursable FTE.

313.0

1.7

170

306.0

N/A

176

312.0

1.2

174

353.0

1.3

180

363.0

0.8

180

296.9

0.8

180

Performance Goal 1:

Total Funding7

IT Funding*

FTE

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Request

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Request

FY 2001

Enacted

FY 2002

Request Performance Goal

78.0

1.0

92

87.0

N/A

95

74.0

0.7

94

84.0

0.7

97

76.0

0.4

97

68.7

0.5

97

Performance Goal 2: 

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE8

381.0

19.5

2.7

262 393.0

0.8

N/A

271 386.0

20.6

1.9

268

Grand Total

Total Funding

Reimbursable**

IT Funding*
FY 2002 Performance Goals

Performance Goal 1: 

Create Jobs and Private Enterprise in Economically Distressed Communities

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably 

Objective 1.1: Provide the infrastructure to enable the participation of all Americans in the new economy

Rationale for Performance Goal 

EDA provides grants for public works and development facilities that will provide sustainable economic

development and lasting benefits for economically distressed communities. These grants serve as catalysts to

mobilize other public and private investments for the establishment or expansion of commercial and industrial

facilities in distressed communities. EDA also provides economic adjustment grants for infrastructure

improvements and revolving loan funds to help communities and businesses respond to severe economic

dislocations caused by major layoffs, plant shutdowns, trade impacts, natural disasters, and the closure of

military bases, energy labs, and similar actions that adversely affect local economies.

EDA encourages projects that demonstrate strong public-private partnerships to create and retain permanent

jobs and investment in distressed communities. Proposals must include matching funds from local, State, or

other non-Federal sources covering at least 50 percent of total project costs. This matching requirement may be

reduced or waived for areas of highest distress. EDA works closely with local officials and community

stakeholders as they develop proposals—and invites applications only when the applicant is ready to implement

the project. Timely application processing and grant decisions reinforce other public and private commitments,

improving the likelihood of successful completion and program outcomes. 

EDA performance measures and targets focus on meaningful program outcomes, some of which are generated

over a period of years following grant approval and project completion. Performance targets for permanent jobs

and private investment are based on program evaluations conducted by a consortium of independent research

institutions led by Rutgers University. The Public Works Program: Performance Evaluation (May 1997) reported on

public works projects (205) whose last payment was received in FY 1990. The methodology for evaluating

results ensured that projects were completed, and in operation long enough to assess results. The evaluation

showed that actual results can be quantified at project completion (typically three years after the awarding of

the grant) and increase substantially over the next six years, resulting in a median of 3,058 EDA dollars per job

and a leveraging ratio of 10.08 private dollars for each EDA dollars (1997 dollars). Targets are discounted

pending availability of more complete trend data. 

EDA’s Ongoing Performance Measurement System 

EDA has established an ongoing reporting system, beginning with FY 1997 grant awards, to track long-term

program outcomes for permanent jobs and private dollars invested in distressed communities. This reporting

system is designed to obtain data on actual performance that are comparable to the baseline evaluations and

long-term performance projections as discussed above. EDA has obtained OMB approval to collect data

(snapshots of actual performance) at three-year intervals for up to 10 years following the awarding of the grant.

This reporting system will enable EDA to develop a database with multi-year trend data on jobs and private

investment generated by EDA projects. FY 2000 was the first year in which data became available under the

32 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Economic Development Administration
new system, representing the first reporting interval for FY 1997 public works grants. Trend data will be added

each year, as it becomes available.

Adjustments to Performance Targets

Early projections for FY 1997 and FY 1998 performance include both direct and indirect jobs for EDA public

works projects. In response to comments from GAO, job targets were adjusted to exclude indirect jobs. This

downward adjustment was largely offset when EDA began setting job targets for economic adjustment

construction and revolving loan fund projects. Projections are now based on direct jobs only, resulting in

conservative targets and reporting standards (beginning with FY 1999 awards). EDA continues to review and

refine performance measures and targets in consultation with Congress, GAO, OMB and other agency

stakeholders, and will adjust targets as appropriate when adequate trend data becomes available. 

Data on Past Performance

To provide more complete information on long-term outcomes (i.e., permanent jobs, private investment), EDA

includes data on past performance for two sets of construction projects that have reached the final reporting

interval. Data are also provided for two sets of revolving loan fund grants. Both sets involve projects that were

approved prior to FY 1997, and thus are not covered under EDA’s ongoing reporting system. Trend data are

currently available on two sets of projects:

• Baseline projects: The Public Works Program: Performance Evaluation (May 1997) reported on public works

projects (205) whose last payment was received in FY 1990. The Defense Adjustment Program Performance

Evaluation (Nov. 1997) provided similar data for EDA revolving loan fund projects ranging from 2 to 5 years

in age. 

• Pilot projects: EDA conducted pilot reviews during FY 1999 to obtain actual data on a second set of projects.

EDA GPRA Pilot I: Construction Projects (Rutgers 1999) shows results for 58 construction projects, six years

after project completion (FY 1993). EDA GPRA Pilot II: RLF Projects (Rutgers 1999) shows results for 44

revolving loan fund projects, six years after approval (FY 1993).

The following tables compare actual results from the pilot projects with the results from baseline projects as

presented by Rutgers et al. [Note: 1997 dollars have not been converted to 1999 dollars.] 

EDA Construction Projects

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 33

Economic Development Administration

GPRA Pilot I Results Public Works Evaluation

(1999) (1997)

Creation of permanent jobs 100% 96.1%

Leveraged Private Sector Investment 98% 84%

EDA Job Cost Ratios $3,445 $3,058

Private Sector Investment 5.62 to 1 10.08 to 1
EDA Revolving Loan Fund Projects

Validation and Verification

The EDA GPRA Pilots not only provide trend data on past performance, as presented above, but also provide

critical outreach and training for EDA grantees and staff on valid reporting methods and verification of

performance data on long-term outcomes. EDA achieved a 98 percent response rate on the FY 1999 pilots, and

conducted site visits to over 25 percent of the projects to validate and verify data reported. The data were then

provided to Rutgers University for review and comparison to the original evaluations. 

Formal guidance on reporting requirements has been provided to EDA grantees based on lessons learned

during the Pilot Reviews. The raw data obtained from the FY 1997 grantees show over 16,074 jobs created or

retained for the first reporting interval. EDA will review the raw data on jobs and investment for consistency

with current reporting standards. Final results will be reported following the validation and verification of

performance data for EDA’s two long-term outcome measures. EDA will conduct regional performance reviews

to validate and verify performance data reported by grantees. 

Interim and Process Measures

In response to GAO recommendations, EDA developed a set of interim and process measures that can be used

by EDA managers on a regular basis to set targets and track performance in critical program areas. These

measures were introduced in FY 1999 and FY 2000. Policies and procedures are in place to obtain data on key

performance indicators identified by program managers. Preliminary data are available for FY 2000 interim and

process measures under Goal 1 and 2. EDA will report final results when data review and verification is

complete. For FY 2002, EDA is developing a new interim measure on technology-related projects to support the

Commerce Strategic Plan. EDA will set targets and begin reporting on this measure following completion of the

baseline analysis for FY 2000 and FY 2001 in September 2001.

Measure 1a: Number of permanent jobs created or retained in distressed communities 

34 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Economic Development Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Grantee performance reports.

Frequency: At three-year intervals, typically 3, 6 and 9 years after

awarding of grant.

Data storage: EDA database under development.

Verification: To validate performance measures and targets, EDA

sponsored program evaluations by Rutgers University and a

consortium of research institutes (Rutgers et al. 1997) and obtained

comparable data on a second set of projects. See EDA GPRA Pilot I

and II Reports (1999). EDA will perform regional validation with

grantees.

GPRA Pilot II Results Defense Adjustment Evaluation

(1999) (1997)

Creation of permanent jobs 95% 96.1%

Leveraged Private Sector Investment 95% NA

EDA Job Cost Ratios $4,107 $3,747

Private Sector Investment 6.25 to 1 2.67 to 1
Explanation of Measure:

Actual performance exceeds the FY 2000 target for FY 1997 grant awards, indicating significant progress toward

meeting the nine-year projection of 50,400 jobs by 2006. Actual results (12,056 jobs) provide a snap shot of

current performance for FY 1997 public works projects completed on or before September 30, 2000. This early

data indicates that the FY 1997 projects generated results at a faster pace than anticipated, which may be due in

part to strong economic growth through the beginning of FY 2000. 

This is the first year data have become available for this measure. Additional data are required to establish trend

data prior to adjusting long-term projections, which are based on in-depth program evaluations as discussed

previously. EDA is developing a database to provide multi-year trend data on permanent jobs and private

dollars invested as a result of EDA projects. This will ensure that sufficient data is available to support program

analysis and future adjustments to performance measures and targets. EDA has established policy and

procedures for the verification and validation of performance data. Actual results reported here reflect a 25

percent discount to provide a margin of error pending final review and analysis of performance data reported

by EDA grantees.

Measure 1b: Private sector dollars invested in distressed communities

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 35

Economic Development Administration

5,040 by FY 2000

25,200 by

FY 2003

50,400 by

FY 2006

5,400 by FY 2001

27,000 by

FY 2004

54,000 by

FY 2007

5,698 by FY 2002

28,492 by 

FY 2005

56,983 by

FY 2008

5,651 by FY 2003

28,254 by 

FY 2006

56,509 by

FY 2009

7,201 by FY 2004

36,003 by 

FY 2007

72,006 by

FY 2010

5,790 by FY 2005

28,948 by 

FY 2008

57,895 by 

FY 2011

Target

FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 Long-Term

Outcome Measure

Actual 12, 056 jobs9

Met/Not Met Met

9 Actual performance exceeds the FY 2000 target for FY 1997 grant awards. 

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Grantee performance reports.

Frequency: At three-year intervals (typically 3, 6, and 9 years

following awarding of grant).

Data storage: EDA database under development.

Verification: To validate performance measures and targets,

EDA obtained trend data on two sets of projects: the baseline

evaluations conducted by Rutgers University (1997) and the

EDA GPRA Pilot I and II Reports(1999). EDA will perform

regional validation with grantees.
Explanation of Measure 

Actual performance exceeds the FY 2000 target for FY 1997 grant awards, indicating significant progress toward

meeting the nine-year projection of 1.162 billion dollars by 2006. Actual results ($0.199 billion dollars) provide a

snap shot of current performance for FY 1997 public works projects completed on or before September 30, 2000.

This early data indicates that the FY 1997 projects generated results at a faster pace than anticipated, which may

be due in part to strong economic growth through the beginning of FY 2000. 

This is the first year data have become available for this measure. Additional data are required to establish trend

data prior to adjusting long-term projections, which are based on in-depth program evaluations as discussed

previously. EDA is developing a database to provide multi-year trend data on permanent jobs and private

dollars invested as a result of EDA projects. This will ensure that sufficient data is available to support program

analysis and future adjustments to performance measures and targets. EDA has established policy and

procedures for the verification and validation of performance data. Actual results reported here reflect a 25

percent discount to provide a margin of error pending final review and analysis of performance data reported

by EDA grantees.

Measure 1c: State and local dollars committed per EDA dollar 

36 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Economic Development Administration

10 Actual performance exceeds the FY 2000 target for FY 1997 public works grants.

0.116 B by FY 2001

0.581 B by FY 2004

1.162 B by FY 2007

0.13 B by FY

2001

0.65 B by FY

2004

1.3 B by FY 2007

0.21 B by FY

2002

1.04 B by FY

2005

2.08 B by FY

2008

0.2 B by FY 2003

1.02 B by FY

2006

2.04 B by FY

2009

0.24 B by FY

2004

1.20 B by FY

2007

2.41 B by FY

2010

0.19 B by FY

2005

0.97 B by FY

2008

1.94 B by FY

2011

Target

FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 Long-Term

Outcome Measure

Actual 0.199 billion 10

Met/Not Met Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Grantee applications and progress reports.

Frequency: At the time of awarding of grant and project

completion.

Data storage: EDA database.

Verification: EDA verifies non-Federal funds committed to

projects prior to disbursement of grant funds.
Explanation of Measure

EDA has exceeded the target for State and local dollars for two consecutive years (FY 1999, FY 2000). Original

targets for this measure were based on program evaluations (Rutgers et al. 1997), which found that construction

projects funded under the Section 201 Public Works Program had an EDA share of 53.6 percent and that projects

funded under the Section 209 Economic Adjustment Program had a median EDA share of 75 percent (reflecting

different grant rate requirements for these programs under prior legislation). After reviewing the findings from

both studies during FY 1998, EDA determined that an EDA share of 60 percent was a reasonable estimate for the

combined program activities. With the enactment of the Economic Development Administration Reform Act of

1998, EDA issued new regulations during FY 1999, increasing requirements for non-Federal funding to 50 percent

of total project costs, except for areas of high distress, which qualify for higher EDA grant rates. Targets for State

and local dollars (non-Federal share) have been increased to one non-Federal dollar per EDA dollar with the

understanding that external factors (e.g., economic downturns) can increase the number of areas eligible for higher

grant rates and decrease the availability of State and local dollars in distressed communities. 

Measure 1d: Percentage of grants to areas of highest distress

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 37

Economic Development Administration

11 Due to limitations in EDA’s operational planning and control system, actuals include some projects funded under emergency

supplemental appropriations during FY 1999 and FY 2000.

12 Due to limitations in EDA’s operational planning and control system, actuals include some projects funded under supplemental

appropriations.

199 Million

(.66)

197 Million

(.66)

344 Million

(1.00)

277 Million

(1.00) Target (per EDA dollar)

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

383 Million

1.21

347 Million

1.17 Actual11

Met/Not Met Met Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Project locations entered by regions.

Frequency: Ongoing.

Baseline: FY 1998 grants.

Data storage: EDA database.

Verification: EDA samples projects periodically to ensure

accurate project location codes. Statistical data is based on

Bureau of Labor Statistics’ current 24-month unemployment

data and most current Bureau of Economic Analysis per

capita income data. This year, headquarters staff conducted

monitoring visits to EDA’s six Regional Offices, including

spot checks of data entry procedures and source documents.

Target 20% 30% 40% 40%

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual12 36% 45%

Met/Not Met Met Met
Explanation of Measure

EDA actively encourages proposals from areas of highest distress and directs program and staff resources to

assist these communities in developing viable proposals and plans for successful development projects. Highest

distress areas are defined as those where the 24-month unemployment rate is at least 180 percent of national

average, or where the per capita income is not more than 60 percent of national average. Disaster areas and

projects for Indian tribes are also characterized as being of highest distress. EDA performance continues to

exceed targets for a second year following the implementation of the Economic Development Reform Act of

1998. Future targets are adjusted upward from 30 percent to 40 percent based on the excellent performance of

EDA Regional Offices in targeting areas of highest distress. The upward adjustment is tempered by the

understanding that EDA cannot fully predict the demand for disaster assistance, which contributed part of the

increase, or the impact of special initiatives within a given fiscal year. FY 2000 initiatives for Native Americans

led to an appreciable increase in the number of Indian communities assisted in comparison to FY 1999. For

example, FY 2000 initiatives for Native Americans led to an appreciable increase in the number of Indian

communities assisted in comparison to prior-year grants to Indian communities, resulting in a higher number of

grants to areas of highest distress than previously anticipated.

Measure 1e: Reducing application processing times 

Explanation of Measure

Timely application processing and grant decisions reinforce other public and private commitments to

projects in distressed communities, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful project completion and

program outcomes. EDA has met annual targets for decreasing the number of median processing days for

two consecutive years, and will retain targets for 6 percent decreases each year until achieving EDA’s goal of

60 median days for application processing. EDA has streamlined application requirements and processing

procedures to support this effort, and will continue to make process improvements to achieve future targets.

The adjusted baseline is a two-year average of actual results for FY 1998 (98 median days) and FY 1999 (71

median days). 

38 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Economic Development Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Regional offices enter dates when completed

applications are received and numbered; Headquarters

enters final decision dates.

Frequency: Ongoing.

Adjusted baseline: 79.5 median days.

Data storage: EDA database.

Verification: EDA conducts periodic reviews of project

processing and data entry by EDA staff, including spot

checks of source documents.

74.7 Median Days

(6% decrease)

68.1 Median Days

(6% decrease)

64.0 Median Days

(6% decrease) Target

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

72.5 Median Days

(7% decrease) Actual

Met/Not Met Met

Adjusted Baseline

FY 1998 and FY 1999

average

79.5 Median Days
Measure 1f: Dollars invested in technology-related projects in distressed areas

Explanation of Measure

EDA programs provide support for the efforts of the Nation’s distressed communities to become competitive in

the new global economy. By supporting technology-based economic development, EDA offers those parts of

America that have lagged behind for years the opportunity to leapfrog other areas and to become leaders in the

new economy. The new measure supports increased investment in technology-led economic development to

provide better jobs and opportunities for growth in distressed communities. EDA already supports local and

State initiatives to upgrade infrastructure, telecommunications, and tech-transfer facilities to support existing

firms and new enterprise development. EDA also encourages greater participation by universities, community

colleges, and business organizations to ensure that local firms and communities benefit from new information

technologies, manufacturing processes, and applied research and development in environmental and life sciences.

EDA will analyze recent investments to determine the baseline (minimum two-year average for FY 2000 and FY

2001 grants) and establish appropriate targets for FY 2002. A task force is researching EDA investments and other

Federal assistance available to support technology-led economic development in distressed areas.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 39

Economic Development Administration

Target New Measure New Measure TBD TBD

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2000-01

Baseline FY 2002

Actual

Met/Not Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data Source: Technology-based investments.

Data Storage: EDA database under development.

Baseline: TBD based on FY 2000 and 2001 investments.

Verification: Testing performance projections, providing training, and improving reporting.
EDA Program Evaluations—Performance Goal 1: 

Create jobs and private enterprise in economically distressed communities.

EDA uses program evaluations to develop valid performance measures and provide a more complete

understanding of overall program performance. Systematic program evaluations also allow EDA to verify

results and continue to improve program performance. A research team led by Rutgers University—and

including the New Jersey Institute of Technology, Columbia University, Princeton University, the National

Association of Regional Councils, and the University of Cincinnati—undertook evaluations of the EDA public

works grants and economic adjustment construction and revolving loan fund (RLF) projects as identified below:

Evaluations completed: 

Public Works Program: Performance Evaluation (Rutgers University et al. 1997)

• Every $1 million in EDA funding leveraged $10.08 million in private-sector investment, increased the local tax

base by $10.3 million and created 327 jobs; the number of jobs doubled in the six years after project

completion. 

Defense Economic Adjustment Program: Performance Evaluation (Rutgers University et al. 1997)

• Ninety-seven percent of construction, 98 percent of capacity-building, and 100 percent of RLFs moved to

completion; 90 percent of construction, 97 percent of capacity-building and 100 percent of RLF completed

projects were completed at or under budget; fully loaned RLFs created jobs at an EDA cost of $3,312.

Public Works Program: Multiplier and Employment-Generating Effects (Rutgers University et al. 1998)

• Using Input-Output analysis, EDA public works program investments have a job multiplier effect of 1.5, that

is, every two EDA-funded direct permanent jobs created a third permanent job and a private-sector

investment multiplier of 1.44. To put it yet another way, every two direct private-sector investment dollars

attracted nearly a third private-sector investment dollar.

EDA GPRA Pilot I: Construction Projects (Rutgers University et al. Nov. 1999)

• This research reports the evaluation of a sample of EDA construction projects completed in FY 1993; it

compared this sample to other projects previously evaluated to validate EDA’s performance measures for

construction projects.

EDA GPRA Pilot II: Revolving Loan Fund Projects (Rutgers University et al. Nov. 1999)

• This research reports the evaluation of a sample of EDA revolving loan fund projects funded in FY 1993. It

compared this sample to other projects previously evaluated to validate EDA’s performance measures for

revolving loan fund projects.

Evaluations underway:

Revolving Loan Fund Program Evaluation (Rutgers University et al.), scheduled for completion in 2002.

Our goal is to evaluate major program activities on a regular basis (i.e., every five years, as resources permit). 

40 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Economic Development Administration
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 1

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

EDA builds effective partnerships with Federal, State, and local entities on program delivery and information

dissemination. At the Federal level, examples of major partners include: 

• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—Early response, coordination, assessment, mitigation, and

economic recovery efforts following major disasters.

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—Strategies to redevelop brownfields and improve air quality in

ways that benefit economically distressed communities.

• Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA)—Economic adjustment strategies and grants for

base reuse and communities affected by Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) decisions.

• Department of Energy (DOE)—Economic adjustment assistance to communities affected by closures of

Federal energy labs and facilities.

• Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)—Community and economic development assistance for

economically distressed areas in the 13-state Appalachian region.

• Department of Agriculture, Rural Development/Rural Utilities (USDA-RD/RU)—Infrastructure and business

financing for enterprise development in rural areas.

• Department of Transportation (DOT)—Improvements to highway, port, rail, and airport facilities to support

private investment in distressed communities.

• Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—Coordination of Community Development Block

Grants (CDBG) funds for economic development at the State and local levels; support for Empowerment

Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Renewal Communities.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 41

Economic Development Administration

• Build or rebuild public infrastructure (roads, water, sewerage,

and other infrastructure) to support the establishment or

expansion of commercial and industrial facilities in distressed

communities.

• Help communities upgrade technology infrastructure and

training facilities to prepare for a technology-based economy.

• Redevelop abandoned or under-utilized industrial sites and

facilities, including “brownfields” to restore employment and

private investment in distressed areas.

• Support resource recovery and sustainable development

initiatives.

Provide construction grants for

economic development projects in

distressed communities.

Strategies Activities

Revolving loan fund grants will be used to:

• Provide flexible financing to modernize aging plants and

equipment, introduce new technologies, products and markets,

and increase productivity.

• Invest in stabilizing and diversifying the local economy.

• Target flexible financing and modern infrastructure of growth

industries and new enterprise in distressed communities.

• Provide for defense adjustment and disaster recovery.

Provide construction and revolving

loan fund grants to implement

economic adjustment strategies in

response to sudden job loss and

severe economic distress.
EDA also collaborates with other Commerce bureaus on cross-cutting initiatives. Examples include

collaboration on the following Commerce priorities:

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—strategies to promote sustainable development,

disaster reduction, protection of natural resources, and the development of eco-industrial parks.

• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)—technology deployment and assistance to small

manufacturers in economically distressed areas.

• National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)—strategies to upgrade

telecommunications infrastructure in distressed rural and urban communities.

• Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA)—increased support for minority business development

and entrepreneurship, and for minority-serving institutions.

In FY 2000, EDA reviewed interagency agreements and supported GAO’s review of cross-cutting Federal

programs for State and local economic development projects. EDA will continue to provide leadership to

improve Federal assistance for economic development programs in distressed communities.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

The General Accounting Office has recognized that measuring the performance of economic development programs is

difficult owing to the many external factors that can influence local economies. To ensure strong program performance,

EDA targets assistance to projects that can provide direct and lasting benefits to economically distressed communities.

EDA programs are not intended to work alone, but to increase the availability of outside capital (both public and

private) for sustainable development strategies to create and retain jobs and private enterprise in economically

distressed areas. In doing so, EDA recognizes that many factors can influence the level of distress, rate of investment

and job creation or retention, and the availability of other public funding and private entities. For example:

• National or regional economic trends, such as slowdowns in the national economy, can cause firms to delay

or postpone investments in new products, markets, plant, equipment, and workforce development. Such

trends can affect the rate at which jobs are created or retained. 

• Changes in business climate and financial markets can impact the level of private capital and degree of risk

associated with investment decisions, particularly for firms considering establishing or expanding operations

in highly distressed areas.

• Downturns in the national or regional economy can increase the demand for EDA assistance and reduce the

availability of State and local funding. EDA regulations provide for waivers or reductions of the non-Federal

share, allowing EDA to cover a higher share of total project costs depending on the level of distress

demonstrated by the local community. 

• Natural disasters and other major events can dramatically impact local economies and create an unanticipated

demand for EDA assistance. This can impact performance in several ways, increasing the number of areas that

are eligible for assistance and the number of areas in highest distress. Such emergencies can alter funding

priorities under regular EDA programs, and at times result in emergency supplemental funding. The impact

on regular program assistance is more apparent when supplemental funding is delayed or unavailable.

Mitigation strategies include:

• Strengthening local, State, and sub-State partnerships to assess and respond to long-term economic trends,

sudden and severe dislocations, emergencies, and other unanticipated impacts on local economic conditions.

• Establishing flexible program and funding authorities that respond to local priorities.

• Developing effective partnerships with other Federal agencies to improve assistance for distressed

communities.

• Working directly with distressed communities, through experienced field staff, and with State and local

officials to achieve long-term development objectives and address sudden and severe economic dislocations. 

42 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Economic Development Administration
Performance Goal 2: 

Build Local Capacity to Achieve and Sustain Economic Growth

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably

Objective 1.3: Support effective decision-making of policymakers, businesses, and the American public.

Rationale for Performance Goal

Although economic development is a local process, the Federal Government plays an important role by helping

distressed communities build capacity to identify and overcome barriers that inhibit economic growth. EDA’s

approach is to support local planning and long-term partnerships with State and regional organizations that can

assist distressed communities with strategic planning and investment activities. This process helps local

communities set priorities, determine the viability of projects, and leverage outside resources to improve the

local economy and sustain long-term economic growth. 

EDA planning funds support the preparation of Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies (CEDS),

which guide EDA investments for public works and economic adjustment implementation grants, including

revolving loan funds. Sound local planning also attracts other Federal, State, and local funds to implement longterm investment strategies. Evaluations of EDA’s public works and defense adjustment programs show that

EDA planning and technical assistance programs play a significant role in the successful completion and

outcomes of its infrastructure and revolving loan fund projects.

Measure 2a: Percentage of sub-State jurisdiction members actively participating in the

Economic Development District (EDD) program 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 43

Economic Development Administration

EDA developed and tested

plan for evaluating EDD

performance

Target 75% 85% 85%

FY 1999

Target

FY 2000

Target 

FY 2001

Target 

FY 2002

Target 

Actual 95%

Met/Not Met Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: EDA Grantee Performance Evaluations.

Frequency: One-third of EDDs to be evaluated annually.

Data Storage: EDA database.

Verification: EDA will conduct periodic performance reviews and site visits including interviews with clients.

Data Limitations: See below. 

Comments: During FY 1999, EDA began testing a plan for evaluating the performance of Economic Development Districts, which

receive EDA funding for ongoing planning activities. This evaluation cycle will provide annual data for approximately one-third

of EDA-funded Districts each year. OPCS procedures will require EDA Regional Offices to enter data within 30 days of a District

evaluation.
Explanation of Measure

The target established for FY 2000 was that 75 percent of all member jurisdictions of Economic Development

District (EDD) organizations would actively participate in the EDD program. Active participation was defined

as either attendance at meetings and/or financial support of the EDD during the reporting period. The basis of

the 75 percent goal was that, under the previous legislation, participation of at least 75 percent of member

jurisdictions was required for designation as a district. Under the new legislation, that requirement has been

reduced to more than 50 percent.” Data collected from the EDA Regional Offices indicates that 95.4 percent of

the member jurisdictions actively participate in their EDD programs. 

EDDs generally consist of three or more counties that are considered as the member jurisdictions. In some

instances, however, EDDs also include cities, towns, and townships and may even consider them as their

primary member jurisdictions. The actual reported data, for example, included an EDD with 101 member

jurisdictions and 100 percent participation of those jurisdictions. Basing member jurisdictions on these smaller

and more numerous units of government to the degree reflected in the actual data drove the overall percentage

well above what was anticipated.

Inasmuch as this was the first year in which these data were collected, we do not recommend too significant an

increase in the target until additional years of data have been collected and analyzed. We therefore recommend

an increase in the targets for FY 2001 and FY 2002 to 85 percent. EDA is developing multi-year trend data on

this measure and will analyze trends to determine further adjustments to targets when sufficient data becomes

available. 

Measure 2b: Percentage of Economic Development District and Indian tribe planning

grantees whose Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) is

on time and acceptable

Explanation of Measure

The target established for FY 2000 was that 75 percent of all CEDS documents, reports, or revisions due within

the fiscal year would be submitted on time and be acceptable. This target did not have a basis in any statutory

requirement as was the case with participating jurisdictions but, instead, was an estimate. Adequate data was

not available to support an accurate baseline analysis. EDA is developing multi-year trend data on this measure

and will analyze trends to determine further adjustments to targets when sufficient data becomes available. 

44 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Economic Development Administration

EDA developed and tested

plan for evaluating EDD

performance

Target 75% 60% 65%

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual 46%

Met/Not Met Not Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: CEDS reports.

Frequency: Annual.

Data Storage: EDA database.

Verification: EDA HQ will review OPCS data.

Data Limitations: See below.

Comments: During FY 1999, EDA developed new guidelines that are consistent with EDA’s new reauthorization legislation for the

preparation of CEDS by District and Indian planning grantees. These guidelines received final OMB clearance in December of 1999. 
The first year data indicates that only 46 percent of all CEDS documents, reports, or revisions due during the FY

2000 reporting period were submitted by the due date and were acceptable. That percentage increases to 65

percent when we include those received within 30 days of the due date and to 74 percent if we expand it to

within 60 days of the due date. The discrepancy between the goal and actual data may be explained partially by

the requirements of a CEDS contained in the new authorizing legislation. Originally, grantees were required to

develop and maintain an Overall Economic Development Program (OEDP) process and to report on an annual

basis. When the new legislation became effective and the CEDS Guidelines were prepared and distributed,

grantees started converting from OEDPs to CEDS, causing some delays in the preparation of new documents

and in submitting required annual reports.

EDA will provide additional guidance and oversight during the coming year to ensure the timely receipt and

review of CEDS documents by each of the six EDA regional offices. 

Measure 2c: Percentage of University Center clients rating technical assistance received as

a 7 on a 1 to 10 scale (10 is best) 

Explanation of Measure

EDA funds 69 University Centers which provide technical assistance and specialized services (e.g., feasibility

studies, marketing research, economic analysis, environmental services, technology transfer) to local officials and

communities to enhance their capacity to plan and manage successful development projects. University Centers

conduct client satisfaction surveys and report findings to EDA. EDA evaluates the performance of each center

once every three years and reviews client surveys to verify data reported to EDA. This is the first year data have

been reported. EDA will maintain the targets until first-year data can be verified and second-year data can be

collected and evaluated to determine appropriate baselines and adjustments to future targets. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 45

Economic Development Administration

Met/Not Met Met

Target 75% 75% 75%

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 84%

Developed plan

for evaluating

University Centers

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Grantee client survey/reports.

Frequency: Annual.

Verification: Performance data will be verified for one-third of the University Centers. EDA Headquarters will annually review OPCS

data.

Data Limitations: See below. 

Comments: During FY 1999, EDA developed a plan of evaluating one-third of the University Centers each year. In FY 2001, client

satisfaction ratings were included in University Centers annual report. 
Measure 2d: Percentage of Trade Adjustment Assistance Center clients rating assistance

received as a 7 on a 1 to 10 scale (10 is best) 

Explanation of Measure

The 12 Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers are funded by EDA to work jointly with trade-impacted firms

to identify and define the specific actions required to improve each firm’s competitive position in world

markets. These Centers conduct client satisfaction surveys and report findings to EDA. EDA reviews client

surveys to verify data as part of periodic site visits to monitor and evaluate each Center’s performance.

FY 2000 is the first year for which data have been reported. EDA will review the process for verification

and validation of data and will develop multi-year trend data to determine if determine appropriate

adjustments to future targets. 

The Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is expected, within the near future, to report the

findings of its review of Commerce business assistance programs. EDA looks forward to setting policy

direction consistent with guidance from this OIG report on ways to improve performance measures for trade

adjustment assistance.

Additionally, EDA awaits forthcoming opportunities to meet with the Senate Finance Committee to continue

the development of effective performance measures for desired program outcomes. The standardization and

systematic collection of basic data, including changes in a firm’s sales, employment, and earnings are among

the measures EDA will explore to complement and further enhance performance measurement and program

evaluation. 

46 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Economic Development Administration

Met/Not Met Met

Target 75% 85% 85%

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 95%

Developed Plan for

Data Collection

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Grantee client survey/reports.

Frequency: Annual.

Data storage: EDA OPCS database.

Verification: EDA will conduct periodic performance reviews and site visits to review and verify survey forms. 

Data Limitations: See below. 

Comments: During FY 1999, EDA developed instructions for reporting client satisfaction ratings as part of each Trade Adjustment

Assistance Center’s annual report to EDA. These reports are due at the end of the second quarter of FY 2001. 
Measure 2e: Number of Research and National Technical Assistance results published or

presented nationally each year

Explanation of Measure 

The targets have been adjusted to reflect work underway or planned for EDA program evaluations and for

separate research, national technical assistance, and information dissemination activities. The seven reports

published or presented nationally during FY 2000 are listed below: 

Socioeconomic Data for Economic Development: An Assessment (Reamer and Associates, Impresa Inc. May 2000); 

• An in-depth assessment of the U.S. system for generating regional socioeconomic data for the purpose of

assessing data users needs, and of the extent to which those needs are currently met. Its goal is to recommend

ways to better meet those needs and to provide useful information to economic development practitioners

about data sources and uses.

Changing Work Organization in Small Manufacturers: Challenges for Economic Development (University of Illinois at

Chicago 2000) 

• An examination of changing employment practices among small and medium-sized manufacturers. It

considers changes in hiring practices, employment security and retention, career ladders, and the implications

of these changes for economic development policy. 

Internet Based Commerce: Implications for Rural Communities (Kansas State University 2000) 

• An examination of how Internet-based commerce is likely to affect rural economies and identification of

challenges to rural economies, including tribal lands. The report also provides strategies available to rural

communities to facilitate electronic commerce. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 47

Economic Development Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Grantee Reports.

Frequency: Annual Review.

Data storage: EDA project files.

Verification: EDA verifies this measure by reviewing the

publications and national presentations. 

Data Limitations: None.

Target 5 5 8 8

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 6 7

Met/Not Met Met Met
Reclamation and Economic Regeneration of Brownfields (E. P. Systems, Inc. 2000) 

• Identifies common themes and distills lessons from more than a decade of intense efforts by practitioners to

redevelop idle brownfield properties with focus on redevelopment for commercial and industrial purposes,

and examines the role of local, State, and Federal economic development organizations in promoting

redevelopment.

From Barracks to Business: The M.I.T. Report on Base Redevelopment (MIT 2000)

• A summary of the nationwide case-study approach on base redevelopment to determine how local

communities responded when the Federal Government closed their bases.

EDA GPRA Pilot I: Construction Projects (Rutgers University Nov. 1999)

• Research to report the evaluation of a sample of EDA construction projects completed in FY 1993. The report

compares this sample to other projects previously evaluated to validate EDA’s performance measures for

construction projects.

EDA GPRA Pilot II: RLF Projects (Rutgers University Nov. 1999)

• Research to report the evaluation of a sample of EDA revolving loan fund projects funded in FY 1993. The

report compares this sample to other projects previously evaluated to validate EDA’s performance measures

for revolving loan fund projects.

Measure 2f: Percentage of local technical assistance and economic adjustment strategy

grants awarded in areas of highest distress 

48 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Economic Development Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Bureau of Labor Statistics current 24-month

unemployment data and most current Bureau of Economic

Analysis per capita income data.

Frequency: Ongoing.

Baseline: FY 1998 grants.

Data storage: EDA database.

Verification: EDA verifies data prior to grant approval.

Target 20% 25% 30% 30%

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 31% 35%

Met/Not Met Met Met

* Due to limitations in EDA’s operational planning and control system, actuals include some projects funded under supplemental

operations.
Explanation of Measure

Local technical assistance grants provide specialized technical or professional services to help local officials

evaluate investment opportunities and solve complex development issues. Strategy grants help local

communities adjust to sudden and severe economic dislocations and long-term declines affecting key sectors of

the local economy. Areas of highest distress for this measure are the same as those for Measure 1d: areas where

24-month unemployment rate is at least 180 percent of national average, or where per capita income is not more

than 60 percent of national average. Disaster areas and projects for Indian Tribes are also characterized as of

highest distress. EDA has exceeded targets for this measure for two consecutive years following the

implementation of the Economic Development Administration Reform Act of 1998. 

The target has been increased from 25 percent to 30 percent, reflecting the excellent performance of EDA

Regional Offices in reaching out to areas of highest distress. The FY 2000 results also indicate that EDA is taking

steps to identify and respond to sudden and severe economic dislocations. The upward adjustment is tempered

by the understanding that EDA cannot fully predict the demand for disaster assistance, the severity of layoffs

and plant closures, or other critical needs that may arise in any given year. 

Measure 2g: Reducing certification processing time for trade-impacted firms 

Explanation of Measure

The Trade Act of 1974, as amended, requires EDA to certify firms as eligible for trade adjustment assistance. 

By reducing the time required to process petitions for certification, EDA can improve the timeliness of Federal

assistance to trade-impacted firms. Authorization for this program lapsed in June 1999 and was renewed in

November 1999. EDA continued to receive, but could not formally accept, petitions from firms during this

period. To avoid lengthy delays, EDA conducted unofficial reviews, which significantly reduced official

processing times for these certifications. EDA does not anticipate a similar situation in the future. EDA’s

performance target is a 4 percent per year decrease from the adjusted baseline (51.5 mean days) until EDA

achieves and maintains processing times of 35 mean days for Trade Act certifications. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 49

Economic Development Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Planning and Development Assistance Division

Database.

Frequency: Annual

Adjusted Baseline: Average for FY 1998 and 1999 is 51.5 Mean

Days.

Data storage: EDA database.

Verification: EDA will sample projects periodically to ensure

accurate reporting. 

Comment: The baseline for this measure has been adjusted to

reflect a two-year average of 51.5 mean days for processing

petitions. The initial baseline was 56 mean days (FY 1998).

4% decrease

49.4 Days

8% decrease

47.4 Days

12% decrease

45.3 Days Target

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

5.8% decrease

48 Days Actual

Met/Not Met Met

Adjusted Baseline

FY98-FY 99 Average

51.5 Days
FY 2000 Program Evaluation for EDA Performance Goal 2:Build community 

capacity to achieve and sustain economic growth.

EDA uses program evaluations to develop valid performance measures and provide a more complete

understanding of overall program performance. Systematic program evaluations also allow EDA to verify

results and continue to improve program performance. Recent evaluations involving EDA planning, technical

assistance, and trade adjustment programs are identified below:

Evaluations Completed:

Effective Aid to Trade-Impacted Manufacturers (Urban Institute 1998)

• EDA commissioned the Urban Institute in 1997 to evaluate the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program.

The Urban Institute evaluation found statistically significant improvements in sales, employment, and

survivability for firms assisted under the TAA program when compared to firms certified as eligible, but

which did not receive implementation assistance. 

Strategic Planning for Economic Development (Corporation for Enterprise Development et al. 1999)

• This evaluation of EDA’s local planning program underscored the need for the continued active involvement

of private and nonprofit sectors and all levels of government in regional economic development planning.

Evaluations Underway:

• Evaluation of University Center Program (Mt. Auburn Associates), scheduled for completion in 2001.

• Evaluation of Planning Program (Wayne State University), scheduled for completion in 2002.

• Evaluation of Revolving Loan Fund Program (Rutgers University)—includes impact of strategies that guide

RLF investments; scheduled for completion in 2001.

EDA’s goal is to evaluate major program activities on a regular basis (i.e., every five years, as resources permit).

50 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Economic Development Administration
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 2

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Issues 

EDA planning and technical assistance programs help communities to identify and coordinate Federal, State,

and local resources. EDA partners with other Federal agencies to improve the delivery of assistance to

distressed areas. EDA also works with Federal, State, and local entities to improve outreach, training, and

information dissemination for local officials and economic development practitioners. At the Federal level,

examples of major partners include: 

• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—Early response, coordination, assessment, mitigation, and

economic recovery efforts following major disasters.

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—Strategies to redevelop brownfields and improve air quality in

ways that benefit economically distressed communities.

• Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA)—Economic adjustment strategies and grants for

base reuse and communities affected by Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) decisions.

• Department of Energy (DOE)—Economic adjustment assistance to communities affected by closures of

Federal energy labs and facilities.

• Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)—Community and economic development assistance for

economically distressed areas in the 13-state Appalachian region.

• Department of Agriculture, Rural Development/Rural Utilities (USDA-RD/RU)—Infrastructure and business

financing for enterprise development in rural areas.

• Department of Transportation (DOT)—Improvements to highway, port, rail, and airport facilities to support

private investment in distressed communities.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 51

Economic Development Administration

• Provide professional staff and technical expertise to support

the effective planning of economic development programs

through a network of regional planning organizations and

Technical Assistance centers.

• Award grants to support strategic planning and technical

assistance providers.

• Expand an EDA Web page to disseminate national research

and other pertinent materials dealing with economic

development.

Strengthen and expand EDA’s capacity

for strategic planning and investment

activities through a national network of

funded Economic Development Districts

(EDDs); Indian tribes; University

Centers; and Trade Adjustment

Assistance Centers (TAACs). These

networks work in unison to enhance

local capacity, remove barriers to

economic growth, and increase local

participation as well as Commerce and

other Federal initiatives.

Strategies Activities

• Provide research and national technical assistance grants for

cutting edge research.

• Perform evaluations that provide practical, up-to-date

information on the effectiveness of tools for economic

competitiveness.

• Sponsor new research.

• Encourage State and local practitioners to share information.

• Use EDA’s Web site to share information and research

findings.

Disseminate information about research,

best practices, and new knowledge

about economic development issues and

problems affecting distressed

communities and diverse local

economies to institutions, communities

and entities engaged in enhancing

America’s economic competitiveness.
• Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—Coordination of Community Development Block

Grants (CDBG) funds for economic development at the State and local levels; support for Empowerment

Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Renewal Communities.

EDA also collaborates with other Commerce bureaus on cross-cutting initiatives. Examples include

collaboration on the following Commerce priorities:

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—strategies to promote sustainable development,

disaster reduction, protection of natural resources, and the development of eco-industrial parks.

• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)—technology deployment and assistance to small

manufacturers in economically distressed areas.

• National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)—strategies to upgrade

telecommunications infrastructure in distressed rural and urban communities.

• Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA)—increased support for minority business development and

entrepreneurship, and for minority-serving institutions.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

• Downturns in the national or regional economy can increase the demand for EDA assistance and reduce the

availability of State and local funding. EDA regulations provide for waivers or reductions of the non-Federal

share, allowing EDA to cover a higher share of total project costs depending on the level of distress

demonstrated by the local community. 

• Changes in business climate and financial markets can increase the level of risk associated with investment

decisions, particularly for firms considering establishing or expanding operations in highly distressed areas.

More extensive market research, feasibility studies, and cost analyses are required to support both public and

private investments, increasing the demand for technical assistance. 

• Natural disasters and other major events can dramatically impact local economies and create an

unanticipated demand for EDA assistance. This can affect performance in several ways, increasing the

number of areas that are eligible for assistance and the number of areas in highest distress. 

• Such emergencies often require early EDA assistance in the form of impact analysis and disaster coordinators

funded through EDA’s economic adjustment program, and can alter funding priorities under regular EDA

programs. This effect is more apparent in years when supplemental funding is delayed or unavailable.

Mitigation strategies include:

• Strengthening local, State, and sub-State capacity for long-term planning, emergency response, and economic

adjustment strategies.

• Maintaining flexible program and funding authorities and budget priorities, and effective partnerships with

other Federal agencies to improve assistance to distressed areas.

• Working directly with local communities, through experienced EDA field staff, to achieve long-term

objectives and with State and local officials to coordinate early warning, rapid response, disaster mitigation,

and recovery.

52 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Economic Development Administration
Economics and Statistics Administration 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 53

Economics and Statistics Administration

Mission Statement

Help maintain a sound federal statistical system that monitors and measures America’s

rapidly changing economic and social arrangements; Improve understanding of the key

forces at work in the economy and the opportunities they create for improving the wellbeing of Americans; Develop new ways to disseminate information using the most

advanced technologies; Support the information and analytic needs of the Commerce

Department, the Executive Branch, and the Congress

The United States is the world’s economic information leader, due in large part to the timely and accurate data

and analyses produced by the agencies of the Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA). These agencies,

the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), collect vital demographic and economic

data through the decennial census and other surveys and produce key economic measures such as the gross

domestic product and the balance of payments. The data produced by BEA and Census and the analyses

produced by ESA headquarters affect the lives of all Americans by providing the President, Congress, local

communities, and businesses with the information they need to make sound decisions.

Organizational Structure

Bureau of

Economic

Analysis

STAT-USA Policy

Support

Bureau of

the Census

UNDER SECRETARY

Deputy Under

Secretary

ESA Headquarters includes the Office of the Under Secretary, and policy support staffs, and STAT-USA,

which is funded through ESA’s revolving fund. The Census Bureau is reported separately.
The Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA) includes: ESA Headquarters, the Bureau of Economic

Analysis, and the Bureau of the Census

ESA Headquarters

ESA headquarters (comprised of the Office of the Under Secretary, the Chief Economist, the Policy Support staff,

and STAT-USA) has four main roles: 1) to provide executive direction, management, financial analysis, and

administrative support to all ESA agencies; 2) to evaluate current economic conditions; 3) to provide economic

policy analysis; and 4) to provide data dissemination services.

The Office of the Under Secretary provides leadership and executive oversight of all activities of ESA. The Chief

Economist and the Office of Economic Conditions monitor and interpret major new economic statistics with the

goal of anticipating the future directions of the economy. The economists of the policy support office conduct

research on the factors contributing to U.S. industrial strength and the relationship between industry

performance and economic growth, including recent major studies on the scope and economic impacts of

electronic commerce. Data dissemination services are provided by STAT-USA, an easy to use, “one-stop shop”

that provides a focal point for business, economic, and trade statistics. STAT-USA is a revolving fund account

that requires no government funding.

STAT-USA

STAT-USA provides the public with access to key business, economic, and international trade information.

STAT-USA’s mission is to “produce, distribute, and assist other government agencies in producing world-class

business, economic, and government information products that American businesses and the public can use to

make intelligent and informed decisions.” It accomplishes this goal through four primary products and services: 

• STAT-USA(R)/Internet

• National Trade Data Bank (NTDB) (R) CD-ROM,

• USA Trade (R) CD-ROM, and

• USA Trade (R)Online

With over 17 years of sustained performance in producing and delivering business information, STAT-USA has

acquired the reputation as a model for Federal agencies. STAT-USA builds effective yet inexpensive government

data dissemination systems that effectively and efficiently provide business, economic and international trade

information to American businesses and the public. 

STAT-USA operates on a revolving fund, obtaining all financial support for its activities through the fee sales of

information products and services. It receives no Congressional funding.

The most important issue facing STAT-USA is the need to identify new markets for its products. In light of the

rapid growth of the Internet and increased availability of economic data, STAT-USA works constantly to

identify ways to improve information delivery and enhance product content as a means to enhance its value to

consumers.

As cited in the Department of Commerce FY 2000-2005 Strategic Plan, STAT-USA plans to:

Identify new markets for products and services to increase the customer base

• The information distributed by STAT-USA is critical to sound economic decision-making in a variety of

business venues. STAT-USA plans to expand the customer base beyond the export and trade industries to

support other related business areas such as investment and financial management. For these new business

markets to be viable, the information must be shown to support their needs.

• STAT-USA will analyze information provided in STAT-USA products and develop additional market

opportunities by increasing the customer base by five percent.

54 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Economics and Statistics Administration
• STAT-USA has a business and marketing plan that links employee evaluations to how well we meet our

annual goals and objectives. This is accomplished by conducting analysis of customer contacts and related

sales.

Increase customer involvement to improve customer satisfaction.

• To meet the economic information needs that contribute to effective decision making for businesses involved

in exporting activities, STAT-USA must disseminate economic and trade information for E-commerce. The

usefulness of the data can be measured by the total fee sales and by the level of satisfaction reported in

customer surveys.

• STAT USA will initiate OMB approved customer survey and utilize results to identify actions that might be

taken to improve STAT-USA products and services in support of increased sales.

Increase Supplier Involvement

• STAT-USA data suppliers need to be kept abreast of the types of statistical data that are collected, and the

composition of the customer markets who are utilizing the data. These agencies will then understand that

timely receipt and accuracy of the data they supply is paramount to STAT-USA’s ability to maintain it’s

position in a competitive e-marketplace. 

• STAT-USA will establish Memorandums of Understanding for major STAT-USA data suppliers that update

database content for accuracy and improve methods of data collection for on-time delivery.

• Contact major data suppliers to discuss STAT-USA content requirements and pursue the potential to provide

enhanced access to other related data supportive of agency missions and the public need for expansion of 

E-commerce.

STAT-USA also performs services for other Department of Commerce agencies, primarily in the area of LAN

support and website development.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is the Nation’s economic accountant, developing measures and systems

for collecting and interpreting vast amounts of diverse data from both government and private sources. BEA

combines and transforms those data into a consistent and comprehensive picture of economic activity, which is

summarized by the estimates of gross domestic product (GDP). BEA’s national, regional, and international

economic accounts form much of the core of the Federal statistical system and are critical to informed decisionmaking by businesses, individuals, and Federal, State, and local governments. These data, which provide the

yardsticks by which the health and potential of the economy are measured, are vital ingredients in major

decisions affecting such areas as interest rates, tax and spending policies, and social security projections. Thus,

they affect every American who runs a business, saves for retirement, or takes out a mortgage on a house.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 55

Economics and Statistics Administration

Total fee sales $2.1M $1.9M $1.9M $2.0M

FY 1999

Target

FY 2000

Target

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

NA NA Over 90%

satisfaction rate

Over 90%

satisfaction rate

Customer survey

results (mean

customer

satisfaction rating)
The Bureau of the Census

The Bureau of the Census chronicles societal and demographic change. The Bureau fulfills the constitutionallymandated requirement to conduct a decennial census, and the Bureau collects a wide range of economic and

demographic data. The data provided by the Bureau of the Census shape important policy decisions that help

improve our Nation’s social and economic conditions.

Summary

ESA’s staff and programs provide vital information, analysis, and advice to Department of Commerce officials

and other Executive Branch Departments, agencies, and officials. Many of the Nation’s decisions are based upon

the economic and demographic information the agency produces.

56 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Economics and Statistics Administration
Bureau of Economic Analysis

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 57

Bureau of Economic Analysis

Mission Statement

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) seeks to strengthen understanding of the U.S.

economy and its competitive position by providing the most accurate and relevant GPD

and economic accounts data in a timely and cost effective manner.

BEA is one of the world’s leading statistical agencies. Although it is a relatively small agency, BEA produces

some of the most closely watched economic statistics that influence the decisions made by government officials,

business people, households, and individuals. BEA’s economic statistics, which provide a comprehensive, up-todate picture of the U.S. economy, are key ingredients in critical decisions affecting monetary policy, tax and

budget projections, and business investment plans. The cornerstone of BEA’s statistics is the National Income

and Product Accounts (NIPA’s), which feature the estimates of gross domestic product (GDP) and related

measures. The GDP was recently recognized by the Department of Commerce as its greatest achievement of the

20th Century and has been ranked as one of the three most influential measures that affect the U.S. financial

markets.

Since the NIPA’s were first published, BEA has developed and extended its estimates to cover a wide range of

economic activities. Today, BEA prepares national, regional, industry, and international accounts that present

essential information on such key issues as economic growth, regional economic development, inter-industry

relationships, and the Nation’s position in the world economy. 

Organizational Structure

Chief

Statistician

Chief

Economist

Balance of

Payments Division

National Income

And Wealth

Division

Regional Economic

Analysis Division

International

Investment

Division Government

Division

Regional Economic

Measurement

Division

Director

Deputy Director

Associate Director

For International

Economics

Associate Director

For National

Income,

Expenditure, and

Wealth Accounts

Associate Director

For Industry

Accounts

Associate Director

For Regional

Economics

Inter-industry

Economics Division
Priorities

The Bureau of Economic Analysis, working with the Department of Commerce, has determined two major

priorities for FY 2002. These priorities reflect the goals set forth in BEA’s strategic plan for improving its

economic accounts and are critical for the success of BEA in maintaining its reputation as a timely, accurate

producer of quality economic measures. The priorities include:

1. Continue to Improve Core Statistics including GDP and Related Measures. This multi-year initiative

continues the long overdue work begun in 2001 to improve the GDP accounts by filling critical gaps in

coverage and by addressing the persistent and growing measurement error in GDP and national income.

2. Update Information Technology Systems. This initiative includes: a) replacing the overburdened and

outdated GDP processing system, b) redesigning the BEA Internet site to enhance user access to data, c)

providing for increased electronic reporting options by businesses, and d) updating aging IT hardware and

systems.

Management Challenges

The past decade experienced dramatic changes in the U.S. and world economies with the exponential growth of

technology and E-commerce. This continual evolution of our economy—in complexity, diversity, and technology—

has created significant measurement problems. BEA has strived to improve its source data and methodologies to

close gaps in the coverage of key GDP components, and it must develop measures of new and rapidly growing

economic activities. To do this, BEA must develop new methods to incorporate the changing economy as well as

improve its ability to process and disseminate such information. These challenges are summarized below.

Continue to Improve Core Statistics including GDP and Related Measures. BEA’s highest priority is the ongoing improvement in the accuracy and reliability of its economic account estimates. These economic statistics,

including GDP and its components, provide government and private decision makers with essential information

on the performance and potential of the U.S. economy. These data are vital ingredients in decisions affecting

such areas as interest rates, tax and spending policies, and social security projections. BEA realizes how

important its data are and how much they are relied on by a wide range of data users. The challenge facing BEA

is to maintain and improve the timeliness, relevance, and quality of its data, so that they provide an accurate

and comprehensive picture of economic activity. This has become increasingly difficult as the U.S. economy has

undergone dramatic increases in size and complexity. Entire new industries have emerged, with products and

services and types of transactions that were unknown a decade ago.

In addition to its backlog of other data improvements to be addressed, BEA must find ways to measure these

new activities and include them in its comprehensive economic accounts. To accomplish this, it is essential that

BEA establish new data sources and new estimation methodologies. BEA has been hampered in measuring this

new economy over much of the past decade by funding limitations that often did not keep up with inflation. FY

2001 was the first year in eight in which BEA received funding for initiatives to update and enhance the GDP

and its components. 

Update Information Technology Systems. BEA also is faced with the challenge of maintaining and improving its

information technology infrastructure. A key issue is the seriously outdated and overburdened GDP processing

system. The implementation of chained price indexes and other statistical improvements in BEA’s economic

accounts greatly increased the volume and complexity of the computations required to produce the GDP and

related estimates. This has increased the burden on the GDP processing system and raised the real possibility of a

catastrophic breakdown, which would result in failure to meet the GDP release schedule. Such a failure would

have serious repercussions for the financial markets, which anticipate the reliable release of these critical data. In

FY 2001, BEA began an initiative to replace the outdated and overburdened GDP processing system as well as

provide for a redesign of the BEA Website along the lines recommended by users. In addition, BEA seeks to

increase its electronic reporting option by businesses and update some of its aging IT hardware and software.

58 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Economic Analysis
Targets and Performance Summary

See individual Performance Goal section for further description of each measure.

Resource Requirements Summary

(Dollars in Millions. Funding amounts reflect total obligations.)

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)

*IT Funding included in Total Funding 

** Reimbursable Funding included in Total Funding

Skill Summary:

Economists, accountants, statisticians, computer specialists

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 59

Bureau of Economic Analysis

New New New 1st 1st 1st

Timeliness of GDP

(international

ranking)

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target Measures

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Reliability of delivery

(% of scheduled

releases issued on

time)

>4.0

N/A

(survey

postponed

to 2000)

>4.0 4.3 4.3 4.3

Customer satisfaction

(mean rating on a 5-

point scale)

Performance Goal 1: Develop relevant, accurate, and timely national and community economic and

household statistics for decision making

5.6

50

6.5

52

6.5

40

6.6

52

7.3

52

7.1

52

Policy Support:

Total Funding 

FTE

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Request

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Request

FY 2001

Enacted

FY 2002

Request Performance Goal

5.0

19

6.0

35

2.0

19

3.0

35

2.2

19

2.7

25

STAT-USA:

Total Funding

FTE 

55.1

1.8

6.0

483

63.5

2.4

8.4

552

54.5

1.7

6.1

468

60.1

2.4

9.3

538

58.9

2.0

6.4

511

67.2

2.0

10.1

544

Grand Total:

Total Funding

Reimbursable**

IT Funding*

FTE 

Performance Goal 1

ESA

44.5

6.0

414

51.0

8.4

465

46.0

6.1

409

50.5

9.3

451

49.4

6.4

440

57.4

10.1

467

BEA:

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE 
Performance Goal 1: Develop relevant, accurate, and timely national and 

community economic and household statistics for decision making

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective:

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably

Objective 1.3: Support the effective decision-making of policymakers, businesses, and the American public

Rationale for Performance Goal

The data produced by BEA are critical to sound economic decision-making at all levels, from individuals to the

highest-level policymakers. It is essential that BEA’s statistics provide an accurate and comprehensive picture of

economic activity. To be most useful to data consumers, these data must be as up-to-date as possible (timely),

consistently released on schedule (reliable), and useful and available to the public (customer satisfaction). These

three indicators of performance have been measured and are reported below, showing that BEA excels in

providing quality products and services to its customers.

This FY 2002 performance goal is essentially the same as the FY 2001 goal of “Provide accurate, timely, and

relevant economic data.” The wording was changed to clarify the goal’s scope to encompass the statistical

programs of BEA’s sister agency, the Census Bureau. The FY 2001 performance goal was the result of a straightforward merger of the two FY 2000 goals, “Provide quality data” and “Provide timely and relevant data,” into a

single but equally inclusive goal.

Measure 1a: Timeliness of GDP (international ranking)

Explanation of Measure

BEA ranked first among major government statistical agencies in the world in producing its GDP data in a

timely fashion. This measure is based on the objective and impartial compilation of economic accounts

60 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Economic Analysis

New New 1

st 1st Target

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

1 Actual st

Met/Not Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Data on the time lag between the reference period and the release of GDP estimates by the statistical agencies of various

countries are compiled by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and are available on the IMF Website (dsbb.imf.org). Ranking is

derived by BEA by comparing U.S. performance with that of all other countries (currently 37) that meet the specifications of IMF’s

Special Data Dissemination Standard.

Frequency: Measure compiled annually.

Data storage: Data on timeliness of GDP estimates are compiled and maintained by the IMF, based on information supplied by each

country, and are available on the IMF Website.

Verification: Data on timeliness of GDP by country are publicly available on the IMF Website. Ranking of countries is derived by BEA

and can be verified via the Internet.
information by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Producing data with as short a time lapse as possible is

important to data consumers who use BEA economic data as inputs in their decision-making processes. This

achievement ensures that the private sector is able to make informed decisions before their counterparts in other

countries, and that government officials have the most up-to-date information to make critical economic

decisions. Given the appropriate level of support, BEA intends to maintain this rank in FY 2001 and FY 2002.

Measure 1b: Reliability of delivery (% of scheduled releases issued on time)

Explanation of Measure

BEA has issued all of its economic data releases on schedule since this performance measure was instituted. The

importance of these data as an ingredient of sound economic decision-making requires BEA to deliver its data

into the hands of decision makers and other data users not only quickly but also reliably; i.e., on schedule. This

goal was achieved in FY 1999 and FY 2000 despite serious concerns over GDP computer processing systems that

were at risk of failure. Given adequate investments in these systems, BEA will continue its perfect record of

issuing its data releases on schedule.

Measure 1c: Customer satisfaction (mean rating on a 5-point scale)

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 61

Bureau of Economic Analysis

Target 100% 100% 100% 100%

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 100% 100%

Met/Not Met Met Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: A schedule of release dates for the coming year

is published each fall in the Survey of Current Business and is

posted on BEA’s Website. BEA maintains a record of

subsequent actual release dates.

Frequency: Measure compiled annually.

Data storage: BEA’s Current Business Analysis Division

maintains the schedule of future release dates and the

record of actual release dates. Both sets of information are

available on BEA’s Website

Verification: Scheduled and actual release dates are a

matter of public record and can be verified via the Internet.

Target >4.0 >4.0 4.3 4.3

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

NA (survey

postponed to 2000) Actual 4.3

NA (survey

postponed to 2000) Met/Not Met Met
Explanation of Measure

The BEA customer survey conducted in 2000 found that 93 percent of respondents were satisfied with the

quality of BEA’s products and services for an average score of 4.3, on a scale of one (low) to five (high). These

results exceeded the 4.1 rating achieved in the previous customer survey conducted in 1995. As part of an effort

to emphasize user satisfaction with BEA’s products and services, the customer survey will be conducted

regularly. Levels of performance for FY 2001 and FY 2002 have been set that take into consideration the

importance of maintaining the existing high level of satisfaction.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for Performance Goal 1: Develop relevant, accurate, and 

timely national and community economic and household statistics for decision making

BEA is currently in the process of developing a new 5-year strategic plan to guide it through the next halfdecade of management challenges faced during a time of limited budgets and dramatic economic changes. The

new plan is scheduled for public release by the end of 2001. To assist in evaluating BEA programs and help

guide its strategic plan, BEA established an advisory committee of 13 distinguished economists from

universities, research groups, and private businesses to advise BEA on a broad range of subjects related to the

development and improvement of BEA’s economic accounts, especially in areas of new and rapidly growing

economic activities associated with innovative and advancing technologies. The committee held its first semiannual meeting in FY 2000, at which discussions concentrated on measuring the “new economy,” especially in

the areas of banking services and the treatment of software purchases as investment. Future meetings will focus

on other areas of concern, such as priorities for the industry and international accounts.

Additional evaluations were conducted through the BEA customer survey, which sought to determine how

customers evaluate BEA’s products and services. In addition to revealing a high level of satisfaction with BEA’s

products and services, the survey provided valuable feedback on what is most important to BEA’s customers.

For example, customers use the GDP accounts and state and local personal income most frequently. Also, twothirds of the respondents are frequent users of the BEA Website. 

And finally, a recent private study described the GDP and related measures produced by BEA as one of the

three most important statistical releases that affect the financial markets.

Discontinued Measures

Data Accuracy Score-on a scale of 100

62 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Economic Analysis

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: BEA customer survey.

Frequency: It is expected that customer surveys will be conducted annually if adequate resources are available.

Data storage: Survey is conducted and results compiled by BEA’s Current Business Analysis Division, which retains records of raw data

and computations leading to final results.

Verification: Survey results are reviewed for accuracy and reasonableness and reported by BEA in its annual Customer Satisfaction

Report published in the Survey of Current Business.

Target 85 >85 Discontinued Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual NA

Met/Not Met
Explanation of Measure

The performance measure of data accuracy included in the past was discontinued due to the lack of reliability in

the measure. This measure was discounted because its concept was too ambiguous and its computation too

arbitrary to be useful. Thousands of data series, some from sample surveys and many from other sources, are

used to construct GDP and other estimates. For years statisticians have tried to develop measures of accuracy for

GDP but have been unable to overcome the issues of non-sample data sources. Therefore, a reasonable and

acceptable quantitative measure of data accuracy could not be constructed.

Similarly, the Internet Website utilization and updated and improved GDP processing system performance measures

listed in the Commerce Department’s FY 2000-2005 Strategic Plan have been dropped from the FY 2002

performance plan. Website usage and technology are growing and changing so rapidly that it is questionable

how meaningful any measures and targets can be. The development of a new GDP processing system is critical

to BEA’s production of relevant, accurate, and timely statistics, but it can not be measured directly in a

quantitative way. Indirectly, the results of a new processing system will be reflected in the existing performance

measures of timeliness, reliability, and customer satisfaction.

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 1

Action Plan

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 63

Bureau of Economic Analysis

• Develop new measures of services and other key product-side

components

• Develop updated measures of compensation and other key

income-side components

• Develop new quality-adjusted price indexes and real GDP

indexes for difficult-to-measure components of GDP, such as

telecommunications goods and services, insurance and

financial services, medical care, and education

• Develop new measures of economic activity in the nonprofit

sector

Provide improved measures of output

(real GDP) and prices

Strategies Activities

• Develop integrated saving and financial wealth estimates

• Develop improved treatment of stock options and pensions

Provide updated measures of

investment, savings, and wealth

• Develop expanded surveys of international trade in services

• Develop new measures of financial derivatives

Provide improved measures of U.S.

international trade and finance

• Develop and implement new GDP-processing system

• Redesign Website to improve user access to BEA data

products

• Develop and implement electronic reporting by respondents

to international investment surveys

• Build secure electronic bridges to primary data suppliers

• Update aging IT hardware and systems

Provide upgraded and expanded

information technology support for

BEA program areas
Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and Internal Revenue Service (IRS): BEA works closely with

these Federal agencies, which are the principal suppliers of source data used to compile BEA’s economic

accounts. Agency representatives meet regularly to maintain an awareness of their joint and individual

statistical problems and needs and to facilitate cooperation in meeting those needs. The scheduling of BEA

release dates is based largely on the availability of source data from Census and BLS.

Other Government Agencies

Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP): Under the auspices of the Office of Management and Budget,

BEA is a major participant in the ICSP, which works to improve collaborative activities of Federal statistical

agencies. Activities of the ICSP have led to standardization of data and concepts, transfers of technology,

methodology exchange, collaborative research, process improvement, improved customer service, reduced

respondent burden, and infrastructure sharing.

To obtain source data for its economic accounts, BEA maintains close working relationships with agencies

producing statistics in most of the Executive Branch Departments of the government, including Agriculture,

Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Labor, Transportation, and Treasury.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

BEA is highly dependent on other government agencies and private organizations for the source data it uses

to produce its economic accounts statistics. Thus, BEA’s ability to provide relevant, accurate, and timely

economic data and to move forward with improvements in its economic accounts is constrained by the

quality and availability of that source data. BEA works closely with its data sources to obtain the best and

most complete data possible and continually refines its estimation methods to improve its measures,

especially in areas with source data deficiencies.

64 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Economic Analysis
Bureau of the Census

Bureau of the Census

Mission Statement:

To be the preeminent collector and provider of data about the people and economy of the

United States.

The goal of the U.S. Bureau of the Census is to provide the best mix of timeliness, relevancy, quality, and cost

for the data collected and services provided. The data provided by the Bureau of the Census shape important

policy decisions that help improve our Nation’s social and economic conditions: 

• Census data provide the basis for estimating the gross domestic product (GDP) and leading economic

indicators,

• Census data determine the apportionment of Congressional seats, as mandated in the Constitution.

• Census data inform us about education, income, poverty, and health care coverage.

• National, State, and local governments use Census data to formulate policy.

• Large corporations and local businesses use Census data to devise their domestic and global strategies.

The credibility, expertise, and high statistical standards of the Bureau of the Census routinely elicit response

rates of 90-95 percent for household surveys and 80 percent for business surveys. This allows the Bureau of the

Census to provide the most accurate and reliable information available.

The Bureau of the Census has developed four bureau-wide strategies to achieve its mission. All goal-level

strategies fall within one, or a combination, of, these bureau-wide strategies:

• Valuing our employees

• Innovating in our work

• Responding to our customers

• Improving public cooperation

FY 1999 saw the Bureau’s first Annual Performance Plan. The two performance goals identified at that time, and

continued into FY 2000, were: 1. Provide quality data and 2. Provide timely and relevant data. These two goals

covered all Bureau programs. However, subsequent feedback from our stakeholders indicated that we needed to

separately identify a Census 2000 performance measure for the FY 2001 Annual Performance Plan. In response,

we combined the original two performance goals and added a new Census 2000 goal in the FY 2001 Annual

Performance Plan. This resulted in two revised goals: 1. Provide accurate, timely, and relevant demographic

data and 2. Conduct the Decennial Census. 

FY 2002 will mark the first year for identifying specific performance targets for the 2010 Census. Consequently,

we have added a new, third goal addressing the 2010 Census. Also, we have made some wording changes to

clarify the scope of goal 1. As a result, our three goals for the FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan are: 1. Develop

relevant, accurate, and timely national and community economic and household statistics for decision-making,

2. Conduct the Decennial Census (FY 2000, FY 2001, and FY 2002) and 3. Define—through consultations, policy

assessment, planning, research, experiments, and evaluations—the plan for the 2010 Census. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 65
Organizational Structure

Priorities

The Census Bureau’s mission is to collect and provide high-quality statistics about the American people and

economy. The Decennial Census is well known because it is a national event that involves everyone every 10

years. However, less widely known is that the Census Bureau continuously conducts numerous other censuses

and surveys for government, private entities, and individuals. 

To deliver high value, the Bureau must target measurement on those trends and segments of our population

and economy most critical to continued American success and prosperity. In FY 2002, the Census Bureau will

focus activities in these areas through a variety of priority program efforts that continue and improve ongoing

statistical programs. These include completing Census 2000, planning the 2010 Census, obtaining cyclical

economic data through the Economic Censuses, and the Census of Governments, and conducting the

Demographic Survey Sample Redesign program. Additionally, the Bureau plans to improve on its data

dissemination, obtain e-commerce and services sector data, and expand export-import trade data collection,

analysis, and dissemination. 

66 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of the Census

Associate Director

for Finance and 

Administration

Associate Director

for Information

Technology

Associate Director

for 

Field Operations

Associate Director

for Communications

Associate Director

for Economic 

Programs

Associate Director

for Demographic

Programs

Associate Director

for Decennial

Census

Associate Director

for Methodology

And Standards

DIRECTOR

DEPUTY

DIRECTOR

Chief

Economist

Marketing

Services

Principal

Associate 

Director and

Chief Financial

Officer

Principal

Associate

Director for

Programs

Equal

Employment

Opportunity

Officer

Policy Office
Management Challenges 

Privacy 

Greater resistance to authority, continued decline in trust of government, and a greater demand for quality will

complicate the Census Bureau’s data gathering efforts and ability to maintain or increase response rates. The

Bureau must convince the public that it needs the cooperation of citizens in order to produce quality

information demanded by policy makers and other data users. The Bureau will have to continually demonstrate

its expertise in educating the public more thoroughly on the quality and security of its data, and its ongoing

sensitivity to anonymity and privacy issues.

Workplace & Workforce 

The Census Bureau will continue to deal with what a multi-racial and multi-ethnic society means for itself as an

agency, for its mission, and for its workforce. Fostering greater diversity in the Bureau’s workforce, and more

importantly, in its management and leadership, will help in creating surveys that are more sensitive to the

knowledge and cultural base of the people they are surveying. Fostering diversity will also help the Bureau

recruit and retain a trained and skilled work force necessary to maintain the high value of its work. 

Customers and Respondents

Recent surveys have shown that more people feel they have less time available to do whatever they need to do,

including work, sleep, look after their families, and enjoy leisure. The Census Bureau will consider new

approaches to saving customers’ time and reduce respondent burden, being more positive in customer relations,

and in ensuring that the customers’ needs are met. 

Technological 

The use of technology is required to ensure that the Census Bureau operates in the most efficient and effective

manner possible. The Bureau will continue to improve the use of technology in data collection, processing, and

dissemination environments. It will be increasingly difficult for the Census Bureau’s core businesses - censuses

and large scale surveys - to stay in front of the demand from policy makers for accurate and timely information

on emerging economic and societal trends without the use of state-of-the-art technology. Likewise, Bureau

management will employ effective and efficient information management tools to manage the organization and

its resources. As always, the Bureau will mitigate the possibility of criminal and/or malicious access to all of its

networks and data.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 67

Bureau of the Census
Targets and Performance Summary

See individual Performance Goal section for further description of each measure.

68 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of the Census

Performance Goal 2: Conduct the Decennial Census (FY 2000 , FY 2001, and FY 2002).

N/A N/A N/A N/A

100% of

scheduled

releases

100% of

scheduled

releases

Disseminate Census 

2000 products 

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target Measure

Performance Goal 1: Develop relevant, accurate and timely, national and community economic and

household statistics for decision-making.

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Percentage of

household surveys

attaining specified

reliability

measurements

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target Measure

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Percentage of

household surveys

with initial

response rates

>90%

5% time

decrease

9% time

decrease

Maintain

FY1999 actual

time achieved

Maintain

FY1999 actual

time achieved

Maintain

FY1999 actual

time achieved

Maintain

FY99 actual

time achieved

Percentage

reduction from

time of data

collection to data

release for selected

household surveys

New New New New New 100% on time

Percentage of

principal economic

indicators released

as scheduled
Resource Requirements Summary

(Dollars in Millions. Funding amounts reflect total obligations.)

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)

*IT Funding included in Total Funding 

** Reimbursable Funding included in Total Funding

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 69

Bureau of the Census

Performance Goal 3: Define—through consultations, policy assessment, planning, research, experiments,

and evaluations—the plan for the 2010 Census.

New New New New New

Percentage

completion of

housing unit

address list

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target Measure

New New New New New

Release 2001 data

from LFTDB*

*Long-Form

Transitional

Database

Prepare plan and

systems by end of

FY 2002 to measure

housing unit

coverage of the

address list. List is

at least as complete

as it was for

Census 2000, as

measured by the

Accuracy and

Coverage

Complete all field

activities

supporting the

release of 2001 data

from LFTDB in

July 2002

FY 2002 

Target

491.8

205.0

5,753

439.5

375.0

5,973

434.8

375.0

5,502

500.3

329.0

6,489

496.9

329.0

6,281

524.1

256.0

6,439

Performance Goal 1

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Request

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Request

FY 2001

Enacted

FY 2002

Request Performance Goal

1,083.9

214.0

14,886

4,591.6

95.0

99,027

4,144.0

95.0

80,939

455.3

59.0

4,497

508.9

59.0

4,456

158.7

40.0

1,151

Performance Goal 2 

Funding

IT Funding*

FTE 

New New New New

23.6

0

442

78.2

19.1

968

Performance Goal 3

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE

1,575.7

173

419

20,639

5,031.1

185

470

105,000

4,578.8

171

470

86,441

955.6

188

388

10,986

1029.4

191

388

10,737

761.0

195

315.1

8,558

Grand Total

Total Funding

Reimbursable**

IT Funding*

FTE
Skills Summary:

The Bureau’s program staff skills and expertise include: large-scale census and survey methodology; statistical

standards and methodology; large database development and management; data processing and analysis;

confidentiality expertise; and data dissemination. 

70 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of the Census
FY 2002 Performance Goals

Performance Goal 1: Develop relevant, accurate, and timely, national and 

community economic and household statistics for decision-making 

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably.

Objective 1.3: Support the effective decision-making of policymakers, businesses, and the American public.

Rationale for Performance Goal

Demographic Statistics: 

The Demographic Programs at the Census Bureau provide the data used to allocate over $180 billion dollars in

Federal funds each year (population estimates and projections), analyses underlying the statistical definitions

and standards used by the entire Federal Government in policy decisions, and the baseline sample units that

underlie virtually every survey conducted in the United States by both private and public sectors.

Demographic Programs develop plans and programs to collect, process, and disseminate information from

surveys and censuses on the population and its characteristics, and on the size and characteristics of the housing

inventory. Official population estimates and projections for the Nation are prepared, and reports on

socioeconomic, demographic, and housing topics are published. Also, analytical research is undertaken on

emerging issues and trends, such as the condition of children and the elderly, the employment of disabled

individuals, and the characteristics of immigrants. 

Directing and coordinating technical and developmental work on the collection and analysis of data by race,

Hispanic origin, and ancestry are major responsibilities. This work results in reports on the characteristics of

special population groups, and for American Indian and Alaska Native areas. An important aspect is examining

reporting issues, such as error or bias in these data.

Official statistics on income and poverty—as well as longitudinal data on income and program participation that

Federal agencies use to develop, modify, and monitor transfer programs— come from Demographic Programs.

Especially important are data necessary to determine the impact of the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, often called “welfare reform.”

Demographic Programs conduct much of the foundational analysis and research underlying the U.S. Office of

Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) decisions on national statistical standards on topics such as occupational

classifications, metropolitan areas, and race and ethnicity. 

The Demographic Program also plans and conducts surveys and special censuses, funded by other Federal

agencies, that focus on topics of national importance, such as unemployment, crime, health, education, and

consumer expenditures. Decennial Census data is also processed, analyzed and disseminated. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 71

Bureau of the Census
Target 100% 100% 100% 100%

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual 100% 100%

Met/Not Met Met Met

Economic Statistics: 

The Census Bureau’s Economic Statistics program is responsible for statistical programs that count and profile

U.S. businesses and government organizations in a rapidly evolving economic environment. This includes

conducting an Economic Census and a Census of Governments every 5 years; more than 100 separate surveys

taken monthly, quarterly, and annually, including principal economic indicators; voluminous merchandise

export and import statistics produced monthly; extensive compilations of administrative records; and numerous

research and technical studies.

In addition, the Economic Statistics program conducts a number of surveys under reimbursable agreements

with other Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Center for Education Statistics,

the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the Federal Reserve Board, the Environmental Protection Agency, the

Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Housing and

Urban Development.

• The major activities of the Economic Statistics program include: providing statistics that are critical to

understanding current conditions in our economy, including principal Federal economic indicators, 

• Producing economic statistics that provide 75 percent of the source data used in preparing Gross Domestic

Product (GDP) estimates, one of the Nation’s most important barometers of current economic activity.

• Conducting an Economic Census and a Census of Governments every 5 years, collecting data for years

ending in “2” and “7.” The Economic Census covers all nonagricultural sectors of the economy; publishes

data on the activities of more than 22 million businesses and more than 1,100 industries; and provides

detailed geographic information. 

As a complement to the sectoral Economic Census program components, the Census Bureau also conducts a

series of related programs to collect information on topics of special interest—for example, minority and

women-owned businesses, the characteristics of the Nation’s trucking fleet, business expenses, the flow of

commodities, and the economies of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Census of Governments provides detailed information on the activities, employment, and finances of

91,000 government entities. 

• Providing information on the labor, capital, and material inputs to, as well as the outputs of, the Nation’s

manufacturing, mining, and construction industries.

• Conducting company-based surveys for the collection of financial data, including data on capital investment,

income, payroll, assets, and expenditures.

• Collecting, processing, and compiling statistical data relating to U.S. merchandise trade (exports, imports, and

transportation) with foreign countries and U.S. possessions. Detailed trade information is available on both a

monthly and annual basis for 17,000 import commodities and 10,000 export commodities. 

• Conducting annual sample surveys of State and local government finances and employment, and producing

quarterly measures of taxes and government assets.

• Conducting surveys for other government agencies related to Federal, State, and local government activities,

• Undertaking reimbursable activities (surveys and special tabulations) that take advantage of the Economic

Program’s processing infrastructure and core competencies.

Measure 1a: Percentage of household surveys attaining specified reliability measurements

72 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of the Census
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 73

Explanation of Measure

Reliability measurements are fundamental to the success and customer acceptance of Bureau survey

information. These measurements consist of a series of statistical measurements that define the precision of a

survey—e.g., standard error, coefficient of variation, and sample design effect. The customer and the Census

Bureau jointly determine reliability specifications before the survey is commissioned. The FY 2000 performance

level for this measure was achieved. There were no impacts on the FY 2001 Performance Plan or changes for the

FY 2002 Performance Plan. 

Measure 1b: Percentage of household surveys with initial response rates >90%

Explanation of Measure

Maintaining an initial 90 percent or better response rate for household surveys ensures that the Bureau’s survey

information is continuously reliable, comparable, and widely accepted by customers over the longer term. 

Some household surveys are designed to follow respondents when they move to new locations. These

“longitudinal design” surveys typically have response rates that decline below the 90 percent initial rate over

Bureau of the Census

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Performance measure data on reliability are

collected, calculated, and assessed as the surveys are

tabulated. 

Frequency: Performance measures are available at the time of

a survey’s public data release. 

Data storage: Survey performance data are in Census Bureau

databases and are published in public press releases and data

reports (Source and Reliability Statements in every release).

Verification: The Bureau publicly reports methodological

standards for its surveys. The survey data tabulations are

compared to these standards to verify that the specified

reliability measurements are attained. 

Target 100% 100% 100% 100%

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual 100% 100%

Met/Not Met Met Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Response rates are monitored as the responses are

collected in the field.

Frequency: Performance measures are available at the time of a

survey’s public data release. 

Data storage: Survey performance data are in Census Bureau

databases and are published in public press releases and data

reports (Source and Reliability Statements in every release).

Verification: The Bureau publicly reports methodological

standards including response rates for its surveys. The survey

data tabulations are compared to these standards to verify that

the specified reliability measurements are attained.
Met/Not Met Met Met

5% time decrease Maintain FY 1999

actual time achieved

Maintain FY 1999

actual time achieved

Maintain FY 1999

actual time achieved Target

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

9% time decrease Maintain FY 1999

actual time achieved Actual

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Data collection dates are published in advance. These set the baseline for release dates.

Frequency: As scheduled 

Data storage: Census Bureau databases and public data releases

Verification: By comparison with past release dates. Official responses to customers will verify customer satisfaction.

Target New New New 100% on time

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual

Met/Not Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: A monthly schedule of data release dates is published annually in advance on the Census Bureau’s Web site. This sets the

performance baseline. 

Frequency: As scheduled. 

Data storage: Census Bureau databases and public data releases

Verification: By comparison with actual release dates

time. The lower rates are reported when data are released. This measure excludes household expenditure

surveys. 

The FY 2000 performance level for this measure was achieved. There were no impacts on the FY 2001

Performance Plan or changes for the FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan. 

Measure 1c: Percentage reduction from time of data collection to data release for selected

household surveys

Explanation of Measure

Many long-standing household surveys have reached optimal release times, e.g., the monthly Current

Population and Housing Vacancy Surveys. This measure addresses newer surveys and survey supplements,

such as the Survey of Income and Program Participation and the Survey of Program Dynamics. The FY 1999

performance target was to decrease the time by 5 percent. The Bureau exceeded that target, reducing the time by

9 percent. The FY 2000 performance level to maintain the FY 1999 achieved level was met. 

Measure 1d: Percentage of principal economic indicators released as scheduled

74 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of the Census
Explanation of Measure

This is a new, specific performance measure for FY 2002. The Census Bureau provides statistics that are critical

to understanding current conditions in our economy. These statistics include the principal Federal economic

indicators, which drive national monetary policy, Federal economic policy making and investment, and business

decisions. These principal economic indicators include: the Advance Retail Sales; Manufacturing and Trade:

Inventories and Sales; Wholesale Trade; Advanced Report on Durable Goods, Manufacturers’ Shipments and

Orders; Manufacturers’ Shipments, Inventories, and Orders; Construction Put in Place; Quarterly Financial

Report (QFR):Manufacturing, Mining and Wholesale Trade; Housing Starts and Building Permits/New

residential Construction; New One-Family Houses Sold and For Sale; QFR Retail; Housing Vacancies; and the

U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services), jointly released with the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

Previously, the U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services, measure was reported in BEA’s Annual

Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report with reference to the Census Bureau’s data collection and

processing responsibilities. 

FY 2000 Program Evaluations for Census Performance Goal 1: Develop relevant, 

accurate, and timely national and community economic and household statistics for 

decision-making

The Bureau’s statistical program evaluations are numerous and ongoing. Some FY 2000 examples include: 

Demographic Statistics: 

• Quality profiles and project management reports were regularly generated for both reimbursable and Bureausponsored demographic surveys. These profiles and reports provide statistical measures of reliability and

note compliance with/accomplishment of project tasks. 

• The U.S. Department of Education (DoEd) sponsored an external review, by the National Academy of

Sciences, of the Small-Area Income and Poverty Estimates program (SAIPE). Additionally, the Census Bureau

has an external contract for future evaluation of the statistical aspects of SAIPE.

• In coming years, the past decade’s population estimates will be compared (by both internal Bureau staff and

representatives of State administrative records organizations) against data from Census 2000 to assess the

quality of past estimates and identify ways to improve the program.

Economic Statistics: 

• Every 3 years, as required by Statistical Policy Directive No. 3, the Census Bureau prepares a report for the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the compilation, release, and evaluation of the 12 principal

Federal economic indicators that the Bureau produces. 

• We continue to investigate and evaluate differences in reported capital expenditures in the Annual Survey of

Manufacturers (ASM) and Annual Capital Expenditure Survey (ACES). 

• We assessed the quality of the newly reinstated Pollution Abatement Cost Expenditure Survey Evaluation. 

• We analyzed and evaluated data collected in our new e-business measurement program.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 75

Bureau of the Census
76 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Discontinued Measures

Qualitative customer evaluations

Explanation: 

The FY 2000 actual was not calculated due to this undeveloped measure being dropped in favor of adding two

Census 2000 new measures placing greater emphasis on Census 2000 while containing the number of

performance measures Department-wide. 

Bureau of the Census

Target N/A N/A Discontinued Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual

Met/Not Met
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 1

Action Plan

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 77

Bureau of the Census

Investigate the use of incentives to respond Develop innovative measures to reduce nonresponse

Sample households nationwide to develop

improved methods

Test alternative questionnaire designs to improve

response rate

Participate in new employee “goal sharing” to

determine better performance incentives for field

interviewer staff

Improve interviewing skills to increase response

Provide data in easily accessible forms, focusing

on the Internet for immediate user access

Improve data accessibility Web-based applications

such as American FactFinder

Increase value to respondents Distribute “give-back” information brochures

about local communities

Determine ways to reduce report preparation and

review process 

Implement recommendations of report review

process team 

Study post collection process to determine how to

release data earlier

Extend the results of the post collection process

improvement for Current Population Survey

supplements and the American Housing Survey to

other surveys

Strategies – Demographic Statistics Activities

Strategies - Economic Statistics Activities

• Provide first official measures of electronic

commerce; understand the effect of e-business

processes on our programs and measures

• Develop and implement industry and product

classification systems that reflect the 21st-century

economy

• Provide measures that profile and describe the

New Economy.

• Improve the usefulness of economic statistics by

making Census data more accessible and easier to

use

Improve relevance and usefulness of economic

statistics
78 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

The Bureau works closely with other statistical agencies, in particular the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BEA is a primary customer for the Census Bureau’s economic data, and

the BLS shares costs for the Bureau’s major annual Current Population Survey. 

The Census Bureau is working with MBDA to increase the frequency of the survey of minority-owned

business enterprises to provide more timely information about one of the fastest growing consumer segments

of the U.S. economy.

The Census Bureau is working with ITA to produce customized statistics on exported services. ITA will fund

the production of these statistics.

Other Government Agencies

Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP). Under the auspices of OMB, the Census Bureau is a major

participant in this council, which works to improve collaborative activities of Federal statistical agencies.

Activities of the Council have led to standardized data and concepts, technology transfers, methodology

exchange, collaborative research, process improvement, better customer service, reduced respondent burden,

and infrastructure sharing.

An interagency Team on Performance Measurement and Reporting was established by the ICSP in 1999 to

review the performance plans of the statistical agencies and to recommend common approaches. The team

has prepared a report that discusses performance indicators for statistical agencies and presents guidelines

for a common approach to reporting performance. 

The State Data Center (SDC) program is one of the Census Bureau’s longest and most successful partnerships. This

cooperative program between the States and the Census Bureau was created in 1978 to make data available locally

to the public through a network of State agencies, universities, libraries, and regional and local governments. The

Business and Industry Data Center Program (BIDC) was added in 1988 to meet the needs of local business

communities for economic data. SDC lead organizations are appointed by State Governors.

Additionally, the Bureau of the Census participates in numerous non-statistical Federal agency activities, such

as being a data supplier, a survey collection resource, and an advisory and research resource.

Government/Private Sector

International/Private Sector: The International Programs Center (IPC), part of the Census Bureau’s

Population Division, conducts demographic and socioeconomic studies and strengthens statistical

development around the world through technical assistance, training, and software products. Its work is

commissioned and funded by Federal agencies, international organizations, non-governmental organizations,

private businesses, and other governments. For over 50 years, IPC has assisted in the collection, processing,

analysis, dissemination, and use of statistics with counterpart governments throughout the world. 

Bureau of the Census
External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

There is a growing negative public perception of both government and non-government intrusion into personal

and business information privacy. This affects the response to surveys and censuses and is the most significant

factor affecting the future goals, objectives, and Performance Plans of the Census Bureau.

One major mitigation strategy for this problem is to continuously inform the public of our privacy and

confidentiality policies for all Bureau activities. This involves publishing our policy statements via the Census

Bureau’s Web site and other information activities. The Web site indicates the Bureau’s privacy policy in these

areas: 

• Web site visitor activities, 

• purchasers of Census Bureau products over the Internet , 

• the privacy for respondents to surveys and censuses over the Internet,

• document accessibility and links to third-party sites via the Internet, and

• the Bureau’s confidentiality policy, which describes how the agency protects individual or business

establishment confidentiality and the penalties for wrongful disclosure of Bureau information. 

Another major mitigation strategy is to continue our partnership and community outreach program begun

during Census 2000. This program helped raise the census response rate by enlisting the help of over 144,000

partners in the public and private sector.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 79

Bureau of the Census
Performance Goal 2: 

Conduct the Decennial Census (FY 2000, FY 2001, and FY 2002) 

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably.

Objective 1.3: Support the effective decision-making of policymakers, businesses, and the American public.

Rationale for Performance Goal

The Bureau’s FY 2001 Performance Plan goal 2, “Conduct Decennial Census,” focused on FY 2001 major

milestones for Census 2000:

• delivering apportionment population counts to the U.S. President by December 31, 2000 and 

• delivering redistricting counts to all States by April 1, 2001. By FY 2002, although these most work intensive

Census 2000 activities are expected to be finished, Census 2000 will not be complete. The Census Bureau still

needs to process, tabulate, and disseminate to the public the detailed results from Census 2000. The Annual

Performance Plan for FY 2002 reflects this shift from data collection and processing activities to data

dissemination of short- and long-form data products. 

Measure 2a: Disseminate Census 2000 products 

Explanation of Measure

Providing releases of Census 2000 products on schedule is critical to the institutions and individuals responsible

for managing or evaluating Federal programs. These releases are also needed to meet legal requirements

stemming from U.S. court decisions, such as the Voting Rights Act. The data collected and released are as much

a part of our Nation’s infrastructure as highways and telephone lines. Federal dollars supporting schools,

employment services, housing assistance, highway construction, hospital services, programs for the elderly, and

more are distributed based on Census data. For example, 22 of the 25 largest Federal funding grant programs in

fiscal year 1998 were responsible for $162 billion being distributed to State, local, and tribal governments. About

half of this money was distributed using formulas involving Census population data, according to the General

80 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of the Census

Met/Not Met

N/A N/A 100% of scheduled

releases

100% of scheduled

releases Target

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Data dissemination is scheduled. These set the baseline for release dates

Frequency: As scheduled 

Data storage: American FactFinder

Verification: By comparison with actual release dates. Official responses to customers will verify customer satisfaction.
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 81

Accounting Office. We expect that at least $182 billion and housing will be distributed annually based on

formulas using Census 2000 data. 

This is a wording consistency and clarification change from the FY 2000 Performance Plan: “Meet all Census

2000 published data release milestones on time.” This wording now matches the wording in the Department’s

new FY 2000 — FY 2005 Strategic plan. This revised statement represents the same commitment to releasing

Census 2000 products as is stated in the FY 2000 Performance Plan. The scheduled released dates are available

on the Census Bureau’s Internet site.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for Census Performance Goal 2: Conduct the 

Decennial Census (FY 2000, FY 2001, and FY 2002) 

During FY 2000, the Census Bureau developed a Census 2000 Evaluation Program to measure the effectiveness,

cost, and impact on data quality of the Census 2000 design, operations, systems, and processes. This effort

informs data users and stakeholders about data quality and limitations, providing information needed for

historical comparability of Census methods and procedures. The Evaluation Program will help guide post-2000

research and testing for the 2010 Census, offering useful information for the American Community Survey and

other census surveys and operations.

During FY 2000-2003, the Census Bureau will conduct 145 objective evaluations covering the full scope of

Census 2000 and the Census 2000 Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (ACE). It will also complete six major

experiments conducted during Census 2000.

Discontinued Measures

Measures: Produce apportionment counts using traditional Census-taking methods and

Adjust net population counts using the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation in 

all States.

Bureau of the Census

Target N/A N/A 100 % on time Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual

Met/Not Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data collection: The Census Bureau will use exhaustive traditional Census-taking methods to produce the most accurate apportionment

counts possible by December 31, 2000. The Census Bureau will then conduct an Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (ACE) Survey at the

conclusion of the first phase of the Census. People counted in the ACE will be compared with those enumerated in the Census. After

the matching is completed, a field interview will reconcile the selected cases. Following that, the Bureau will use modern statistical

methods to produce more accurate Census counts statistically corrected numbers ready by April 1, 2001, and plans to make the more

accurate Census counts available in a form that allows states to use them for redistricting purposes. The more accurate counts can also

be used to determine the allocation of Federal funds, and for ongoing statistical and programmatic purposes.

Frequency: The measures will be obtained when legally mandated data are released on schedule. 

Data storage: Internal Census databases

Verification: The Bureau will adhere to a statistical methodology that is well documented and reported publicly.
82 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Explanation of Measure

These are critical, historically fundamental performance measures for the Census Bureau. Title 13, U.S. Code,

requires that the apportionment population counts be delivered to the President of the United States within 9

months of the Census date. In Census 2000 and most 20th-century censuses, that date has been April 1, meaning

that the Office of the President received the counts by December 31 of each Census year. 

According to Title 2, U.S. Code, within 1 week of the opening of the next session of the Congress, the President

must report to the Clerk of the House of Representatives the apportionment population counts for each State

and the number of representatives to which each State is entitled. Also according to Title 2, U.S. Code, within 15

days, the Clerk of the House must inform each State Governor of the number of representatives to which each

State is entitled. The legislatures in each State are responsible for geographically defining the boundaries of their

congressional and other election districts — a process known as redistricting; more detailed Census results are

used for these purposes. 

These two measures were newly established in the FY 2001 Annual Performance Plan to place greater emphasis

on Census 2000. They are one-time reportable measures for FY 2001; FY 2000 performance measures have no

effect on them.

Decennial - Net Population Undercount

Explanation:

This measure was established in the FY 2000 Annual Performance Plan and was predicated on the Bureau’s use

of a new census taking design which included non-response follow-up sampling. After this measure was

published, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of non-response follow-up sampling in Census 2000 and the

Bureau subsequently proceeded with a traditional census taking design. Therefore, an FY 2000 actual net

population undercount percentage, based on the original sampling design, could not be calculated. This

measure was discontinued in the FY 2001 Performance Plan. The Bureau replaced this measure with two more

suitable Census 2000 measures: Produce Apportionment Counts, using traditional census-taking measures, and

Adjust Net Population Undercounts, using the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation in all States. 

Qualitative independent evaluations

Bureau of the Census

Target N/A N/A Discontinued Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual

Met/Not Met

Target N/A .1% Discontinued Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual

Met/Not Met
Explanation: 

The FY 2000 actual was not calculated due to this undeveloped measure being dropped in favor of adding new

measures to place greater emphasis on Census 2000 while containing the number of performance measures

Department-wide.

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 2

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

None

Government/Private Sector

The Partnership and Data Services Program reflects the Census Bureau’s commitment to continuing and

expanding upon more than 144,000 organizational partnerships established during Census 2000. It is an

innovative and aggressive data dissemination program that reaches virtually every segment of the American

population. The program provides data information services and products and continuing contact with

Census 2000 partners. It actively engages in providing data workshops, seminars, and site visits with State,

local, and tribal governments, community-based organizations, small businesses, rural community groups,

inner-city neighborhood associations, media organizations, national affiliates, and faith-based organizations. 

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

The growing negative public perception of both government and non-government intrusion into personal and

business information privacy was reflected in the declining mail-response rates in two successive Decennial

Censuses (1980 and 1990).

To overcome the declining response trend, an integrated marketing plan was implemented for Census 2000. 

It consisted of a massive partnership effort, a first-time paid advertising campaign, a redesigned Census

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 83

Bureau of the Census

Produce useful long-form and geographic data

products for users

Process, tabulate and disseminate detailed long-form

and geographic data and organize into formats to

produce data products 

Continue disseminating short-form data and

associated data products to meet data user needs

Disseminate to data users primarily via the on-line

American FactFinder System

Afford State, local and tribal governments the

opportunity to evaluate and challenge geographic

allocations of Census counts as well as the

geographic boundaries used by the Bureau 

Conduct the Count Question Resolution (CQR)

Program 

Support State redistricting efforts Provide technical assistance to States

Strategies – Demographic Statistics Activities
questionnaire, an advance letter, and a follow-up postcard. Various promotional activities included Census in

Schools and the Road Tour full media services to support press coverage of Census activities. With common

messages and themes, these programs worked together to persuade and motivate respondents. Local

governments and other Census partners used promotional tools to customize their outreach materials while

maintaining the Census Bureau’s messages and themes 

84 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of the Census
Performance Goal 3: 

Define—through consultations, policy assessment, planning, research, 

experiments, and evaluations—the plan for the 2010 Census 

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal, Objective, and Strategy

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably.

Objective 1.3: Support the effective decision-making of policymakers, businesses, and the American public.

Rationale for Performance Goal

This is a new performance Goal for FY 2002. Our early planning efforts for the 2010 Census are not predicated

upon 1990 or Census 2000 efforts, but rather upon a major reengineering of Census 2000, exploring

opportunities for innovations and taking advantage of new technologies that will allow us to contain costs and

improve accuracy. The strategy for the next decade is to have a more systematic, integrated, building-block

approach for decennial and demographic data collection. This approach has three major components: 1. a

simplified 2010 Census and more timely data, based on eliminating the long form through implementation of

the American Community Survey, 2. a single, continuously updated address list and associated geographical

products for use in all decennial and demographic programs, and 3. a well-tested and planned 2010 Census

design, produced through systematic development prior to mid-decade operational testing— achieving the

performance measure commitment in the Department of Commerce FY 2000-FY 2005 Strategic Plan and a plan

for operational testing of a 2010 approach by 2005.

Measure 3a: Percentage completion of housing unit address list.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 85

Bureau of the Census

Target New New New

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001

Actual

Met/Not Met

Prepare plan and

systems by end of

FY 2002 to measure

housing unit

coverage of the

address list. List is

at least as complete

as it was for

Census 2000, as

measured by the

Accuracy and

Coverage

FY 2002
Explanation of Measure

This is a new performance measure for FY 2002. A complete and accurate address list is the “heart” of a

complete and accurate Decennial Census and the Census Bureau’s monthly household surveys, especially major

new ones such as the American Community Survey. The address list is the “heart” because the Decennial

Census and each household survey then uses various data collection techniques to count the number of

occupants of each address, and to gather demographic characteristics about them, as they existed on “Census

Day” or on the date of the monthly survey. More than a million new houses and apartments are built every

year, and new neighborhoods are created nationwide. This requires the Bureau to constantly update the list, to

prevent a large decline in the accuracy of the census and survey programs it supports.

In addition to having a complete list of addresses, each address must be assigned to the correct Census block.

The resulting statistical data about the occupants of each address, aggregated by Census block, make up the

single most sought-after product of the Census Bureau. These data feed the Congressional and State legislative

redistricting processes that take place in each State following the Decennial Census. 

Measure 3b: Release 2001 data from LFTDB. 

Explanation of Measure

This is a new performance measure for FY 2002. The Census Long-Form Transitional Database (LFTDB) is the

key to replacing the Census long form with the American Community Survey (ACS). As part of the Decennial

Census operations in FY 2000 and FY 2001, we have been conducting the LFTDB evaluation study. The FY 2002

plan for the LFTDB is a critical part of the transition to using data from the ACS as a national program

86 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of the Census

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: A comparison of the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation with the Bureau’s Master Address File.

Frequency: September 2002 

Data storage: The Bureau’s Master Address File 

Verification: By comparison of FY 2002 address list to Census 2000 address list

Target New New New

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001

Actual

Met/Not Met

Complete field

activities

supporting the

release of 2001 data

from LFTDB in

July 2002

FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Performance data collected as field collection progresses

Frequency: Completed by July 2002 

Data storage: Long-Form Transitional Data Base

Verification: By comparison to completion targets established in field collection plan
beginning in FY 2003 (a performance measurement commitment in the Department of Commerce FY 2000 — FY

2005 Strategic Plan). When the ACS becomes a comprehensive national program, community profiles will be

available every year rather than every 10 years. These vastly improved data will enable the U.S. Government to

distribute billions of dollars much more efficiently and to more effectively evaluate Federal programs. 

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for Census Performance Goal 3: Define— through consultations, planning

assessment, policy, research, experiments, and evaluations—the plan for the 2010 Census. 

Not applicable. This is a new performance goal that starts in FY 2002. 

Discontinued Measures

None

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 3

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

None

Other Government Agencies:

Because the current Federal statistical system is decentralized, surveys are conducted independently of one

another. Each one must collect the same core data: number of occupied units, number of people, and the

general characteristics of people. After these core data are collected, each survey focuses on its specific needs.

The American Community Survey can offer better estimates of these cross-cutting core data as well as

provide a vehicle for collecting some specific survey data, thereby reducing this duplication. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 87

Bureau of the Census

• Correctly align addresses and features with Global

Positioning System coordinates.

• Develop replacement geography systems software

• Extend and expand geographic partnership programs.

• Implement a periodic geographic/address list evaluation

program.

• Complete development and implementation of address

updating systems.

• Add or correct 23,000 addresses during FY 2002.

Ensure a continued complete and

accurate address list for Censuses and

surveys

Strategies Activities

Complete all address updating

systems and field activities for the

LFTDB the implementation of the ACS

in 2003, and future uses by decennial

and demographic programs.
State and local governments are becoming more involved in administering and evaluating programs

traditionally controlled by the Federal Government. This devolution of responsibility is often accompanied by

Federal funding through block grants. The data collected via the American Community Survey will be useful

not only to the Federal agencies but also to State, local, and tribal governments in planning, administering,

and evaluating programs. 

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

The Census Bureau does not believe it can replicate the success of Census 2000 in 2010 using the same design of

1970 —2000, which has outlived its utility. If it is not redesigned, the 2010 Census will be even more costly than

Census 2000 and subject to the risk of operational failure. A key component of the redesign is to separate the

collection of long form sample data from the census. 

Data users have asked for timely data that provide consistent measures for all areas. Decennial sample data are

out of date soon after they are published, about 2 years after the Census is taken. Their usefulness declines every

year thereafter. Yet billions of government and business dollars are divided among jurisdictions and population

groups each year, based on their social and economic profiles in the Decennial Census. 

The American Community Survey is a new approach for collecting accurate, timely information needed for

critical government functions. This new approach provides accurate, up-to-date profiles of America’s

communities every year. Community leaders and other data users will have timely information for planning

and evaluating public programs for everyone, from newborns to the elderly. The American Community Survey

is a way to provide the data that communities need every year instead of once in 10 years. It is an ongoing

survey that the Census Bureau plans to use to replace the long form in the 2010 Census.

88 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of the Census
International Trade Administration

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 89

International Trade Administration

Mission Statement

To create economic opportunity for U.S. workers and firms by promoting international

trade, opening foreign markets, ensuring compliance with our trade laws and

agreements, and supporting U.S. commercial interests at home and abroad.

The Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration (ITA) works within the Federal

Government to build the American economy by promoting U.S. foreign trade. ITA supports the business

community by helping U.S. companies to export, partnering with industry, opening markets, and leveling the

playing field for the international exchange of goods and services. 

ITA’s four operational areas span both exports and imports, enabling ITA to serve as a complete source of

international trade information and assistance for businesses. ITA’s Trade Information Center, Trade

Compliance Center, Advocacy Center, and more than 100 Export Assistance Centers and overseas posts provide

critical information to businesses to help in their export trade activities. ITA also plays a significant role in

ensuring fair competition by combating dumping and subsidy of imports.

In addition to maintaining a close relationship with U.S. businesses, ITA works with other Government agencies

and multilateral organizations to formulate trade policies and monitor market access and compliance with U.S.

international trade agreements. These organizations include the Department of State, the Department of

Treasury, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Trade Representative, as well as the World

Trade Organization, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, and the United Nations.
Organizational Structure

Priorities

ITA’s priorities are derived directly from departmental priorities, which are linked directly to the growth of the

economy and quality of life of all Americans. These priorities guide the development of ITA program initiatives

listed below:

Create More Effective Customer Relationships and Awareness —This activity is directed at elevating

communications and outreach, determining appropriate ITA brand/identity, deepening customer

insight/research, and rationalizing customer points of contact. 

Fundamentally Redesign ITA’s Role in Market Access and Export Promotion—This activity is aimed at (1)

concentrating market access efforts on key market opportunities and follow-up with targeted promotion plans,

(2) developing targeted commercial infrastructure initiatives on emerging markets to better position U.S. firms,

(3) developing new and innovative export promotion tools, and (4) establishing effective leadership in the

coordination of Government-wide export promotion activities.

Leveraging E-Commerce on Product Development and Service Delivery—This activity is designed to (1) develop new

matchmaking tools, (2) virtualize information delivery and knowledge management, and (3) create a rapid

product development process. 

90 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

International Trade Administration

Counselor to the

Department

Under Secretary for

International Trade

Deputy Under Secretary

for International Trade

Trade Promotion

Coordinating

Committee

Secretariat

Assistant Secretary for

Trade Development

Assistant Secretary for

Import

Administration

Assistant Secretary and

Director General of the

U.S. & Foreign

Commercial Service

Assistant Secretary for

Market Access and

Compliance

Chief Counsel for

International

Commerce

Chief Counsel for

Import Administration

Chief Financial Officer

and Director of

Administration

Office of Legislative

and Intergovernmental

Affairs

Office of Public

Affairs
Develop Proactive Compliance Capability—This activity is fixed on (1) increasing research and monitoring

capacity, (2) developing targeted outreach to build awareness and develop clear points of contact for exposed

companies, and (3) developing a “rapid-strike force” to quickly act upon noncompliance.

Increase Private-sector Alliances—The purpose of this activity is to improve partnerships, develop new venture

relationships, and establish outsourcing arrangements.

Management Challenges

ITA faces a number of key management challenges/problems:

• Improve Financial Management Effectiveness

An assessment of our financial management structure indicated the need to improve our capabilities in that

area. To address this problem, ITA will strengthen budgeting and accounting, enhance financial analysis and

reporting, and improve resource management. 

• Position Human Capital as a Strategic Asset

Like all Federal agencies, ITA faces significant human resources problems, not the least of which is that onethird of our employees are projected to retire in 5 years. We recently completed an employee survey, which

identified several issues that we need to address. Specifically, we will (1) develop clear and flexible career

paths, and focus on career development and retention, (2) develop an ITA-wide job rotation program, (3)

improve employee satisfaction, (4) increase diversity recruiting, and (5) decrease the time it takes to fill

vacancies.

• Establish Client-Focused, Mission-Driven IT Management

A review of our information technology environment revealed that we have a disjointed system of IT

management. To remedy this situation, ITA is required to (1) secure a Chief Information Officer (CIO) and

build a CIO organization, (2) establish ITA-wide IT management, and (3) leverage e-commerce.

• Optimize Organizational Flexibility and Management Capabilities

In view of the challenges identified above, ITA will deploy resources rapidly in response to shifting demands

and will aim to develop excellent management and managers.

During FY 2000, ITA took a number of significant steps toward eliminating weaknesses in management,

including:

• Improve Financial Management Effectiveness

ITA made significant changes in its financial operations, which resulted in, for the second consecutive year,

an unqualified audit opinion of its financial statements. Achieving an unqualified opinion is significant

because financial statement audits are a key gauge for measuring ITA’s progress in meeting the goals and

objectives of the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act.

During FY 2000, ITA made further improvements in its internal controls structure, thereby eliminating two of

its three remaining material weaknesses in financial management. The bureau also established an international

lockbox service, allowing ITA to make international collections directly through a bank in the U.S.

ITA effectively improved financial management and budget-processing activities by assessing the capabilities,

aspirations, and challenges of the CFO organization and implementing recommendations for improvements.

• Position Human Capital as a Strategic Asset

Implemented ITA realignment in order to eliminate duplication, sharpen and clarify the focus of the

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 91

International Trade Administration
organization, and adjust the management structure to better reflect ITA priorities and changes in the

international trade environment.

• Establish Client-Focused, Mission-Driven Information Technology (IT) Management

In FY 2000, ITA launched Export.gov—a web portal, containing all DOC export-related information.

Export.gov is organized according to customer needs and intentions, making it easier for visitors to find

necessary information even if they have little knowledge of government structure. Currently, Export.gov is

being expanded to include all U.S. Federal Government information related to exporting.

• Improve Program Evaluation Effectiveness

Completed the Management Control Review of ITA’s performance measures, which assessed the adequacy of

those measures, evaluated the verification and validation systems in place, and addressed the similarities and

differences in the application of definitions used for performance measure reporting in ITA.

• Improve Program Planning Effectiveness

Completed ITA’s FY 2000-2005 Strategic Plan, which defines ITA’s new mission statement, lays out the goals

and objectives to achieve that mission, and presents high-level strategies for implementation. 

Targets and Performance Summary

See individual Performance Goal section for further description of each measure.

* New performance measure. Historical data available and displayed.

92 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

International Trade Administration

Performance Goal 1: Improve American Competitiveness and Access to Foreign Markets by Enforcing

141 134 103 185 185 185 *Number of AD/CVD

Cases Processed

FY 1999 Target FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target

New-to-Export Firms 25,260 42,351 26,089 33,514 30,336 30,005

FY 1999 Target FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target

Performance Goal 3: Increase U.S. Exports by Implementing the National Export Strategy Through

New-to-Market Firms 45,919 67,835 47,437 54,307 54,779 53,958

FY 1999 Target FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target

New New New New 5,000 5,400

Number of new

subscribers using

BuyUSA.com e-services

FY 1999 Target FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target
Resource Requirements Summary

(Dollars in Millions. Funding amounts reflect total obligations.)

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)

*IT Funding included in Total Funding

** Reimbursable funding included in Total Funding

IT (Information Technology) Requirements: Infrastructure and related mission systems. 

Skill Summary: 

In-depth knowledge of international and domestic trade laws and regulations, in addition to country/industrysector expertise; specialized knowledge of and experience in export marketing and promotion, foreign trade

practices, and foreign government trade programs and policies.

Structure of Plan:

ITA’s FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan (APP) addresses the four strategies we employ to support the

Department of Commerce’s Objective 1.1, Objective 1.2, and Objective 2.3. For each strategy, we have presented

an outcome-oriented performance measure for evaluating the success of our strategy, as well as our contribution

to the success of the related departmental objective. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 93

International Trade Administration

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Request

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Request

FY 2001

Enacted

FY 2002

Request Performance Goal

339.0

22.0

23.2

2329

334.0

29.0

27.3

2443

334.0

9.0

23.8

2344

383.0

31.0

27.2

2480

382.0

31.0

27.2

2449

361.0

31.0

28.6

2476

Grand Total:

Total Funding

Reimbursable**

IT Funding*

FTE 

43.0

3.0

303

41.0

3.5

318

41.0

3.0

305

46.0

3.5

322

46.0

3.5

318

43.0

3.7

318

Performance Goal 4

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE 

112.0

7.7

768

110.0

9.0

806

110.0

7.7

774

122.0

9.0

818

123.0

9.0

808

113.0

9.4

821

Performance Goal 3

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE 

55.0

3.7

372

59.0

4.4

391

59.0

3.7

375

75.0

4.4

397

73.0

4.4

392

73.0

4.6

392

Performance Goal 1

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE 

129.0

8.8

886

124.0

10.4

928

124.0

8.9

890

140.0

10.3

943

140.0

10.3

931

132.0

10.9

945

Performance Goal 2

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE 
We have formulated two new performance measures for our FY 2002 APP. Specifically:

• We will assess the success of our strategy to “improve American competitiveness and access to foreign

markets by enforcing compliance with U.S. trade laws and agreements” with the performance measure

“number of antidumping/countervailing duty cases processed.”

• We will evaluate the success of our strategy to “improve U.S. competitive advantage through global ecommerce” with the performance measure “number of new subscribers using BuyUSA.com e-services.”

94 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

International Trade Administration
FY 2002 Performance Goals

Performance Goal 1: 

Improve American Competitiveness and Access to Foreign Markets by 

Enforcing Compliance with U.S. Trade Laws and Agreements 

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably.

Objective 1.2: Promote responsible economic growth and trade, while protecting American security.

Rationale for Performance Goal

ITA is committed to building a rules-based trading system in which international trade is both free and fair for

American firms and workers. As the volume of world trade and investment expands and more countries enter

into multilateral and bilateral trade agreements with the U.S., it is necessary to ensure that our trading partners

comply with these agreements, and that American business and workers can capitalize fully on the rights and

opportunities created by them.

ITA helps ensure compliance with international trade agreements and promotes fair competition by supporting

the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) in international trade negotiations; strengthening the

capability to enforce trade agreements through its Trade Compliance Center; conducting antidumping and

countervailing duty trade investigations; and monitoring foreign subsidy practices. 

The original FY 2000 performance goal, “Enforce U.S. Trade Laws and Agreements to Promote Free and Fair

Trade Laws,” was reworded and strengthened to better define ITA’s strategic direction and reflect FY 2002

departmental strategic goals and objectives.

Measure 1a: Number of Antidumping (AD)/Countervailing Duty (CVD) Cases Processed

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 95

International Trade Administration
Explanation of Measure

This is a new performance measure created to more closely align with the FY 2002 departmental strategic goals

and objectives. It measures the number of antidumping/countervailing duty cases that ITA completed

defending American industry against injurious trade practices, such as imports being unfairly subsidized or sold

in the U.S. at less than fair market value. Historical performance measurement data are available and displayed.

Target exceeded. Number of AD/CVD cases processed depends on the number of injurious trade actions taken

by foreign governments and/or foreign companies. Workload is totally controlled by the parties who participate

in the AD/CVD cases, and not by ITA. There is no clear-cut explanation for why in one year versus another year

a party would petition for an investigation or request an administrative review. 

NOTE: This new performance measure appears in the FY 2002 APP and more closely aligns with the evolving

FY 2002 departmental strategic goals and objectives. The “dollar value of market openings” performance

measure was discontinued, since it did not directly relate to ITA’s level of success in enforcing existing U.S.

trade laws and agreements. 

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for ITA Performance Goal 1: Improve American

Competitiveness and Access to Foreign markets by Enforcing Compliance with U.S.

Trade Laws and Agreements

• GAO (01-243, release date 1/1/2001) reviewed major performance and accountability challenges facing the

Department of Commerce. In this report, GAO addressed the Department’s ability to monitor and enforce

trade agreements. ITA incorporated GAO’s findings by establishing clear criteria for the types of agreements

to be included in the Trade Compliance Center’s database. Findings included some success on ITA’s part in

helping U.S. businesses gain access to international markets. The report noted that ITA stated that it faced

several difficulties in portraying its progress in this effort due, in part, to the reluctance of businesses to share

information on their exports and unanticipated changes in the economies of developing countries. 

96 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

International Trade Administration

Target 141 103 185 185

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 134 185

Met/Not Met Not Met Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: American companies defended against injurious trade practices 

Frequency: Daily

Data storage: IA’s Lotus Notes Case Management System

Verification: Each case is supported by final determinations, including Federal Register notices. Lotus Notes software is employed to

operate the IA-wide AD/CVD case tracking/management system. ITA’s Lotus Notes Case Management System is updated daily, and

statistics are available at a moment’s notice. Performance data will be monitored and verified internally.

Data limitations: Number of AD/CVD cases processed depends on the number of injurious trade actions taken by foreign

governments and/or foreign companies. Workload is totally controlled by the parties who participate in the AD/CVD cases.There

is no clear-cut explanation for why in one year versus another year a party would petition for an investigation or request an

administrative review. 
Discontinued Measure: Dollar Value of Market Openings

Explanation of Measure

The “dollar value of market openings” performance measure was discontinued, since it did not directly relate to

ITA’s level of success in enforcing existing U.S. trade laws and agreements. In addition, criticism of this measure

was voiced by GAO and congressional reviewers. Trade agreements are intended to guarantee the opportunity

for U.S. firms to engage in free and fair trade but do not necessarily lead to export sales for U.S. firms.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 97

International Trade Administration

Target 0.8B 2.0B 4.1B Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 2.4B 4.0B

Met/Not Met Met Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: U.S. companies benefiting from market access sessions 

Frequency: Annually, by fiscal year

Data storage: Trade Compliance Center (TCC) will store and publish data

Verification: Each case handled by Market Access and Compliance is supported by varying degrees of economic analysis. The data in

these analyses are usually projections of potential growth in the U.S. share of the foreign market for both the company involved and for

U.S. industry as a whole. Collaboration with the Commercial Service and the industry specialists in Trade Development is critical in the

market analysis and serves as a “double check” on the data. Data from each case are maintained by both the country/regional desk and

the TCC. 

Data Limitations: The data in these cases are usually estimates of future growth, a number of factors, including global trade trends and

political developments would impact the actuals.
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 1

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

• Office of General Counsel: Work together on guidance for interpreting existing agreements, defining the

rights of U.S. firms and workers under U.S. and international trade law, and in negotiations for future

bilateral/multilateral agreements.

Other Government Agencies

• U.S. Trade Representative (USTR): ITA works with the USTR to develop strategies for solving market access

disputes and participates with USTR in major trade negotiations. The agency works closely with U.S.

98 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

International Trade Administration

• In support of monitoring, ITA will continue to attend bilateral

and multilateral meetings, negotiations, and consultations and

will address all relevant disputes. In support of efforts to

educate, ITA will continue to counsel clients on how to receive

the full benefits of existing trade agreements.

• ITA will also solicit feedback from private-sector members of

the 22 industry-sector advisory committees it co-chairs with

USTR.

ITA concentrates on instituting

careful monitoring of U.S. bilateral

and multilateral trade agreements

and constant education of the

business community on its rights

under existing trade laws.

Strategies Activities

Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, ITA conducts the

following AD/CVD case activities: investigations, administrative

reviews, sunset reviews, and suspension agreements. In further

support of this strategy, ITA has implemented, and will continue

to support, the following measures to enhance AD/CVD program

effectiveness: monitoring of significant import surges, expediting

investigations under certain circumstances and enhanced subsidy

enforcement activities.

ITA’s strategy focuses on the

effective administration of the U.S.

Antidumping (AD) and

Countervailing Duty (CVD) laws

(Tariff Act of 1930, as amended) and

agreements negotiated to address

sector-specific trade distorting

practices.

• Expand ITA’s analytical infrastructure to support timely and

accurate assessments of (1) the impact on U.S. industries of the

growth of regional trade pacts (e.g., EU-Mexico, EU-Mercosur),

(2) the impact of major competitors exporting their

discriminatory technical regulations to third markets in the

developing world.

• Develop strategies to support bilateral and multilateral trade

negotiations that prevent the adoption of discriminatory

international standards and regulations against U.S. products. 

• Work closely with foreign governments and regulatory officials

in the developing world to devise strategies that will address

regulatory barriers, head off potentially harmful regulations,

and help shape good regulations and standards.

Support regional trade initiatives (the

Africa Growth and Opportunity Act,

the Caribbean Basin Initiative, Peace

in the Middle East) and bilateral and

multilateral negotiations in such

forums as Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development

(OECD), World Trade Organization

(WTO), Asia Pacific Economic

Cooperation (APEC), and Codex

Alimentarius. 
industry and USTR to analyze potential subsidy practices that might violate the subsidies agreement of the

Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994 (URAA) and cause harm to U.S. industry. ITA also supports trade

policy initiatives initiated by USTR, frequently providing the bulk of the analysis, expertise, and staff

support needed to achieve negotiating objectives.

• International Trade Commission: In an antidumping (AD) or countervailing duty (CVD) case, ITA conducts

the AD/CVD investigation and ITC concurrently conducts the industry injury investigation. If both ITA’s

and ITC’s investigations result in affirmative determinations, then ITA issues an AD/CVD order to the

U.S. Customs Service; this results in a tariff rate adjustment.

• U.S. Customs Service: Because the AD/CVD law requires collection of offsetting duties at the time

merchandise enters the country, ITA communicates regularly with Customs to ensure the prompt and

accurate implementation of ITA’s decisions. Customs then collects cash deposits and final duty

assessments. ITA responds to inquiries from Customs’ headquarters and port offices regarding the scope

and potential evasion of AD/CVD orders, as well as other enforcement concerns.

• Department of Treasury: ITA works closely with Treasury to monitor subsidy-related commitments

contained in the IMF stabilization packages.

• Department of State: In AD/CVD proceedings, ITA verifies information provided by foreign governments

and companies in those countries. ITA works closely with the Department of State to obtain country

clearances, arrange meetings, and make necessary trip arrangements. In addition, ITA works with State to

obtain pertinent information on subsidy enforcement issues. ITA works on a daily basis with U.S. embassies

abroad—including State Department Economic Officers as well as Commerce’s U.S. and Foreign

Commercial Service Officers—to implement strategies for removal of foreign trade barriers to U.S. exports.

• Department of Justice: ITA, in conjunction with the Office of the General Counsel, works with Justice’s

attorneys on pending AD/CVD litigation before the Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit.

Government/Private-Sector

• The President’s Export Council, chaired by the Secretary of Commerce, advises the President on trade

policy issues. Its membership includes 28 CEOs of private-sector companies, officials of other Federal

agencies (Commerce, State, Treasury, Labor, Agriculture, SBA, Export-Import Bank, and USTR) and 10

Congressional representatives. The Industry Consulting Program, consisting of 22 trade advisory

committees, provides input to the Government on trade policy issues.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

All trade is subject to the sharp changes in economic performance in markets around the world; changes in trade

policy by foreign nations; expansion of markets just starting to open, such as China; and technological advances

and large-scale, unexpected capital movement. ITA staff has identified, and will continue to identify, these

changes and adopt policies that continue to promote expanding overseas markets for U.S. firms and workers.

ITA will address the impact of other nations’ trade policies. Specifically, we will expand our analytical

infrastructure to support timely and accurate assessments of (1) impact on U.S. industries of the growth of

regional trade pacts (e.g., EU-Mexico, EU-Mercosur), (2) the impact of major competitors exporting their

discriminatory technical regulations to third markets in the developing world. We will develop strategies to

support bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations that prevent the adoption of discriminatory international

standards and regulations against U.S. products. We will also work closely with foreign governments and

regulatory officials in the developing world to devise strategies to address regulatory barriers, head off

potentially harmful regulations, and help shape good regulations and standards.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 99

International Trade Administration
Foreign financial crises can trigger import surges, dumping, subsidies, and other unfair trade practices. New or

changing governments can create new barriers to market access for U.S. companies. ITA continues an extensive

import monitoring program that closely tracks imports and prices in key import-sensitive sectors, such as steel,

autos, semiconductors, chemicals, and paper, to help the Administration formulate a swift response to potential

import surges. 

100 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

International Trade Administration
Performance Goal 2: 

Promote Exports by Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs)

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably. 

Objective 1.1: Provide the infrastructure to enable the participation of all Americans in the new economy.

Rationale for Performance Goal 

An increasing number of small U.S. businesses are exporting goods and services. Many of these businesses—as

well as larger business seeking to enter new markets—need assistance to achieve market entry and expansion

and to take advantage of trade opportunities. For example, in 1997, nearly 90 percent of all small and mediumsized enterprise (SME) exporting firms posted exports of less than $1 million. Of all SMEs that exported, 62

percent sold goods to only one overseas market.

ITA targets its products and services to SMEs by identifying the best markets for their products, developing

effective market strategies based on information generated from our overseas offices, advising clients on

distribution channels, and assisting clients with locating appropriate public and private trade finance programs.

ITA’s Trade Information Center operates a hotline that provides information, referrals, and country counseling

to a mostly SME clientele. ITA organizes export-financing workshops throughout the country to address the

special resource needs of SMEs. ITA’s Market Development Cooperator program is a public-private-sector

venture that provides funds and staff expertise to support innovative export marketing programs designed by

trade and nonprofit organizations to benefit their SME membership. Over 100 Export Assistance Centers

provide trade facilitation programs directly to SMEs and link them with information and resources provided by

ITA’s overseas posts. ITA’s international trade specialists and U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service Officers

provide detailed information and analysis on foreign market opportunities, advocacy assistance, market

conditions and export financing. This concentration of expertise is found nowhere else inside or outside of the

Federal Government.

The original FY 2000 performance goal, “Increase the Number of Small Business Exporters,” was reworded and

strengthened in the FY 2002 APP to better define ITA’s strategic direction and reflect FY 2002 departmental

strategic goals and objectives.

Measure 2a: Number of New-to-Export Firms

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 101

International Trade Administration
* Original FY 2000 target

Explanation of Measure

• Target exceeded. In the FY 2001 APP, the target for FY 2000 was adjusted from 26,089 to 36,066 new-to-export

firms to reflect ITA’s projected increased activities in this area. The FY 2000 actual number of 33,514 new-toexport firms exceeded the original projection by 26 percent but fell short of the revised target. ITA’s challenge

was and is to continue U.S. export expansion in the face of increasing global economic uncertainty. Financial

turmoil, though subsiding, is still buffeting a number of economies around the world, including Russian,

Asian, and Latin American economies.

• Collecting statistics on new-to-export firms shows whether or not ITA is achieving its goal of increasing the

overall dollar value of U.S. exports. The measure refers to the number of U.S. firms that ITA successfully

assisted with expanding their international trade efforts.

• The FY 2001 APP target of 36,949 new-to-export firms is revised to 30,336 to reflect the FY 2000 performance

trends.

• ITA is reviewing its performance measures and its collection, verification, and validation processes. This

review is a part of a much broader process to create a road map for the ITA to become the leader in providing

customer-focused, responsibly managed Federal Government export assistance. Analysis of the data will not

be available until the review is completed.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for ITA Performance Goal 2: Promote Exports by Small and

Medium-Sized Enterprises

ITA conducted a number of program reviews of its activities that support SMEs. These covered systems,

procedures, and practices at seven foreign posts (Chile, Czech Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Kuwait,

102 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

International Trade Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: U.S. participants in trade events.

Frequency: Quarterly and annually

Data storage: Client Management System (CMS) software operating on a Lotus Notes platform and e-menu. Consolidated figures

collected by ITA’s US&FCS Office of Planning (OP). Data are maintained in an OP database operating on a Lotus Notes platform. 

Verification: Client contacts and office activity are recorded and entered into CMS and e-menu upon occurrence. Each office compiles a

quarterly Export Action Report, which details numbers of new-to-market (NTM) and new-to-export (NTE) export actions, client

counseling sessions (both inoffice visits and out-of-office visits), and other activities. Each office manager reviews, verifies, and signs the

reports. Project managers and Office of Planning staff verify data.

Data Limitations: Although ITA assists thousands of small businesses that are new to exporting each year, it can be difficult to quantify

our successes. ITA’s collection of data to measure numbers of clients that successfully export for the first time as a result of ITA

assistance is wholly dependent on a client’s willingness to provide such information. Additionally, because actual exports occur

subsequent to the delivery of ITA services (frequently 12 to 18 months later), it is difficult to match outputs with outcomes in a 12-month

period. It is extremely difficult to track the actual dollar value of exports supported by ITA services because businesses are reluctant to

reveal their business proprietary information to the Federal Government or to have their success stories published for competitors to

read. Because of the difficulty in reliably measuring outcome performance, ITA instead tracks numbers of firms new to the export

market as circumstantial evidence of overall export growth and export-fueled job creation. 

Target 25,260 26,089* 30,336 30,005

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 42,351 33,514

Met/Not Met Met Met
and Morocco) and three domestic U.S. Export Assistance Centers (USEACs) (Boston, Detroit, and Portland). The

reviews identified organizational best practices and provided site-specific recommendations on program topics

(e.g., client follow-up, outreach, relationships with the business community and partner organizations),

administrative issues (funds use, reporting, revenue collections, space) and management issues (distribution of

staff responsibilities and deployment, training, office communication, relations with other U.S. and Foreign

Commercial Service (US&FCS) offices, reconciling multiple priorities). Recommendations are implemented at

each post upon completion of the management and program reviews.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 103

International Trade Administration
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 2

Action Plan

104 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

International Trade Administration

• Conduct a multimedia instruction program for SMEs, using

videoconferencing and educational video tools, to provide

knowledge of foreign markets and broaden awareness of

opportunities in specific emerging markets.

• Provide commercial intelligence reports and market-product

matching services to guide SMEs in selecting and promoting

their products to specific targeted markets.

• Develop an Internet-Based Market Penetration Program,

enabling SMEs to participate in low-cost export marketing

vehicles, such as virtual trade shows.

Undertake an internal initiative to

improve existing products and

services to meet the needs of its SME

clients. ITA is creating and testing

new products explicitly designed to

meet the specialized needs of SMEs

and minority-owned firms.

Strategies Activities

• Spur technology commercialization, by helping SMEs move

high-technology products from the laboratory to the global

marketplace.

• Sponsor export-financing workshops to address the resource

needs of SMEs.

Undertake an aggressive program to

implement the Manufacturing

Initiative to expand exports by SMEs.

Continue forging new synergy between the growing number of

minority-owned businesses in the U.S. and opportunities in the

global marketplace, by partnering with national and local

organizations, conducting research activities, and integrating

minority-owned firms into ITA programs.

Continue the Global Diversity

Initiative (GDI) for minority-owned

enterprises.

Work with universities to develop a professional training

program, accessible via the Internet, to enable SMEs to get formal

training on assessment and preparation for global penetration,

export documentation, and potential marketing techniques.

Develop an Executive Export

Management Certificate Program for

SMEs.

Create “industry sector” e-marketplaces for U.S. SMEs providing

broad range of automated business tools, such as on-line catalogs,

managed lead tracking, automated searching, sourcing and

negotiation with international buyers, financing, insurance, credit

checks, credit card verification. The e-marketplaces will serve as

information resources on market trends, opportunities for

business-to-business (B2B) partnering, trade regulations, non-tariff

barriers, documentation requirements, and potential trade and

investment partners.

Develop an “industry sector”

e-marketplace to bring international

buyers and U.S. exporters together

and facilitate transactions.

Coordinate Government efforts with

those of the private-sector to garner

broad participation by all sectors of

the U.S. business community and

ensure seamless technological

• Conduct creative export-financing seminars for SMEs, in

coordination with State and local trade offices, covering topics

such as export credit insurance, nonbank financing alternatives,

and credit risk evaluation.

• Market the new Export Finance Matchmaker Web site, which

enables exporters/international buyers to locate financial firms

that can finance their cross-border sales/purchases.

Develop and implement

export–finance programs and tools to

facilitate export expansion by SMEs.
Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

• Minority Business Development Agency: Work together to craft and implement Urban Export Initiative for

minority-owned businesses.

• Office of General Counsel: Work together on guidance for interpreting existing agreements, defining the

rights of U.S. firms and workers under U.S. and international trade law, and in negotiations for future

bilateral/multilateral agreements.

• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): Coordinate our efforts to help SMEs export new

technology; execute a cooperative agreement to provide Standards Attachés. Coordinate trade initiatives

with NIST’s technology development and commercialization programs.

• NOAA: Coordinate trade initiatives with NOAA’s environmental programs.

• Census: Fund reimbursable agreements to produce customized statistics and collaborate on development of

methodologies to generate data on services exports.

Other Government Agencies

• Small Business Administration (SBA), Export-Import Bank, State/Local Government Agencies, Local

Chambers of Commerce: Share clients to provide complementary counseling services.

• Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, Department of Education: Provide industry expertise for

ITA trade events.

• Department of Defense/USAF: The Air Force provides industry expertise for ITA trade events involving

aircraft sales (e.g., the Paris Air Show).

• Department of State: State’s Economic Officers assist with market research projects in countries where

US&FCS does not maintain staff.

• Department of Agriculture (USDA): USDA provides grant assistance for US&FCS export counseling in rural

areas.

• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): BIA provides industry expertise for ITA tourism development efforts.

• USAID: This agency provides grant assistance for various overseas projects (e.g., American Business

Centers in Russia).

• TPCC : The Trade Promotion Coordination Committee (TPCC) coordinates the implementation of trade

finance and trade promotion programs of the 19 TPCC-member agencies.

Government/Private-Sector

None.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

ITA’s success in achieving this goal is dependent upon domestic and international economic conditions.

Economic shocks in foreign markets can adversely affect demand for U.S. exports. Exchange rate fluctuations

and the increasing relative strength of the U.S. dollar can make U.S. exports more costly in foreign markets.

Additionally, availability of resources for new initiatives is subject to Congressional approval of increased

appropriations or restriction of other activities. The cooperation of other TPCC member agencies affects the level

of services provided to SMEs.

To mitigate external factors, ITA will host a series of conferences to promote export assistance programs and

services, and to disseminate information on how e-commerce facilitates exporting for SMEs. To help with this

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 105

International Trade Administration
effort, ITA developed Web-based “starter kits” to provide the basic information that companies, and in

particular SMEs, need to begin exporting products and services using e-commerce. ITA’s Trade Information

Center (TIC) will provide on-line information to help SMEs receiving e-commerce inquiries. The TPCC agencies’

export promotion programs and activities include technical assistance (financial, legal, measurement and

standards, and intellectual property rights); supporting economic reforms in Asia and emerging economies;

increasing trade finance resources for U.S. exporters; engaging China at high-level negotiations; and joining

Africa in a partnership that benefits economies on both sides of the Atlantic.

106 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

International Trade Administration
Performance Goal 3: 

Increase U.S. Exports by Implementing the National Export Strategy Through 

Government-wide Coordination of Trade Promotion and Trade Finance Programs

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably. 

Objective 1.1: Provide the infrastructure to enable the participation of all Americans in the new economy. 

Rationale for Performance Goal

With trade playing an increasingly important role in the national economy, the National Export Strategy focuses

on streamlining and strengthening Government trade promotion and finance programs, regional trade

promotion strategies, responses to foreign competitive practices that threaten fair and competitive market

access, and initiatives that give exporters access to the tools they need to compete in the global marketplace. At

the same time, the accelerated pace of the new economy demands that agencies coordinate their efforts more

closely in the short-term and jointly develop new programs and initiatives that respond to the changing needs of

exporters. 

The Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC), chaired by the Secretary of Commerce, coordinates 19

agencies’ efforts to strengthen, streamline, and leverage its existing programs. The TPCC develops a consensus

on offsets, evaluates member agencies’ strategic plans, and makes recommendations to the Office of

Management and Budget to ensure that trade promotion and finance assistance efforts are aligned with our

commercial policy priorities. Through the TPCC, ITA, for example, leverages technology to give firms access to

critical information and products; operates a network of one-stop shops for local, hands-on assistance to U.S.

exporters; coordinates advocacy on behalf of U.S. companies; reduces obstacles to exporting through the

enforcement of U.S. trade laws and monitoring of U.S. negotiated international trade agreements; and pioneers

efforts to better serve under-severed communities. 

The original performance goal, “Implement the President’s National Export Strategy in Conjunction with the

Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC),” was reworded to better define ITA’s strategic direction and

reflect evolving FY 2002 departmental strategic goals and objectives. 

Measure 3a: Number of New-to-Market Firms

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 107

International Trade Administration
* Original FY 2000 target level

Explanation of Measure

• Target exceeded. In the FY 2001 APP, target for FY 2000 was adjusted from 47,437 to 64,914 to reflect ITA’s

projected increased activities in this area. FY 2000 actual number of 54,307 new-to-market firms exceeded the

original projection by 14%, but fell short of the revised target. Changes in target/actual of new–to-market

firms are closely tied to domestic and international economic conditions. ITA’s challenge was and is to

continue U.S. export expansion in the face of increasing global economic uncertainty. Financial turmoil,

though subsiding, is still buffeting a number of economies around the world, including those in Russia, Asia,

and Latin America. The number of New-to-Market firms’ performance measure is one of several measures

related to activities tracked by ITA.

• Collecting statistics on new-to-market firms shows whether or not ITA is achieving its goal of increasing the

overall dollar value of U.S. exports. The measure refers to the number of U.S. firms that ITA successfully

assisted with expanding their international trade efforts.

• The FY 2001 target of 66,187 new-to-market firms has been revised to 54,779 to reflect the FY 2000 actual

performance.

• ITA is in the process of reviewing its performance measures and its collection, verification, and validation

processes. This review is a part of a much broader process to create a road map for the ITA to become the

leader in providing customer-focused, responsibly managed Federal Government export assistance.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for ITA Performance Goal 3: Increase U.S. Exports by

Implementing the National Export Strategy Through Government-Wide Coordination 

of Trade Promotion and Trade Finance Programs

ITA conducted a number of program reviews of its activities that support SMEs. These covered systems,

procedures, and practices at seven ITA’s foreign posts (Chile, Czech Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel,

Kuwait, and Morocco); and three domestic U.S. Export Assistance Centers (USEACs) (Boston, Detroit, and

108 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

International Trade Administration

Target 45,919 47,437* 54,779 53,958

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 67,835 54,307

Met/Not Met Met Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: U.S. participants in trade events

Frequency: Quarterly and annually

Data storage: The Client Management System (CMS) software operating on a Lotus Notes platform and e-menu. Consolidated figures

collected by ITA’s US&FCS Office of Planning (OP). Data are maintained in an OP database operating on a Lotus Notes platform.

Verification: Client contacts and office activity are recorded and entered into CMS and e-menu upon occurrence. Each office compiles a

quarterly Export Action Report, which details numbers of new-to-export (NTE) and new-to-market (NTM) export actions, client

counseling sessions (both in office visits and out-of-office visits), and other activities. Each office manager reviews, verifies, and signs

the reports. Project managers and Office of Planning verify data.

Data Limitations: It is extremely difficult to track the actual dollar value of exports supported by ITA services because businesses are

reluctant to reveal their proprietary information to the Federal Government as well as to have their success stories published for

competitors to read. Because of the difficulties in reliably measuring outcome performance, ITA instead tracks numbers of NTMs as

circumstantial evidence of overall export growth and job creation. 
Portland). The reviews identified organizational best practices and provided site-specific recommendations on

program topics (e.g., client follow-up, outreach, relationships with the business community and partner

organizations), administrative issues (funds use, reporting, revenue collections, space), and management issues

(distribution of staff responsibilities and deployment, training, office communication, relations with other

US&FCS offices, reconciling multiple priorities). Recommendations are implemented at each post upon

completion of the management and program reviews.

Discontinued Measures

The “number of counseling sessions” performance measure was discontinued in the FY 2002 APP. This

performance measure did not reflect ITA’s level of success, especially when the emphasis is on the use of

electronic means to communicate trade opportunities and information to U.S. firms.

Counseling Sessions

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 109

International Trade Administration

Target 305,837 292,822 281,165 Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 296,769 277,080

Met/Not Met Not Met Not Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: U.S. companies benefiting from ITA business counseling sessions 

Frequency: Annually, by fiscal year

Data storage: US&FCS’s custom-designed Client Management System (CMS) software operating on a Lotus notes platform, the Office of

Trade Events Management (OTEM), and Trade Information Center (TIC) databases. 

Verification: Client contacts and office activity are recorded and entered into CMS, OTEM, and TIC upon occurrence. 
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 3

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): Coordinate our efforts to help Small Business

Exporters (SBEs) export new technology; execute a cooperative agreement to provide Standards Attachés.

Coordinate elements of the Environmental Technologies Export Initiative with NIST’s technology

development and commercialization programs. 

• Census: Fund reimbursable agreements to produce customized statistics and collaborate on the

development of methodologies to generate data on services exports.

110 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

International Trade Administration

Offer a seamless web of export counseling and assistance services

delivered through a worldwide network of over 100 domestic U.S.

Export Assistance Centers and office locations in 80 countries. ITA

services and expertise range from trade finance to trade

complaints to specialized assistance for SMEs and minority-owned

businesses.

Provide a “seamless web” of

Government services through

coordination with other TPCC

members

Strategies Activities

• Provide technical assistance to raise housing construction

standards, showcase U.S. firms’ expertise, and promote U.S.

exports.

• Provide technical assistance to the developing foreign

economies, to develop regulatory regimes in energy and

transportation sectors to facilitate entry/expansion by U.S.

firms.

• Promote benefits and models for liberalizing

telecommunications markets to reduce costs for local economies

and spur business efforts by U.S. firms.

Expand commercial infrastructure in

emerging markets to promote

market-based legislative and

regulatory reforms to facilitate

exports by U.S. firms.

Organize roundtables with additional service industry firms to

establish negotiating priorities for the WTO Services Negotiations.

Participate in negotiations and lead

business outreach efforts for the

World Trade Organization (WTO)

Services Negotiations.

• Develop a commercial strategy for China focused on

compliance and monitoring, technical assistance, and export

promotion.

• Promote exports of U.S. environmental technologies within the

framework of the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce

and Trade.

Promote U.S. trade with China with

TPCC member support agencies. 

• Develop methodologies to generate data on services exports the

fastest growing segment of the U.S. economy – at State and

local levels.

• Implement quarterly monitoring of the impact on States of

major international events (e.g., the Asian crisis).

Develop more comprehensive trade

statistics to measure the impact of

exports on State and local economies

and provide timely analyses in

response to critical global events.
• NOAA: Coordinate elements of the Environmental Technologies Export Initiative with NOAA’s

environmental programs.

• Office of General Counsel: Work together on guidance for interpreting existing agreements, defining the

rights of U.S. firms and workers under U.S. and international trade law, and in negotiations for future

bilateral/multilateral agreements.

Other Government Agencies

• Small Business Administration (SBA), Export-Import Bank, State/Local Government Agencies, Local

Chambers of Commerce: Share clients to provide complementary counseling services.

• Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and Department of Education: Provide industry expertise

for ITA trade events.

• Department of Defense/USAF: The Air Force provides industry expertise for ITA trade events involving

aircraft sales (e.g., the Paris Air Show).

• Department of State: State’s Economic Officers assist with market research projects in countries where

US&FCS does not maintain staff.

• Department of Agriculture (USDA): USDA provides grant assistance for US&FCS export counseling in rural

areas.

• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): BIA provides industry expertise for ITA tourism development efforts.

• USAID: USAID provides grant assistance for various overseas projects (e.g., American Business Centers in

Russia).

• TPCC: TPCC coordinates implementation of trade finance and trade promotion programs of the 19 TPCC

member agencies. 

Government/Private-Sector

None.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

Growth in the number of U.S. firms that export is closely tied to domestic and international economic

conditions. Economic shocks in foreign markets can adversely affect demand for U.S. exports. Exchange rate

fluctuations and the increasing relative strength of the U.S. dollar can make U.S. exports more costly in foreign

markets. Availability of resources for new initiatives is subject to Congressional approval of increased

appropriations or restriction of other activities. The cooperativeness of other TPCC member agencies can affect

the level of services provided to SMEs.

To mitigate external factors, ITA’s Advocacy Center is exploring ways to more effectively use the TPCC

Advocacy Network to counter the involvement of foreign governments in major project competitions overseas.

ITA will conduct a series of conferences and seminars to (1) educate and demonstrate to U.S. firms export

assistance programs and services and (2) disseminate information on how e-commerce facilitates exporting for

small manufacturers. 

To help with this effort, ITA has developed Web-based “starter kits” to provide the basic information companies

need to begin exporting products and services using e-commerce. ITA’s Trade Information Center (TIC) will

provide on-line information to help firms receiving e-commerce inquiries. 

The TPCC agencies provide technical assistance (financial, legal, measurement and standards, and intellectual

property rights); support economic reforms in Asia and emerging economies; increase trade finance resources

for U.S. exporters; engage China at high-level negotiations; and join Africa in a partnership that benefits

economies on both sides of the Atlantic.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 111

International Trade Administration
Performance Goal 4: 

Improve the U.S. Competitive Advantage through Global E-Commerce 

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 2: Provide infrastructure for innovation to enhance American competitiveness.

Objective 2.3: Provide the infrastructure for a digital economy and digital government.

Rationale for Performance Goal 

ITA will focus on the trade policy and promotion aspects of electronic commerce. According to a new Forrester

Research study, e-commerce will account for 8.6 percent of worldwide sales of goods and services. Yet, recent

data from the Census Bureau reveal that SMEs do not export as much as they could. Nearly 90 percent of all

exporting firms in 1997 posted exports of less than $1 million. Of all the SMEs that exported, 62% percent sold

goods to only one overseas market. E-commerce has the potential to radically change these data. 

ITA’s electronic commerce export promotion program has four main goals: helping small business use the

Internet to find markets overseas; helping established U.S. information technology companies to expand

overseas; helping emerging economies make the transition to the digital age; and ensuring that both the Internet

and foreign markets are open and accessible. 

Domestically, ITA will provide exporters with desktop access to the international marketplace, through the use

of electronic products and services. Internationally, ITA will develop country-specific and regional strategies

tailored to each market. 

On the policy side, ITA is working in a range of international forums with other Department of Commerce

bureaus and Government agencies to develop and advocate U.S. policy positions on a range of e-commerce

issues. These include privacy, consumer protection, infrastructure access, telecommunications liberalization,

diffusion of information technology (IT) to SMEs, standards, IT tariff elimination, and expanded IT market

access. Finally, ITA will play a lead role in developing a government-wide export portal, an on-line source for

all U.S. Government trade promotion resources.

The original performance goal, “Strengthen and Institutionalize ITA’s Trade Promotion and Trade Advocacy

Efforts,” was discontinued in the FY 2002 APP to reflect departmental strategic goals and objectives. The

function continues to be performed by ITA. It is subsumed under the performance goal ”Increase U.S. Exports

by Implementing the National Export Strategy Through Government-Wide Coordination of Trade Promotion

and Trade Finance Programs.”

112 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

International Trade Administration
Measure 4a: Number of new subscribers using BuyUSA.com e-services 

Explanation of Measure

• This measure was added in the FY 2002 APP to better define ITA’s strategic direction and reflect FY 2002

departmental strategic goals and objectives. The “number of new subscribers using BuyUSA.com e-services”

directly supports ITA’s trade policy and promotion aspects of electronic commerce. Subscribers to the

“BuyUSA.com” receive full access to the database of international buyer, distributor, and business partner

contacts, trade leads and postings, catalogs and the ability to establish purchase orders on-line. As E-commerce

goes global, U.S. SMEs seek a secure platform for identifying potential international buyers and transacting

business. ITA strives to provide e-commerce export facilitation tools, such as BuyUSA.com, to new and

existing clients, create new e-commerce services, and promote information technology throughout the world. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 113

International Trade Administration

Target New New 5,000 5,400

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual

Met/Not Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: U.S. subscribers using the BuyUSA.com Web site

Frequency: Quarterly 

Data storage: Webtrends (Internet-based software tracking system) 

Verification: Clients visiting the Web site or domain during a specific period of time. The U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service EServices collects, reviews, verifies, and signs the reports.

Data Limitations: None. A subscriber is identified by a registered username.

Comment: The BuyUSA.com Web site became operative on March 5, 2001. Targets will be refined as we gauge the success of this Web site

by the number of new subscribers to this new e-service. Subscribers receive full access to the databases of international buyer, distributor,

and business partner contacts, trade leads and postings, catalogs, and the ability to establish ex-works purchase orders on line.
FY 2000 Program Evaluation for ITA Performance Goal 4: Improve the U.S.

Competitive Advantage Through Global E-Commerce 

This is a new performance goal. Planned program/management evaluations in FY 2002 will measure the

effectiveness of ITA’s e-commerce products and services offered to new customers through the BuyUSA.com

Web site.

Discontinued Measures

• The “dollar value of gross exports supported” performance measure was discontinued in the FY 2002 APP in

order to reflect departmental strategic goals and objectives.

Dollar Value of Gross Exports Supported

114 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

International Trade Administration

Target 10.0B 10.5B 11.0B Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 9.8B 8.9B

Met/Not Met Not Met Not Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: U.S. companies benefiting from U.S. Government advocacy 

Frequency: Annually, by fiscal year

Data storage: Advocacy Center maintains a database that tracks advocacy projects, efforts undertaken, and results.

Verification: Advocacy Center staff conducts follow-up calls annually to a significant sample of customers to verify the dollar value of

exports generated through the support of USG efforts. The validation process covers current status of each project, material changes

regarding total project value, U.S. export content, and satisfaction with Advocacy Center or U.S. Embassy/Consulate services. In

addition, the Advocacy Center posts cleared company “advocacy” success stories on its Web site.
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 4

Action Plan

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 115

International Trade Administration

• ITA will enhance its field presence by placing specialists in

selected locations (e.g., NIST-trained standards experts in

overseas locations).

• ITA will continue to test and deliver new E-commerce services,

e.g., virtual trade shows, Webcasting, “push” technologies, and

enhanced Web site applications. 

• ITA will continue to enhance/improve products and services.

New products will be piloted and introduced worldwide when

successful.

• ITA will conduct a multimedia instruction program for SMEs,

using videoconferencing and other educational video tools, to

provide knowledge of foreign markets and broaden awareness

of export opportunities.

ITA will strengthen its E-commerce

trade promotion efforts by increasing

and enhancing its field presence and

service delivery network; through

pioneering efforts to move ecommerce into the mainstream of

trade; by enhancing and improving

existing products and services; and

creating new product lines to meet

exporters’ changing needs.

Strategies Activities

ITA will promote E-commerce usage through

seminars/conferences in the United States and overseas.

Continue implementation of EExports Initiative, developing new

tools and services that use

information technology to assist U.S.

exporters.

• ITA will conduct outreach to the U.S. business community to

promote exports using E-commerce and exports of E-commerce

technologies and to identify impediments to U.S. industry

access to foreign markets.

• ITA will monitor, analyze, and contribute to policy

developments on E-commerce issues(such as infrastructure

access, network security, B2B and B2C Internet commerce)

domestically, bilaterally, and in international organizations.

• ITA will provide general trade and policy analysis and

research, including analyzing foreign countries’ E-commerce

laws and initiatives and compare such requirements to U.S.

policy requirements, as well as other policy developments in

relevant international forums.

Connect U.S. business to the new

digital economy.

ITA will conduct outreach events to market the IT Tool at events

around the world. It will also be translated into additional

languages. ITA will also establish a private-sector partnership

program.

Promote customer usage of recently

developed IT Management Planning

Tool – an innovative, software-based

tool to help both U.S. IT suppliers

and foreign IT users plan for

additional IT investments to improve

business operations (already

translated into Spanish).
Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

• Office of General Counsel: Work together on e-commerce guidance for interpreting existing agreements,

defining the rights of U.S. firms and workers under U.S. and international trade law, and in negotiations

for future bilateral/multilateral agreements.

• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): Coordinate our efforts to help SBEs or SMEs export

new technology; execute a cooperative agreement to provide Standards Attachés. Coordinate trade

initiatives with NIST’s technology development and commercialization programs. 

• National Telecommunications and Information Administration: Work together on opening foreign markets to

American telecommunications technology.

• Minority Business Development Agency: Work together to craft and implement Urban Export Initiative for

minority-owned businesses.

• NOAA: Coordinate E-commerce trade initiatives with NOAA’s environmental programs.

• Census: Fund reimbursable agreements to produce customized E-commerce statistics and collaborate on

development of methodologies to generate data on E-commerce services exports.

Other Government Agencies

• Small Business Administration (SBA), Export-Import Bank, State/Local Government Agencies, Local

Chambers of Commerce: Share clients to provide complementary counseling services on E-commerce.

• Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and Department of Education: Provide industry expertise

for ITA E-commerce trade events.

• Department of Defense/USAF: The Air Force provides industry expertise for ITA trade events involving

aircraft sales (e.g., the Paris Air Show).

• Department of State: State’s Economic Officers assist with E-commerce market research projects in countries

where US&FCS does not maintain staff.

• Department of Agriculture (USDA): USDA provides grant assistance for US&FCS E-commerce export

counseling in rural areas.

• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): BIA provides industry expertise for ITA tourism development efforts.

• USAID: USAID provides grant assistance for various overseas projects (e.g., American Business Centers in

Russia).

• TPCC: TPCC coordinates E-commerce implementation of trade finance and trade promotion programs of

the 19 TPCC-member agencies.

Government/Private-Sector

None.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

U.S. exports are influenced by the overall strength of the global economy. The increasing relative strength of the

U.S. dollar can make U.S. exports more costly in foreign markets. Economic slowdowns and/or issues relating

to foreign corruption may reduce the number of advocacy requests received from U.S. firms competing in the

international marketplace. 

To counter these trends that may lower U.S. exports, ITA will increase efforts to promote U.S. companies’ bids

in regions with higher export potential. Global economic trends also require ITA to alter the types of programs

116 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

International Trade Administration
and export assistance services we provide for U.S. companies, i.e., pioneering efforts to move E-commerce into

the mainstream of trade-enhancing and improving existing products and services, and creating new product

lines to meet exporters’ changing needs. Additionally, the ITA’s worldwide network, strong in-country contacts,

and improved local outreach, including local language Web sites, help foreign buyers locate U.S. suppliers. ITA

created a menu of “reverse” services, which helps foreign buyers locate appropriate U.S. suppliers for their

desired product, service, joint venture, or partnering needs.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 117

International Trade Administration
118 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Export Administration

Bureau of Export Administration

Mission Statement

The Bureau of Export Administration seeks to advance U.S. national security, foreign

policy, and economic interests by regulating exports of critical goods and technologies

that could be used to damage those interests (while furthering the growth of legitimate

U.S. exports to maintain our economic leadership); by enforcing compliance with those

regulations; by cooperating with like-minded nations to obtain global support for this

effort; by assisting nations that are key exporters or transit points for sensitive goods and

technologies to strengthen their own transit and export controls; and by monitoring the

U.S. defense industrial base to ensure it remains strong.

Organizational Structure

Nonproliferation 

Export Control 

Cooperation Team

Office of

Administration

Office of

Congressional

and Public Affairs

Office of Chief

Counsel for Export 

Administration

Operating 

Committee Chair

Office of

Strategic Trade and

Foreign Policy

Controls

Office of Strategic

Industries and

Economic Security

Office of 

Nonproliferation

Controls and Treaty

Compliance Office of 

Enforcement 

Analysis

Assistant Secretary

for 

Export

Administration

Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Export

Administration

Assistant Secretary

for

Export 

Enforcement

Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Export

Enforcement

UNDER SECRETARY FOR

EXPORT ADMINISTRATION

DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR

EXPORT ADMINISTRATION

Critical

Infrastructure

Assurance Office

Office of

Exporter Services

Office of 

Export

Enforcement

Office of

Antiboycott

Compliance
Priorities

The Bureau of Export Administration’s immediate priorities include the following:

Combating Export Control Violations Committed with the Use of Computers. Business information is today

overwhelmingly kept in electronic format, and export control violators are increasingly using computers to

conceal evidence of their crimes. To address this problem, BXA plans to recruit agents who are trained in

computer evidence recovery and who are able to obtain admissible evidence from searches of computers and

computer networks. It will be essential that these agents are able also to keep pace with rapidly advancing

information technology.

Conducting End-Use Checks in Countries where U.S. Trade Is Rapidly Expanding. BXA is responsible for protecting

U.S. national security interests by identifying and halting illegal transactions. The pressure to meet this

responsibility is particularly acute in areas where U.S. high-tech trade is increasing rapidly, such as with China

and India. BXA plans to station experienced well-trained criminal investigators in the countries where such

trade is rapidly expanding and which, have been determined to pose diversion risks.

Establishing Effective Coordination of the World’s National Export Control Systems. Technological advancements are

making it easier for nations of concern and subnational organizations to acquire the components for weapons of

mass destruction and the knowledge and equipment to manufacture such weapons and their delivery systems.

National export control systems separately have no hope of keeping pace with and preventing the proliferation

of weapons of mass destruction—it is essential that those nations committed to halting proliferation work

together to collect and share information on this threat. In pursuit of this objective, BXA plans to develop and

implement mechanisms that will enable the rapid bilateral and multilateral sharing and updating of such

information. 

Establishing an International Consensus on Who and What Are Proliferation Threats. Unilateral efforts by the United

States to contain weapons proliferation by enacting export controls against specific countries may be futile if the

commodities or technologies subjected to those controls are available from other nations. Although this is

expected to prove exceedingly difficult in the post-Cold War world, BXA therefore plans to seek greater

harmonization of international export controls, both of specific goods and technologies and against specific

countries. Preventing the further proliferation of weapons of mass destruction depends on progress being made

in this area.

Effectively Enforcing Export Controls at U.S. Seaports. The Interagency Commission on Crime and Security at U.S.

Seaports has reported to the President that trade growth and limited government enforcement resources have

combined to create significant violation vulnerabilities at U.S. seaports. To reduce these vulnerabilities, BXA

plans to establish a permanent enforcement presence in locations with the highest probability of export control

violations. This will require increases in both budgetary and staff resources.

Management Challenges

The Bureau of Export Administration is facing several key challenges as we seek to meet our goals and objectives:

Designing, Building, and Migrating to a New Electronic Export Control System. BXA is replacing its aging mainframe

licensing and enforcement computer system, designed in 1984, with a custom-built system that will be compatible

with our new internal and interagency processes. This change will affect every facet of BXA’s operations; failure

to make it now would harm the efficiency and consistency of our licensing and enforcement decisions.

Modernizing the Communications Infrastructure. Several of our key infrastructure components, including fiber optic

cable, smart hubs, and file servers, have reached or exceeded their useful life. The legacy Token Ring topology of

119 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Export Administration
120 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

our infrastructure is nearing capacity, with the system inadequate to the task of handling new service

applications such as integrated voice, video, and real-time data streaming. We have therefore developed plans to

upgrade our system to permit migration to a high-speed switched topology that will support these new

applications.

Maintaining Technical and Analytical Capabilities. BXA has insufficient technical and analytical personnel, a problem

that is made more acute by the fact that 31 percent of our staff are eligible to retire or take early retirement.

Recruiting and maintaining a qualified workforce able to fulfill the increasingly technical and analytical

requirements of our mission will be a major challenge over the next five years. We have requested additional

funding in our FY 2002 budget and hope to address this problem by recruiting expert licensing personnel.

Obtaining Congressional Support for and Enlisting Reluctant Partners in Critical Infrastructure Protection Efforts. BXA

is responsible for establishing the means for deterring and preventing attacks on our nation’s critical

infrastructure, and, should such attacks occur, for recovering quickly and with the least possible damage to our

people and economy. If we are to successfully fulfill this responsibility, we must convince Congress of the

nature and severity of the threat and the importance of countering it; we must seek to resolve distrust and “turf”

issues among government agencies; and we must overcome the distrust among private sector companies of the

federal government and of its critical infrastructure protection efforts. BXA will continue to work closely with

Congress to achieve these aims. 

Enhancing our Ability to Target Licensing and Enforcement Efforts. The interests of national security and

international trade frequently conflict. BXA must balance the interests of Congress and U.S. exporters, and if we

are to continue to do this effectively it is essential that the basic authorizing law of the export control system—

the Export Administration Act—be comprehensively revised. We are continuing to work toward the passage of

a properly revised Act that will enhance the ability of BXA and of the Administration to target our licensing and

enforcement efforts on those exports that present the greatest national security risks, while at the same time

streamlining or eliminating controls that unnecessarily hamper trade. 

Targets and Performance Summary 

See individual Performance Goal section for further description of each measure.

The Bureau of Export Administration made substantial changes to its performance goals and measures in 

FY 2000. When the Department of Commerce updated its strategic plan, BXA seized the opportunity to change

our performance goals and measures to more closely align them with the new departmental objectives; we also

added goals and measures related to the important Chemical Weapons Convention and Critical Infrastructure

programs. Guided by recommendations made by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in its Observations on the

Department of Commerce’s Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Program Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Annual

Performance Plan (GAO/GGD-00-152R) and in accordance with the mandates of the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA), we developed our new performance measures as statements of outcomes. Our goals and

measures now clearly refer back to our mission and to the Department’s strategic goals and objectives, and were

commended by the House Science Committee for developing goals “in a more outcome-oriented way” and for

serving “as an adequate framework from which performance goals can be derived and subsequently measured.”

Bureau of Export Administration

Performance Goal 1: By use of a dual-use export control system that continuously is refined to respond to

changing requirements, transactions that are contrary to U.S. security interests are deterred and transactions

without proliferation potential are facilitated

504 1,160 508 398 512 512 Number of high-risk

transactions deterred

FY 1999 Target FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target
121 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Export Administration

Performance Goal 2: The United States is in full compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention

(CWC) and all confidential business information of U.S. companies subject to inspection under the CWC is

effectively protected

New New New New New 754

Number of U.S.

facilities in compliance

with the CWC

regulations 

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

Performance Goal 3: The U.S. defense industrial base is healthy and competitive 

New New New New New $2 billion

The dollar value of

contracts won in

international

competitions by U.S.

defense firms 

FY 1999 Target FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target

Performance Goal 4: Violations of dual-use export control laws are identified and violators are sanctioned 

73 68 80 93 70 75

Number of

investigations accepted

for criminal or

administrative remedies

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

Performance Goal 5: Export controls of key nations are strong and effective 

New New New New New 20

Number of targeted

deficiencies remedied in

the export control

systems of cooperating

transit or exporting

nations 

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

Performance Goal 6: The nation’s various independent and interdependent infrastructure components are

New New New New New 4

Number of Agency

plans implemented

within the framework

of the National Critical

Infrastructure

Protection Plan 

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target
Resource Requirements Summary

(Dollars in Millions. Funding amounts reflect total obligations.)

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)

*IT Funding included in Total Funding 

** Reimbursable Funding included in Total Funding

Skill Summary

• Extensive working knowledge of the Export Administration Act, Export Administration Regulations, and

related Executive Orders pertaining to the control of dual-use commodities 

• Knowledge of world political/economic systems and current trends in U.S. trade and national security and

foreign policy issues

• Superior analytic abilities for complex licensing/policy decisions and regulatory interpretations

122 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Export Administration

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Request

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Request

FY 2001

Enacted

FY 2002

Request Performance Goal

43.2

5.2

1.2

346

64.5

9.8

2.7

476

61.0

3.9

2.6

398

76.6

5.0

2.6

497

76.9

11.6

2.6

477

74.9

6.0

4.2

481

Grand Total:

Total Funding

Reimbursable**

IT Funding*

FTE 

24.9

0.7

202

26.0

1.1

208

26.0

1.3

197

28.4

1.1

218

27.0

1.2

208

28.7

2.0

208

Performance Goal 4

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE 

New 4.3

0.2

33

4.1

0.2

26

5.6

0.2

35

5.3

0.2

31

5.4

0.3

32

Performance Goal 3

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE 

18.3

0.5

144

19.7

0.8

154

17.7

0.7

112

25.9

0.8

161

20.7

0.8

129

22.1

1.3

132

Performance Goal 1

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE 

New 2.6

0.2

20

4.2

0.0

30

3.5

0.1

22

7.3

0.0

48

7.3

0.0

48

Performance Goal 2

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE 

New 5.0

0.1

9

4.0

0.1

17

6.1

0.1

9

11.2

0.1

9

5.9

0.1

9

Performance Goal 5

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE 

New 6.9

0.3

52

5.0

0.3

16

7.1

0.3

52

5.4

0.3

52

5.5

0.5

52

Performance Goal 6

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE 
IT Requirements 

• Computer programmers, system analysts, database managers, and network engineers

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 123

Bureau of Export Administration
FY 2002 Performance Goals

Performance Goal 1: 

By use of a dual-use export control system that continuously is refined to 

respond to changing requirements, transactions that are contrary to U.S. 

security interests are deterred and transactions without proliferation 

potential are facilitated

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably

Objective 1.2: Promote responsible economic growth and trade while protecting American security

Rationale for Performance Goal 

The Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) serves U.S. businesses engaged in international trade by processing

applications for export of controlled commodities in accordance with Export Administration Regulations. BXA

also serves its clientele by expediting the export licensing process and by providing guidance to exporters on

how to conform to applicable laws and regulations. We are particularly vigilant in evaluating transactions

involving advanced technologies and dual-use products that potentially can be diverted to use in chemical,

biological, nuclear, or conventional weapons or missile programs. 

Responding to increased concern about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, BXA has brought U.S.

export controls in line with the new international political environment by reforming the dual-use export control

system. We will continue to refine this system. We also seek to enhance our export regulatory effectiveness by

educating stakeholders in the export licensing process—i.e., exporting businesses, thereby improving industry

compliance with export control regulations and strengthening international export control efforts. These two

efforts together will deter transactions that threaten U.S. security interests and, if thoughtfully undertaken, will

produce a streamlined dual-use commodity control list and an improved license application cycle for controlled

items that will reduce the license application/processing burden on U.S. exporters, enabling them to be more

competitive in world markets and thereby benefiting both the exporters and the U.S. economy. 

Measure 1a: Number of high-risk transactions deterred

124 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Export Administration

Target 504 508 512 512

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 1,160 398

Met/Not Met Met Not Met
Explanation of Measure

The target was not met. It is difficult to project a target for the number of high-risk transactions to be deterred

because of the many variables involved. In setting the target, BXA tries to balance the current licensing trend

against projected regulatory and policy changes and anticipated advances in technology. The FY 2000 target of

508, set in FY 1998, was based on the decision to include applications that are identified as high-risk transactions

but that are cancelled on the applicant’s request—although normal processing of the application would result in

final rejection, such applications are recorded as Returned without Action (RWA). The FY 2000 total of high-risk

transactions deterred (398) does not include these RWAs because a computer system change permitting their

count did not go into effect until FY 2001. The FY 2001 and FY 2002 targets will include RWA cases. Actions to

meet future targets are limited to ongoing, periodic reevaluation of the variables affecting the outcome.

FY 2000 Program Evaluations for Performance Goal 1: By use of a dual-use export control

system that continuously is refined to respond to changing requirements, transactions

that are contrary to U.S. security interests are deterred and transactions without

proliferation potential are facilitated

During FY 2000, the General Accounting Office (GAO) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted

several studies of BXA programs. In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),

GAO and OIG conducted simultaneous studies of BXA’s performance measures; BXA also initiated its own

routine program to validate these data. These program reviews identified the need for computer system changes

to ensure greater supervisory review of entered data, consistency of data entry, and periodic data downloads to

facilitate recreation of reported data; they also identified the need for various administrative actions to improve

communication of results and to clarify responsibilities. BXA is implementing computer system changes and is

taking recommended steps cited in these reviews.

OIG additionally conducted a study on the Commerce Control List (CCL), focusing on how the CCL is

developed and the roles other agencies play in the approval and appeal process. A draft report of OIG’s findings

is pending.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 125

Bureau of Export Administration

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Export Control Automated Support System

(ECASS)

Frequency: Annual 

Data storage: ECASS 

Verification: BXA’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and

Management will validate the performance measure data

against supporting documentation. Two types of checks will

be made, to ensure data are entered where they should be

(system integrity) and to ensure that the data are accurate

and valid. 
Discontinued Measures

Number of licensing decisions

Explanation of Measure

The FY 2000 target of 12,500 licensing decisions was not met. This measure will be discontinued in FY 2002 for

external reporting. The FY 2000 target of 12,500 licensing decisions, set in FY 1998, reflected the technology

trends of the time and assumed few regulatory liberalizations or decontrols. The total of licensing decisions

made (11,039) is a positive outcome and reflects the efforts by BXA and the Administration to balance national

security and foreign policy goals with the need to promote exports and economic growth. During the year,

unanticipated liberalizations and decontrols of encryption products and computers reduced licensing

requirements and opened up several new markets for U.S. exporters. Equally significant was the removal of 51

Indian entities from the Entities List, thereby allowing normal trade relations with these parties. This is also

reflected in the large decline in high-risk transactions deterred. 

Average processing time for license applications (days)

126 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Export Administration

Target 12,000 12,500 14,000 Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 12,598 11,039

Met/Not Met Met Not Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Export Control Automated Support System (ECASS)

Frequency: Annual 

Data storage: ECASS 

Verification: BXA’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Management will validate the performance measure data against supporting

documentation. Two types of checks will be made, to ensure data are entered where they should be (system integrity) and to ensure that

the data are accurate and valid. 

Target 33 33 32 Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 40 38.8

Met/Not Met Not Met Not Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Export Control Automated Support System (ECASS)

Frequency: Annual 

Data storage: ECASS 

Verification: BXA’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Management will validate the performance measure data against supporting

documentation. Two types of checks will be made, to ensure data are entered where they should be (system integrity) and to ensure that

the data are accurate and valid. 
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 127

Explanation of Measure 

The FY 2000 target of 33 days was not met. This measure will be discontinued in FY 2002 for external reporting.

In the first quarter of FY 2000, BXA received a higher than normal volume of license applications, resulting in an

average processing time of 41 days. In the second and third quarters, a slight decrease in the number of

applications brought the average processing time down to 38 days; further decreases in the fourth quarter

resulted in an average processing time of 37 days for that quarter. The overall processing time for FY 2000 was

38.8 days. The projected target for FY 2001 is 32 days, which is currently unrealistic; we will nonetheless seek to

get as close to it as we can. We are also seeking specifically to reduce processing time for cases that undergo

interagency review, and are working with other agencies to permit delegations of authority and to thereby

increase the number of applications that can be reviewed without referral. In addition, BXA continues to

develop and to increase the number of standard conditions, acceptable to all agencies, that apply to certain

categories of cases. More than 99 percent of all applications are approved with conditions—defining

preapproved conditions acceptable to all export control agencies would significantly reduce the time it takes to

craft an agreement acceptable to the exporter, to BXA, and to other reviewing agencies.

Number of export assistance seminars/conferences

Explanation of Measure

The FY 2000 target of 115 was not met. This measure will be discontinued in FY 2002 for external reporting. In

FY 2000, BXA continued to send representatives to as many events and conferences as staff resources permitted.

Budget constraints and our inability to fill critical vacancies required us to reduce the number of BXA-sponsored

events that draw larger, more diverse audiences, however. Given this continuing situation, we do not anticipate

achieving our FY 2001 target. 

Bureau of Export Administration

Target 204 115 120 Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 136 86

Met/Not Met Not Met Not Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Paper Records

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: Office Files

Verification: BXA’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Management will validate the performance measure data against supporting

documentation. 
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 1

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

• BXA works with the International Trade Administration’s U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service offices

located around the world to coordinate work associated with planning and conducting export control

seminars and with conducting pre- and postshipment export license reviews. 

• BXA works closely with the International Trade Administration and other Departmental units with a

relevant interest to ensure the thorough review of all Committee on Foreign Investment in the United

States (CFIUS) cases and to coordinate CFIUS issues.

• BXA employs a full-time export administration specialist in the Department of Commerce Public

Information Office in the Reagan International Trade Center. The specialist operates as an export counselor

providing information in response to walk-in or telephone inquiries. BXA is one of eight Department

agencies represented in the Reagan International Trade Center.

• BXA works with the Census Bureau on seminars and data sharing.

• BXA works with the Departmental Chief Information Office in activities relating to determination of the

dependencies and interdependencies of systems within other federal agencies.

Other Government Agencies

• Departments of State, Defense, Energy, Treasury, and Justice. BXA works with these Executive-branch

organizations to develop and implement U.S. export control policy and programs, including developing

encryption policy and high-performance computer control policy, implementing sanctions, and

participating in multilateral regimes such as the Missile Technology Control Regime, CWC, and Wassenaar

Arrangement. BXA also coordinates intelligence and enforcement operations with these agencies.

• U.S. Customs Service and the Nonproliferation Center. BXA coordinates with these agencies on export control

cooperation technical exchanges and activities with other nations.

• Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and Justice; U.S. Customs; and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

BXA works with these agencies to coordinate assessment of the international export control system and to

128 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Export Administration

Use state-of-the art information technology

Achieve receipts, reviews, interagency

consultations, and decisions on export

license applications that are accurate,

consistent, and timely

Strategies Activities

Consult with representatives of supplier nations

Development of uniform control lists

and licencing practices with likeminded supplier nations

Create publications, seminars, and Internet sites, and perform

individual consultations

Provision of full range of information

to the U.S. exporting community

Sponsor Technical Advisory Committees to advise the

Department of Commerce on technical issues related to export

control regulations and policy

Strenthen public-private partnerships
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 129

prioritize, design, and fund programs in which interagency resources are focused on specific national and

regional issues.

• U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). BXA is part of a USTR-led interagency team that is developing and

implementing the United States—European Union Transatlantic Economic Partnership.

Government/Private Sector

• BXA consults with the President’s Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration (PECSEA), a seniorlevel advisory committee whose members are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce to advise the U.S.

Government on matters and issues pertinent to implementation of the provisions of the Export

Administration Act (EAA) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), as amended, and related

statutes and regulations. These issues relate to U.S. export controls as mandated by law for national

security, foreign policy, nonproliferation, and short supply reasons.

• BXA consults with the President’s Export Council Subcommittee on Encryption (PECSENC), a senior-level

advisory committee whose members are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce to advise the U.S.

Government on matters pertinent to U.S. policies on commercial encryption products.

• Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) are mandated by the Export Administration Act (EAA) to advise the

Department of Commerce and other agencies on technical issues related to export control regulations and

policy.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

• Compliance with export control laws may be compromised if exporters are not aware of changes in

requirements pertaining to them. BXA mitigates this situation by ensuring that exporters have ready access to

regulatory and policy changes, by disseminating guidance via seminars, individual counseling and via the

Internet. 

Bureau of Export Administration
Performance Goal 2:

The United States is in full compliance with the Chemical Weapons 

Convention (CWC) and all confidential business information of U.S. 

companies subject to inspection under the CWC is effectively protected

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably

Objective 1.2: Promote responsible economic growth and trade while protecting American security

Rationale for Performance Goal 

The Bureau of Export Administration is responsible for ensuring U.S. compliance with the treaty requirements

of the Chemical Weapons Convention. BXA collects, validates, and aggregates data from those U.S. businesses

that manufacture or use chemicals covered by the convention; educates those businesses on their treaty rights

and obligations; and serves as the lead U.S. Government agency for hosting international inspectors who are

inspecting U.S. business facilities subject to convention requirements. BXA’s primary host team role is to ensure

that confidential business information is protected during inspections of U.S. chemical firms.

This goal was developed due to its significance to the U.S. Government.

Measure 2a. Number of U.S. facilities in compliance with the CWC Regulations 

Explanation of Measure

This is a new performance measure created to help monitor the implementation of CWC and the impact it has

on U.S. businesses.

130 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Export Administration

Target New New New 754

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual

Met/Not Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data Source: Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons reports 

Frequency: Annual 

Data storage: Paper files

Verification: BXA’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Management will validate the performance measure data against supporting

documentation. 
FY 2000 Program Evaluations for Performance Goal 2: The United States is in full

compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and all confidential

business information of U.S. companies subject to inspection under the CWC is

effectively protected

During FY 2000, the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted

several studies of BXA programs In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),

GAO and OIG conducted simultaneous studies of BXA’s performance measures; BXA also initiated its own

routine program to validate these data. These program reviews identified the need for computer system changes

to ensure greater supervisory review of entered data, consistency of data entry, and periodic data downloads to

facilitate the recreation of reported data; and the need for various administrative actions to improve

communication of results and to clarify responsibilities. BXA is implementing computer system changes and is

taking recommended steps cited in these reviews.

The GAO conducted a study of U.S. industry’s experience with the Chemical Weapons Convention inspections,

with the goals of (1) determining how companies protect proprietary information during inspections, (2)

identifying adverse publicity given to companies as a result of being inspected, and (3) identifying the cost to

companies of being inspected. The study indicated that companies were generally able to protect their

proprietary information, in part because of certain provisions in the CWC and in U.S. law. There were no

instances identified in which a company was affected by adverse publicity resulting from these inspections. The

cost of inspection was found to range from $6,000 to $107,000, the variation being largely attributable to

differences in the make-up of the costs that generated the total cost and to differences in the facilities being

inspected.

Discontinued Measures

None

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 2

Action Plan

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 131

Bureau of Export Administration

• Inform industry of its obligations under the CWC regulations

and provide assistance to industry to prepare for facility

inspections

• Facilitate domestic visits of international inspection teams

seeking to determine compliance with treaty obligations

• Analyze industry reports required to comply with the CWC

and ensure the protection of the confidential business

information of inspected facilities

BXA will oversee compliance with

CWC regulations by the U.S. business

community

Strategies Activities
Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

None

Other Government Agencies

• Governments of nations that conform to the CWC. BXA has negotiated bilateral and multilateral agreements

that demonstrate compliance with the CWC.

• Departments of State, Defense, Energy, Treasury and Justice. BXA works with these Executive branch

organizations to develop and implement U.S. export control policy and programs, including participating

in multilateral regimes such as the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Biological Weapons

Convention (BWC), CWC, Australia Group and Wassenaar Arrangement. BXA also coordinates

intelligence and enforcement operations with these agencies.

Government/Private Sector

• American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers of America. BXA negotiates controls and

policies that conform to BWC and CWC while also protecting the valid concerns and interests of U.S.

industry. 

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

• BXA’s work in CWC compliance includes a balance between seminars and outreach visits that help

companies prepare successfully for CWC inspections and the inspections themselves. The Organization for

Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) establishes the number of CWC inspections based on 1) a

mandated minimum number and on 2) risk assessments that it performs. The second factor is outside BXA

control. If the number of inspections increases, the ability of BXA to assist companies in preparing for

investigations can be correspondingly diminished due to budget constraints. BXA mitigates this by working

very closely with OPCW to anticipate inspection requirements and properly address them in the budget

planning process.

132 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Export Administration
Performance Goal 3: 

The U.S. defense industrial base is healthy and competitive

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably

Objective 1.2: Promote responsible economic growth and trade while protecting American security

Rationale for Performance Goal 

BXA is the focal point within the Department for issues relating to the health and competitiveness of the U.S.

defense industrial base. The bureau plays a leadership role in a wide range of issues that relate to both the

national and economic security of the United States. Our efforts include assisting U.S. companies in diversifying

from defense to commercial production and markets, promoting the sale of U.S. weapons systems to U.S. allies,

and conducting primary research and analysis of critical technologies and defense-related sectors.

Measure 3a. The dollar value of contracts won in international competitions by U.S.

defense firms

Explanation of Measure

This is a new outcome-oriented measure created to monitor the effect of BXA’s assistance to U.S. companies.

FY 2000 Program Evaluations for Performance Goal 3: The U.S. defense industrial base 

is healthy and competitive

During FY 2000, the General Accounting Office (GAO) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted

several studies of BXA programs, In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the

GAO and OIG conducted simultaneous studies of BXA’s performance measures; BXA also initiated its own

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 133

Bureau of Export Administration

Target New New New $2 billion

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual

Met/Not Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data Source: U.S. Embassy, U.S. industry, and U.S. Government information sources 

Frequency: Annual 

Data storage: Paper / electronic files

Verification: BXA’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Management will validate the performance measure data against

supporting documentation. Two types of checks will be made, to ensure data are entered where they should be (system integrity)

and to ensure that the data are accurate and valid. 
routine program to validate these data. These program reviews identified the need for computer system changes

to ensure greater supervisory review of entered data, consistency of data entry, and periodic data downloads to

facilitate recreation of reported data; and the need for various administrative actions to improve communication

of results and to clarify responsibilities. BXA is implementing computer system changes and is taking

recommended steps cited in these reviews.

Specific to this goal, the GAO conducted the Notifications of Foreign Acquisitions to the Committee on Foreign

Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) study. This study recommended that the process for identifying foreign

acquisitions with potential national security implications be amended such that the Departments of Commerce,

Defense, Treasury, and State establish procedures requiring agency officials to submit all known foreign

acquisitions of companies with potential national security implications to the Committee on Foreign Investment.

The Department of Commerce concurred with GAO’s recommendations that information collated by each

member agency on foreign acquisitions be furnished to all committee members. The Department of Commerce

maintains a valuable database of industry information relevant to the evaluation of the national security effects

of foreign acquisitions.

Discontinued Measures

Number of strategic industry analyses completed

Explanation of Measure

The FY 2000 target of 295 was met. This measure will be discontinued in FY 2002 for external reporting. The

primary reason for the additional industry analyses in FY 2000 was an increase in the number of Department of

Defense memoranda of understanding reviewed. As a result of the coalition action in Kosovo, the U.S.

Department of Defense has increased defense cooperation with our NATO and non-NATO European allies. 

134 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Export Administration

Target 295 295 300 Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 352 397

Met/Not Met Met Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Paper Files

Frequency: Annual 

Data storage: Office Files

Verification: BXA’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Management will validate the performance measure data against supporting

documentation. 
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 3

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

• BXA works closely with the International Trade Administration and other Departmental units with a

relevant interest to ensure the thorough review of all Committee on Foreign Investment in the United

States (CFIUS) cases and to coordinate CFIUS issues.

• BXA works with the International Trade Administration’s U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service offices

located around the world to coordinate work associated with planning and conducting export control

seminars and with conducting pre- and postshipment export license reviews. 

Other Government Agencies

• Industries of nations that produce items and technologies requiring control.

• Department of Energy (DOE). BXA participates in an interagency review of foreign participation in DOEsponsored Research and Development Agreements. DOE is partnered with BXA in promoting the reuse of

surplus manufacturing equipment at former U.S. military bases.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 135

Bureau of Export Administration

• Affected industries are surveyed and resulting information is

provided to the public at large

• Proposed government actions affecting the well-being of

firms are assessed and the consequences for the companies

and economy at large are measured and provided to

decision-makers

Macro- and microeconomic research is

used to support critical industry

analyses and export control

assessments

Strategies Activities

Act as principal liaison to the Departments of Defense and State

on defense trade advocacy issues

BXA will coordinate U.S. Government

support for U.S. defense firms involved

in procurement competitions overseas

Sponsor outreach activities at domestic and international

defense trade shows

BXA will assist in facilitating business

contacts between U.S. industry and

potential customers

Provide economic and industrial base considerations to the

Conventional Arms Transfer Policy

BXA will maintain the competitiveness

of U.S. defense firms

Conduct studies on specific areas of the defense sector

BXA will fully assess the economic

health of the U.S. defense

subcontractor base

Maintain participation in the Offsets Commission

BXA will seek ways to minimize the

increasing burden of offsets placed on

U.S. defense firms that make defense

sales to foreign customers
• Departments of Labor, State, and Treasury; U.S. Trade Representative. Representatives from these departments

participate in an interagency group, chaired by BXA, that prepares the annual report Offsets in Defense

Trade for Congress.

• Department of Defense (DoD). BXA works closely with DoD in providing support for U.S. industry

competing for international defense procurement opportunities. 

• Department of State. BXA participates in the State-chaired Conventional Arms Transfer Committee and cochairs the Market Impact Committee, an interagency advisory committee to DoD’s Material Defense

Stockpile. 

• BXA monitors certain forms of technology transfer as part of its overall responsibilities for the defense

industrial base. Among these responsibilities are participating in the Department of the Treasury-chaired

Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

Government/Private Sector

None

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

• The most important external factor affecting the overall volume of strategic industry analyses completed is

the environment for international defense trade and cooperation. The overall health of the global economy

also affects the health of U.S. strategic industries and the number of export licenses submitted, thus the need

for more or fewer analyses. Finally, unanticipated global events may alter the commodities and destinations

subject to export control, thereby necessitating new analyses. BXA mitigates these factors by targeting

analyses to the most critical industrial sectors and by working closely with like-minded supplier nations to

develop consistent acquisition and sales practices.

136 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Export Administration
Performance Goal 4: 

Violations of dual-use export control laws are identified and violators 

are sanctioned 

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably

Objective 1.2: Promote responsible economic growth and trade while protecting American security

Rationale for Performance Goal 

To be effective, export controls must be enforced and illegal exporters detected and prosecuted. BXA enforces

dual-use export controls for reasons of national security, nonproliferation, counterterrorism, foreign policy, and

short supply. The bureau also enforces the antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations, the

Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998, and the Fastener Quality Act.

BXA conducts outreach and education programs to train U.S. exporters to identify and avoid illegal transactions.

We also investigate suspected violations of the Export Administration Regulations, referring them to the

Department of Justice for criminal prosecution and to the Department’s Chief Counsel for Export

Administration for civil remedy.

A key element of BXA’s preventive enforcement program is the on-site visits we conduct to foreign end-users of

sensitive technology. Pre-license checks (PLCs), most of them conducted by U.S. and Foreign Commercial

Service (FCS) officers stationed in the countries of shipment destination, are performed prior to issuance of

licenses to determine the reliability of foreign end-users. BXA enforcement agents and FCS officers additionally

conduct postshipment verifications (PSVs) to ensure that exported items are used in accordance with the terms

of the export license. A significant number of PSVs are conducted on high-performance computers as mandated

by the National Defense Authorization Act of 1998. 

BXA additionally works with its foreign counterpart agencies to encourage other governments to implement

enforcement measures to complement our own efforts.

Measure 4a. Number of investigations accepted for criminal or administrative remedies

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 137

Bureau of Export Administration

Target 73 80 70 75

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 68 93

Met/Not Met Not Met Met
138 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Explanation of Measure

The FY 2000 target of 80 was met. In FY 2000, BXA reevaluated its method for counting the number of cases to

more accurately describe this measure, adding antiboycott settlement agreements, closeouts, and warning letters

to the number of cases accepted for criminal or administrative remedies. Because of budgetary constraints on

travel and personnel, we do not expect to accept as many cases in FY 2001, and have therefore set targets of 70

cases for FY 2001 and 75 for FY 2002.

FY 2000 Program Evaluations for Performance Goal 4: Violations of dual-use export

control laws are identified and violators are sanctioned 

During FY 2000, the General Accounting Office (GAO) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted

several studies of BXA programs. In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),

GAO and OIG conducted simultaneous studies of BXA’s performance measures; BXA also initiated its own

routine program to validate these data. These program reviews have identified the need for computer system

changes to ensure greater supervisory review of entered data, consistency in data entry, and periodic data

downloads to facilitate recreation of reported data; and the need for various administrative actions to improve

communication of results and to clarify responsibilities. BXA is implementing computer system changes and is

taking recommended steps cited in these reviews.

Discontinued Measures

Number of enforcement outreach visits

Bureau of Export Administration

Target 900 900 1,010 Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 1,199 1,025

Met/Not Met Met Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Enforce/Export Control Automated

Support System (ECASS) Case Management Database

Frequency: Annual 

Data storage: Enforce/ECASS Case Management

Database

Verification: BXA’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and

Management will validate the performance measure

data against supporting documentation. Two types of

checks will be made, to ensure data are entered where

they should be (system integrity) and to ensure that the

data are accurate and valid. 
Explanation of Measure

The FY 2000 target of 900 was met and exceeded, with 1,025 outreach visits completed. The experience gained

by the special agents hired in recent years has enabled them to conduct more outreach visits than planned. Our

target of 1,010 outreach visits in FY 2001 is more in line with the number completed in FY 2000, but as our

newer special agents gain experience and devote more of their energy to developing and completing

investigations we should expect the number of outreach visits to gradually decline. 

Number of investigations completed 

Explanation of Measure

The FY 2000 target of 1,300 was not met. BXA conducted more complex investigations in FY 2000 than in

previous years, but because of their complexity these took longer to complete. The target of 1,225 investigations

for FY 2001 is more in line with the actual number of investigations completed in FY 2000. 

Number of end-use visits conducted

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 139

Bureau of Export Administration

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Enforce/Export Control Automated Support System (ECASS)

Frequency: Annual 

Data storage: Enforce/ECASS 

Verification: BXA’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Management will validate the performance measure data against supporting

documentation. Two types of checks will be made, to ensure data are entered where they should be (system integrity) and to ensure that

the data are accurate and valid. 

Target 1,300 1,300 1,225 Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 1,042 1,260

Met/Not Met Not Met Not Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Enforce/Export Control Automated Support System (ECASS)

Case Management Database

Frequency: Annual 

Data storage: Enforce/ECASS Case Management Database 

Verification: BXA’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Management will validate the performance measure data against supporting

documentation. Two types of checks will be made, to ensure data are entered where they should be (system integrity) and to ensure that

the data are accurate and valid. 

Target 680 680 680 Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 869 965

Met/Not Met Met Met
Explanation of Measure

The FY 2000 target of 680 was met. The increase in end-use visits was the direct result of the unanticipated

increase in the number of exports, particularly of high-performance computers. The FY 2001 target has been

maintained at 680, although there are uncontrollable factors that make it difficult to more accurately project the

number of end-use visits.

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 4

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

• BXA works with the Chief Counsel for Export Administration on administrative cases developed by BXA’s

Export Enforcement unit, including its Office of Antiboycott Compliance.

• BXA works with the Bureau of the Census on seminars and data sharing and on shared Shipper’s Export

Declaration (SED) data. We are also working with Census on the Automated Export System, a joint

140 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Export Administration

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Enforce/Export Control Automated Support System (ECASS) Access Database

Frequency: Annual 

Data storage: Enforce/ECASS Access Database

Verification: BXA’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Management will validate the performance measure data against supporting

documentation. Two types of checks will be made, to ensure data are entered where they should be (system integrity) and to ensure that

the data are accurate and valid. 

• Target companies for outreach, based on leads and referrals,

types of industry, types of exports, regions, and newness of

exporters

• Conduct outreach visits to industry

Obtain tips and leads concerning

possible violations while educating

exporters about how to comply with

export control laws and regulations

Strategies Activities

Target end-use checks on shipments of greatest diversion risk

and proliferation concern

Ensure that products are used by the

authorized end-user for the authorized

end-use

Investigations are conducted in a timely and efficient manner Determine whether violations of the

law have occurred

BXA presents cases to prosecutors for possible initiation of

criminal or administrative enforcement proceedings in order to

punish past and to deter future violators

Ensure that the export control system

works effectively

BXA conducts visits overseas to educate foreign consignees

about U.S. export laws and to share information with foreign

export control officials

Determine the legitimacy of controlled

export transactions
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 141

venture with other U.S. Government agencies that is seeking to enable direct electronic submission of SED

data by the exporter. 

Other Government Agencies

• Departments of Justice and State, U.S. Customs Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Postal Service,

and the intelligence community. BXA works with these agencies on matters involving law enforcement

cooperation, development of leads, intelligence coordination, implementation of export control policy, and

coordination of issues such as export license investigations and fastener quality. Field offices and

headquarters participate in interagency working groups with the FBI and the Postal Service, and BXA

shares data with the U.S. Customs Service via the Treasury Enforcement Computer System (TECS).

Government/Private Sector

None

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

• Priorities and resources of the Department of Justice and the Chief Counsel for Export Administration

directly influence the achievement of this goal. BXA mitigates this situation by targeting investigations

effectively, conducting them in a professional manner and presenting them persuasively to prosecutors. 

• BXA may also have to rely on other agencies to conduct certain investigative activities. BXA mitigates this by

conducting monthly meetings and other communications with other agencies to explore consequences of new

export control issues. BXA also diligently seeks opportunities to work cases jointly with sister agencies.

• The increasing volume and complexity of international commerce directly increases the difficulty of applying

and enforcing export controls and, more broadly, the difficulty of preventing proliferation; these factors

seldom yield to control by the U.S. Government, much less by BXA. BXA mitigates this situation by

conducting visits overseas to educate foreign consignees about U.S. export laws and to share information

with foreign export control officials

Bureau of Export Administration
142 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Performance Goal 5: 

Export controls of key nations are strong and effective 

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and equitably

Objective 1.2: Promote responsible economic growth and trade while protecting American security

Rationale for Performance Goal 

Strong enforcement of U.S. export regulations is critical to protect our security interests, but U.S. national

interests can also be jeopardized if sensitive materials and technologies reach nations of concern or terrorists

through other nations. For this reason, the Bureau of Export Administration’s strategy also includes promoting

the establishment by other nations of effective export control systems. BXA has been assisting the countries of

the former Soviet Union and the former Warsaw Pact nations of Central Europe to strengthen their export

control and enforcement, and also is extending technical assistance to China, India, and other countries

considered export or transit proliferation risks.

Through a series of bilateral and regional cooperative activities, BXA helps the nations with which it works to

establish the legal authority and to develop the procedures and requirements necessary to regulate the transfer

of sensitive goods and technologies, to enforce compliance with these procedures and requirements, and to

promote the industry—government partnership necessary for an effective export control system to meet

international standards.

In the nations with which we are working on this agenda, BXA is seeking to gain consensus on what

commodities and technologies need to be controlled and to whom controls should apply. We also emphasize the

need for adherence to existing nonproliferation guidelines and norms pertaining to nuclear, chemical, biological,

and conventional weapons and missile delivery systems.

In BXA-sponsored bilateral and regional cooperative activities, we draw on the expertise of other agencies and

of U.S. industry to assist countries to develop export control systems tailored to their own unique circumstances

and requirements.

Measure 5a. Number of targeted deficiencies remedied in the export control systems of

cooperating transit or exporting nations

Bureau of Export Administration

Target New New New 20

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual

Met/Not Met
Explanation of Measure

This is a new performance measure created to more closely align the BXA with evolving departmental goals and

objectives. 

FY 2000 Program Evaluations for Performance Goal 5: Export controls of key nations are

strong and effective

During FY 2000, the General Accountancy Office (GAO) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted

several studies of BXA programs, In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),

GAO and OIG conducted simultaneous studies of BXA’s performance measures; BXA also initiated its own

routine program to validate these data. These program reviews identified the need for computer system changes

to ensure greater supervisory review of entered data, consistency in data entry, and periodic data downloads to

facilitate recreation of reported data; and the need for various administrative actions to improve communication

of results and to clarify responsibilities. BXA is implementing computer system changes and is taking

recommended steps cited in these reviews.

OIG conducted a review of BXA’s Nonproliferation Export Control Cooperation Program, recommending minor

improvements to the management of the program. BXA has already taken steps to implement these

recommendations. We have additionally initiated a program evaluation of our Nonproliferation and Export

Control Model Country Program, scheduled to be completed in FY 2001.

Discontinued Measures

Number of nonproliferation and export control international cooperative exchanges 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 143

Bureau of Export Administration

Target 42 30 37 Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 45 39

Met/Not Met Met Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Paper Records

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: Office Files

Verification: BXA’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Management will validate the performance measure data against supporting

documentation. 

Data Validation and Verification

Data Source: Government and nongovernmental publications; statements made by senior foreign government officials; cables; online

publications; and academic and intelligence community analyses and assessments.

Frequency: Annual 

Data storage: Electronic/paper files

Verification: BXA’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Management will validate the performance measure data against

supporting documentation. Two types of checks will be made, to ensure data are entered where they should be (system integrity)

and to ensure that the data are accurate and valid.
Explanation of Measure

The FY 2000 target of 30 was met. This measure will be discontinued in FY 2002 for external reporting. Due to

budget constraints, we conducted more bilateral exchanges in FY 2000 and fewer of the expensive, timeconsuming multilateral exchanges that originally were projected for FY 2000. The larger target for FY 2001

reflects the expectation that we would have additional personnel for this period; those additional personnel,

however, are not yet available to us.

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 5

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

• The International Trade Administration, including its U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, and the Chief

Counsel for Export Administration make invaluable contributions of their expertise, knowledge, and

abilities to the Bureau of Export Administration’s program to assist key nations to establish strong,

effective export controls.

Other Government Agencies

• Various nongovernmental and academic organizations of individual nations.

• U.S. Customs Service and the Nonproliferation Center. BXA coordinates with these agencies on export control

cooperation technical exchanges and activities with other nations.

• Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and Justice; U.S. Customs, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

BXA works with these agencies to coordinate assessment of the international export control system and to

prioritize, design, and fund programs in which interagency resources are focused on specific national and

regional issues.

Government/Private Sector

None

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

• BXA must continue to rely on other agencies to fund the technical exchanges and other activities relating to

international export control cooperation. The process of obtaining this funding while satisfying detailed

donor agency requirements is extremely cumbersome and fraught with uncertainty and delay, making some

144 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Export Administration

BXA will conduct bilateral and multilateral/regional technical

exchanges with those nations.

Assist key cooperating transit or

exporting nations to remedy

deficiencies in critical components of

their national export control systems

Strategies Activities
inefficiencies unavoidable. BXA mitigates this by pursuing multiple proposals with multiple potential donor

agencies.

• Two factors that drive the scheduling of technical exchanges are: 1) the interagency coordination process that

yields agency experts to participate in the exchanges and 2) the priorities of the countries involved. BXA

mitigates these factors by conducting close and frequent consultations with pertinent U.S. agencies and client

nation officials.

• Unforeseeable shifts in U.S. policy (e.g., suspension of activity with Belarus) or in the policies of client nations

may occasionally preclude execution of funded, scheduled events or participation of certain national invitees.

BXA mitigates these situations by designing fewer events that appeal to a broader range of potential

participants. BXA is also very proactive in working with service providers to minimize cancellation costs.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 145

Bureau of Export Administration
146 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Performance Goal 6: 

The nation’s various independent and interdependent infrastructure 

components are secured in accordance with an integrated plan 

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably

Objective 1.2: Promote responsible economic growth and trade while protecting American security

Rationale for Performance Goal 

The information revolution and the introduction of the computer into virtually every area of our society has

changed how our economy works, how we provide for our national security, and how we structure our

everyday lives. We are now unfortunately facing an urgent need to protect our government’s own critical assets

from cyber attack, and must remedy the insecurities inherent in our information systems. To succeed,

government and the private sector must work together in a partnership unlike any we have seen before.

Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 63 directed the establishment within BXA of the Critical Infrastructure

Assurance Office (CIAO) to coordinate a national effort to address the question of the integrity of our nation’s

information infrastructure. CIAO updated the National Plan for Information Systems Protection and is now

seeking to strengthen and build on that work, increasing the participation of other federal agencies in the

analysis of critical dependencies and interdependencies between systems, pursuing further outreach through a

partnership with the private sector, and seeking greater involvement of state and local governments. These

efforts will better enable the federal government to coordinate with the private sector and encourage the

development and implementation of a comprehensive plan to protect our information infrastructure.

Measure 6a. Number of Agency plans implemented within the framework of the National

Critical Infrastructure Protection Plan

Bureau of Export Administration

Target New New New 4

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual

Met/Not Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data Source: Agency Plans

Frequency: Annual 

Data storage: Paper Files

Verification: BXA’s Office of Program, Evaluation, and Management will validate the performance measure data against

supporting documentation.
Explanation of Measure

This is a new performance measure created to more closely align with evolving departmental goals and objectives.

FY 2000 Program Evaluations for Performance Goal 6: The nation’s various independent

and interdependent infrastructure components are secured in accordance with an

integrated plan 

During FY 2000, the General Accounting Office (GAO) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted

several studies of BXA programs, In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),

GAO and OIG conducted simultaneous studies of BXA’s performance measures; BXA also initiated its own

routine program to validate this data. These program reviews identified the need for computer system changes

to ensure greater supervisory review of entered data, consistency in data entry, and periodic data downloads to

facilitate recreation of reported data; and the need for various administrative actions to improve communication

of results and to clarify responsibilities. BXA is implementing computer system changes and is taking

recommended steps cited in these reviews.

Discontinued Measures

None

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 6

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

• BXA works with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to assist NTIA in its

capacity as lead agency for the information and communications sector of the national infrastructure.

• BXA works with the Departmental Chief Information Office in activities relating to determining the

dependencies and interdependencies of federal agency systems.

Other Government Agencies

• BXA operates as a de facto interagency planning office to support the National Security Council in

coordinating U.S. Government programs designed to protect the nation’s critical infrastructure.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 147

Bureau of Export Administration

Strengthen planning activities with other federal agencies in the

analysis of critical dependencies and interdependencies within

their systems

Facilitate Federal Government

coordination of the development of a

National Plan for Information Systems

Protection

Strategies Activities
• Through the Federal Critical Infrastructure Coordinating Group, BXA serves as the focal point for all

agencies engaged in developing a national plan for protecting the nation’s critical and interdependent

infrastructures.

• Through various memoranda of understanding and the assignment of detailees from other agencies, BXA

is working with federal agencies including the Departments of Treasury, Health and Human Services, and

Energy and the Social Security Administration to identify dependencies and interdependencies within and

among their critical internal information systems.

• BXA coordinates its role with other agencies through ongoing interactions with the Federal Bureau of

Investigation’s National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), GSA’s FedCIRC program, and efforts

elsewhere in government. Overall, BXA provides a focus for interagency planning, with other entities

fulfilling a variety of operational responsibilities in preventing, responding to, or managing the

consequences of attacks on our critical information infrastructure.

Government/Private Sector

• Through its partnerships with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), and

other professional groups, BXA is assisting the private sector to strengthen its involvement in developing

and implementing the National Critical Infrastructure Protection Plan.

• Through various state bar associations, BXA is working to engage the legal community in assessing the

legal ramifications of addressing infrastructural vulnerabilities.

• Through a Joint Project Agreement with James Madison University, BXA supported the National

Colloquium for Information Systems Security Education (NCISSE) in its effort to encourage educational

institutions to incorporate information systems security courses in their curricula. BXA has also worked

extensively with the Chief Information Officers Council, Office of Personnel Management and other

agencies to promote better security practices.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

• The CIAO was created by President Clinton through Presidential Decision Directive 63. PDD 63 provides a

sunset date for the CIAO of September 30, 2001. The question of whether or not to extend the CIAO, and in

what format, is the most important external factor affecting the CIAO. The final decision will in all probability

be linked to broader issues of overall policy toward Critical Infrastructure Protection, cyber-security, and

other technology questions.

• Other factors affecting the CIAO are human and budgetary resources. During the past year, the CIAO’s

resources have contracted significantly. Since most of the senior CIAO subject-matter experts are

unreimbursed detailees from other agencies, the CIAO’s viability depends upon the willingness of these

agencies to provide these resources. At the current budget request level, the CIAO’s activities will remain

focused on major current programs, such as Project Matrix and the public-private outreach effort, as well as

staff support for the National Security Council.

148 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Bureau of Export Administration
Minority Business Development Agency

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 149

Minority Business Development Agency

Mission Statement

The Minority Business Development Agency seeks to promote private and public sector

investment in minority businesses.

As the only Federal agency mandated to encourage the growth and development of minority-owned businesses.

MBDA provides assistance to socially and economically disadvantaged groups who own or wish to start or

expand their own businesses, including, African Americans, Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, Spanish-speaking

Americans, Eskimos, Aleuts, Asia Indians, Asian Pacific Americans and Hasidic Jews. MBDA provides

assistance to these groups with access to the marketplace and financing, management and technical assistance,

education and training. 

MBDA’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., provides centralized leadership for the bureau’s program. MBDA

has five regional offices (Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, New York and San Francisco) and four district offices (Boston,

Los Angeles, Miami and Philadelphia) where staff oversees assistance and services in multi-state regions. Within

these regions MBDA funds 42 Minority and Native American Business Development Centers, seven Minority

Business Opportunity Committees, and seven Business Resource Centers. The following is an organizational

chart for MBDA:

Organizational Structure

Office of

Market Access

Office of the Director

Deputy Director

Associate Director for

Management Associate Director for Programs

Office of 

Support

Services

Office of

Administration

and

Financial

Management

Office of

Information

Technology

Services

Regional

Offices

Atlanta

Chicago

Dallas

New York

San Francisco

Office of 

Financial

Access
Priorities

Departmental

Using the Department of Commerce’s goal of encouraging and supporting economic expansion, MBDA has

initiated and continues to initiate ways to provide the information and the framework that will enable minorityowned businesses to operate efficiently and equitably. These initiatives include on-line business development

tools, such as the Resource Locator that provide valuable information on emerging markets and other topics of

interest to minority businesses. Other on-line systems have been developed that provide the information and

tools for minority businesses in areas of contract and procurement opportunities, capital access, management

and technical assistance and e-commerce education. 

Bureau

Using the Internet as a tool, MBDA is broadening its reach to the minority business community through

electronic commerce by promoting and providing information systems technology that assists minority

businesses. MBDA electronic initiatives are allowing MBDA’s services to be accessible to the entire minority

business community. MBDA is also developing a portal to its electronic initiatives. The portal will be user

friendly, enabling the user to obtain business information expeditiously. 

Management Challenges

As an agency with a modest budget but a nationwide mission to support a growing need, MBDA seeks to

implement a new concept to deliver business development services to the minority business community, by

placing more emphasis on the dissemination of business information via the Internet. As a result, the following

initiatives were developed:

• The Phoenix-Opportunity database was developed and implemented to electronically match minority firms

with business opportunities. 

• The Performance database was implemented to address Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)

concerns. The database was designed to capture performance results from MBDA’s network of funded

providers of business development services. The system, if needed, can capture program results on a daily

basis. Included in the data captured is the number of clients assisted, the number of client service hours, the

amount of approved financial packages and amount of approved procurements.

• The Geographic Business Information System (GBIS) was developed and is currently being tested. GBIS

allows minority firms to evaluate prospective market locations and resources within a given radius.

• The On-line Virtual Business centers are being developed to assist MBDA’s small-funded network of business

development providers to deliver services to the minority business community via the Internet. The On-line

centers will contain web-based information organized around a particular market or economic sector. Some

of the centers that have been developed are franchising, aquaculture, manufacturing technology, and

international trade.

Although these initiatives have been either implemented or nearly ready to be implemented, the challenge

persists because the agency now must not only find ways to keep the initiatives up and running but must keep

the content current and usable. Among other approaches, MBDA plans to address this challenge through a highspeed network strategy to link all funded network providers to a single virtual organization via the Minority

Business Internet Portal (MBIP). MBDA’s ultimate goal is to use electronic tools in assisting minority businesses

to impact the gross national product of the American economy.

150 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Minority Business Development Agency
MBDA is developing and evaluating the automation of its administrative activities. Based on the discussions to

develop electronic tools, the agency is trying to develop the following:

• Automated Budget Monitoring System to interact with an accounting system to provide real-time reporting

for agency managers.

• Administrative Information Management System that would include content information on processing

obligating and other documents, regulations and agency policy. This information will be in the agency’s

Intranet to be used by staff.

• IT (Information Technology) Security System that would preclude exposure to internal or external risks.

Targets and Performance Summary

See individual Performance Goal section for further description of each measure.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 151

Minority Business Development Agency

Performance Goal 1: Improve opportunities for minority-owned businesses to have access 

0.6B 0.6B 0.6B 1.2B 0.7B 0.7B

Dollar value of

contracts awarded

to assisted

minority-owned

businesses

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual 

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target Measures

858 755 858 556 925 925

Number of

financial packages

received by

assisted minorityowned businesses

0.7B 0.7B 0.9B 0.2B 1.0B 1.0B

Dollar value of

financial packages

to assisted

minority-owned

business 

Performance Goal 2: Improve the opportunities for minority-owned businesses to pursue financing
Resource Requirements Summary

(Dollars in Millions. Funding amounts reflect total obligations.)

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)

*IT Requirements: Operations, maintenance and reengineering. IT Funding included in Total Funding

** Reimbursable funding included in Total Funding

Skill Summary: 

Marketing, Finance, Research, IT/Internet 

152 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Minority Business Development Agency

15.0

0.9

58

15.0

0.9 

74

16.1

0.9 

61

14.8

0.9

74

14.5

0.9 

74

15.2

1.2 

74

Performance Goal 1

Total Funding

*IT Funding

FTE

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Request

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Request

FY 2001

Enacted

FY 2002

Request Performance Goal

13.7

0.6

38

13.0

0.6

46

13.8

0.6

40

13.8

0.8

46

13.8

0.8

46

13.7

0.8

46

Performance Goal 2: 

Total Funding

*IT Funding

FTE 

28.7

0.3

1.5

96

28.0

0.4

1.5

120

29.8

0.3

1.5

101

28.6

0.5

1.7

120

28.3

0.5

1.7

120

28.9

0.5

2.0

120

Grand Total

Total Funding

Reimbursable**

*IT Funding

FTE
FY 2002 Performance Goals

Performance Goal 1: 

Improve Opportunities for Minority-Owned Businesses to Have Access to the 

Marketplace

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably.

Objective 1.1: Provide the Infrastructure to enable the participation of all Americans in the new economy.

Rationale for Performance Goal 

The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) will use electronic tools to increase the availability of

business development resources to all minority-owned firms, regardless of size, industry type, or geographic

location, and to facilitate the expansion of ready-to-grow firms in the domestic, international, and new

technology growth markets. In addition, we are developing a high-speed network strategy to link all Minority

Business Development Centers (MBDC) into a single virtual organization via Minority Business Internet Portal

(MBIP). Our goal is to create a state-of-the-art environment to deliver to minority businesses continuously

updated information, access to resources anywhere in the country, and the best available assistance in any given

subject area at any time. Using this strategy, the agency expects to increase our client base five-hundredfold,

from 6,000 to 300,000 and projects to assist the minority business community to obtain more than $10 billion in

procurement and financing. 

Measure 1a: Dollar value of contracts awarded to assisted minority-owned businesses

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 153

Minority Business Development Agency

Target 0.6B 0.6B 0.7B 0.7B

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 0.6B 1.2B

Met/Not Met Met Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Direct secure (SSL) Extranet link from MBDA HQ

to client service delivery sites.

Frequency: Collect real-time, report quarterly

Data storage: The Performance Database Management System

running on a clustered (fail-over) SQL platform.

Verification: A 100% client verification survey

Data Limitations: Responsiveness to the client verification

survey.

Actions to be taken: Follow-up notices to unresponsive clients.
• Match firms and opportunities electronically (Phoenix and

Opportunity Database System)

• Train business executives in e-commerce (E-Commerce Course)

Promote the increased use of 

e-commerce by minority-owned firms.

• Locate business development resources on-line (Resource

Locator)

• Learn how to start and grow a business on-line (On-line

Business Development Center).

• Find information about growth industries on-line (Virtual

Business Centers)

Provide information and management

and technical assistance nationwide.

Strategies Activities

• Fund a network of organizations to provide personalized

management and technical assistance (Business Development

Centers)

• Fund a network of organizations to identify contracting

opportunities (Minority Business Opportunity Committees)

• Provide sophisticated market research to locate new

customers and stores (Market Analyst)

Provide direct management and

technical assistance through a network

of business organizations.

• Provide information and electronic tools to gain access to the

Nation’s fastest growing consumer segment (Emerging

Minority Marketplace)

• Sponsor a major national event where minority businesses, corporations and policy-makers can develop solutions to business

problems (Minority Enterprise Development (MED) Week) 

Provide leadership and services that

advocate entry into growth markets.

Explanation of Measure

Target Met. The dollar value of contracts awarded is an important measure because it provides information on

minority-owned businesses assisted by MBDA. The information highlights the success of minority-owned businesses

obtaining contracts to provide goods and services domestically and abroad. As the dollar value of contracts awarded

increases, minority-owned businesses will have a greater opportunity to enhance their contribution to total business

receipts.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for MBDA Performance Goal 1: Improve opportunities for

minority-owned businesses to have access to the marketplace

Fiscal Year 2000 was an exceptional year for MBDA because the dollar value of contracts awarded doubled.

While this was not anticipated, MBDA can credit these results to an abundance of procurement opportunities in

the western section of the country. Although these are welcomed results, MBDA does not foresee the level of

activity for FY 2000 continuing. After reviewing this program it has been determined that it is best to maintain

the current targets set for FY 2002. At this juncture MBDA’s vision and ultimate goal is to increase minority

business’s percentage of gross business receipts and its percentage of the total business population.

Discontinued Measure:

None.

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 1

Action Plan

154 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Minority Business Development Agency
Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

MBDA works with International Trade Administration (ITA) to assure that minority-owned businesses are

included in Department trade missions and other international trade opportunities and have access to the

Management and Technical Assistance services (M&TA) of the Export Assistance Centers. 

MBDA works with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to include minority-owned businesses in programs involving new and

emerging technology such as aquaculture and manufacturing technology and have access to M&TA services

of the Manufacturing Extension Program Centers. 

MBDA is working with the Census Bureau to expand survey of minority-owned businesses annually and

conduct research on the Emerging Minority Marketplace to provide market information about the fastest

growing consumer segment.

MBDA is working with the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to move minority-owned businesses

into its high technology business incubators. 

Other Government Agencies

MBDA works with the Small Business Administration (SBA) to assure that minority-owned small businesses

benefit from its existing management and technical assistance services available to other businesses.

MBDA works with the Export-Import Bank on minority trade initiatives to have access to export financing and

export markets.

MBDA works with US Agency for International Development (USAID) on referral of trade opportunities to

minority businesses to have access to export markets.

Government/Private-Sector

None.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

• Emergence of the Digital Economy—Anecdotal evidence indicates that minority businesses are lagging in

their adoption of e-commerce technologies. MBDA has adopted a “leadership by example” strategy of

changing its own internal culture to adapting programs and service delivery to electronic technologies.

• Changing Demographics—90 percent of the net growth in the U.S. population over the next 50 years will be

in minority groups. This rapid change in demographics presents a lucrative consumer marketplace for

minority firms. But they first must become aware of this change and adapt their business practices. MBDA

has commissioned the Census Bureau to develop information about this marketplace and its purchasing

power. New electronic on-line market research tools are being developed to bring this information to

minority firms and it will be the focus of the year 2001 MED Week.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 155

Minority Business Development Agency
• New Business Practices—Corporate purchasing practices are undergoing a radical change that requires

minority suppliers to alter their strategies. Supply-chain management, ISO 9000 and business-to-business ecommerce demand that minority businesses also adopt e-commerce technology, be willing to partner with

other firms and reengineer their processes. MBDA will inform and convince minority firms of the need for

these changes and provide access to the management and technical assistance resources of new strategic

partners such as the Electronic Commerce Resource Centers and Manufacturing Extension Program Centers

156 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Minority Business Development Agency
Performance Goal 2: 

Improve Opportunities for Minority-Owned Businesses to Pursue Financing

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably.

Objective 1.1: Provide the infrastructure to enable the participation of all Americans in the new economy.

Rationale for Performance Goal 

Historically capital access programs for minority businesses have focused on debt capital guarantee programs

from the Federal Government. However, a Milken Institute study indicates the demand for equity capital far

exceeds the demand for debt capital. The Milken Institute estimates that the demand for equity capital exceeds

$144 billion per year, while debt-financing demands are approximately $1 billion. As the minority business

community continues to grow there will be skyrocketing capital demand over the next 20 years. MBDA is

working to address these difficulties by collecting and assessing information about the financing needs of the

minority business community. The results will be disseminated to financial institutions, policy-makers and the

minority business community. Additionally, MBDA is exploring innovative strategies and instruments to

increase capital flow to minority communities along with working in public/private partnerships.

Measure 2a: Number of financial packages (loans) received by assisted minority-owned

businesses

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 157

Minority Business Development Agency

Target 858 858 925 925

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 755 556

Met/Not Met Not Met Not Met

Data Validation and Verification :

Data source: Direct secure (SSL) Extranet link from MBDA HQ

to client service delivery sites.

Frequency: Collect real-time, report quarterly.

Data storage: The Performance Database Management System

running on a clustered (fail-over) SQL platform.

Verification: A 100% client verification survey.

Data Limitations: Responsiveness to the client verification

survey.

Actions to be taken: Follow up notices to unresponsive clients.
Explanation of Measure

Target not met. The number of financial packages is an important measure because it shows the number of

financial packages from minority-owned businesses assisted by MBDA. 

The number and amount of financial packages is directly related to the economy. Any fluctuation in the

country’s economy has a tendency to tighten the financing market resulting in delays and denials of financing

requests. Although the economy affected the financing goals, MBDA continues to work with banking and other

financial institutions to assist minority businesses in obtaining financing. Considering the economy, MBDA

programs still generated more than $126 for every Federal dollar expended. MBDA is exploring other areas to

assist in obtaining its’ targeted goals. The use of electronic tools in presentations to financing institutions may

assist businesses in obtaining financing. Limited resources may make this tool especially critical in helping

minority businesses obtain financing. 

Measure 2b: Dollar value of financial packages (loans) to assisted minority-owned

business

Explanation of Measure

Target not met. The dollar value of financial packages is an important measure because it shows how much the

minority-owned businesses assisted by MBDA were able to get financing to get started or to grow. During 

FY 2000 a fluctuation of the economy resulted in the tightening of credit standards causing loan processing

delays and denials. MBDA also included in the target figure the amount and numbers estimated for electronic

matching of opportunities with the capability of minority vendors. Although MBDA had hoped to count the

matching numbers in the overall target, issues of confirming the numbers have yet to be resolved. Although

electronic matching of capabilities to opportunities is being performed, MBDA will not use the figures without

being able to confirm the accuracy. The economy and unresolved financial package confirmation issues were the

two factors that had a tremendous impact on the actual numbers for FY 2000. 

158 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Minority Business Development Agency

Target 0.7B 0.9B 1.0B 1.0B

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Actual 0.7B 0.2B

Met/Not Met Met Not Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Direct secure (SSL) Extranet link from MBDA

HQ to client service delivery sites.

Frequency: Collect real-time, report quarterly.

Data storage: The Performance Database Management

System running on a clustered (fail-over) SQL platform. 

Verification: A 100% client verification survey

Data Limitations: Responsiveness to the client verification

survey.

Actions to be taken: Follow up notices to non-responsive

clients.
FY 2000 Program Evaluation for MBDA Performance Goal 2: Improve 

opportunities for minority-owned businesses to pursue financing

In FY 2000, MBDA failed to meet the target for the dollar value of financial packages or the number of financial

packages. To help to improve the agency’s performance in this area MBDA is reviewing the methods by which

data for these measurements are gathered. During the coming year, MBDA’s goal is to confirm the electronic

matching capabilities of opportunities. Although the opportunity matching is currently being performed, the

accuracy of this information can not be properly confirmed at this date. 

Discontinued Measures

None.

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 2

Action Plan

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 159

Minority Business Development Agency

Create capital access website providing information on

applying for financing; provide personalized feedback to

minority firms via MBDA’s Business Development Centers and

the Internet that will increase the likelihood of obtaining

capital.

Increase access to capital for minority

firms by providing electronic

information and management and

technical assistance to firms seeking

capital.

Capital access website; develop partnerships with national

financial institutions (e.g. Money Store, Bank of America, First

Union Bank, etc.) that focused on penetrating the minority

business community.

Enhance the ability of minority firms to

apply for debt capital by providing a

streamlined, electronic application

process.

Strategies Activities

Capital access website; develop short brochure detailing how

to apply for a business loan.

Educate the minority business

community on the requirements of

applying for capital, including necessary

documentation, the importance of credit

scoring, etc.

Produce study on the capital needs of minority businesses;

disseminate study to financial institutions, the policymaking

community and minority businesses.

Produce periodic reports on the capital

needs of minority businesses and

disseminate widely.

Policy forum and ongoing meetings on innovative strategies to

increase access to capital for minority businesses

Advocate for increased access to equity

and debt capital with Federal and state

governments, financial institutions, and

the minority business community.
Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

None.

Other Government Agencies

MBDA works with the Small Business Administration (SBA) in a variety of areas, including: providing

information about SBA loan guarantee programs to MBDA’s clients and funded network (BDCs); in

connection with the Department of Commerce’s Capital Access Task Force and Minority Business

Coordinating Council; in developing the New Markets program begun under the Clinton Administration;

and on pilot securitizations of small-business and minority business loans that are occurring in California. In

addition, MBDA has collaborated with the National Economic Council, the Department of the Treasury, the Office

of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve and the Department of Housing and Urban Development on

the New Markets program and the Department of Commerce’s Capital Access Task Force. Finally, MBDA has

worked closely with the California State Treasurer’s office on the pilot securizations in California.

Government/Private-Sector

None.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

• Current Factor: The overall health of the economy and prevailing interest rates may influence the number and

dollar value of financial packages that can be obtained by all businesses, including minority-owned

businesses.

• Current Strategy: MBDA will make every effort to ensure that information on financing opportunities is made

available to minority-owned businesses. MBDA will make extensive use of the Internet along with electronic

presentations in this effort. Moreover, MBDA will promote and help set up strategic alliances and joint

ventures to provide financing opportunities for minority-owned businesses.

160 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Minority Business Development Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 161

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Mission Statement

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s mission is to describe and

predict changes in the Earth’s environment, and conserve and manage wisely the

Nation’s coastal and marine resources so as to ensure sustainable economic

opportunities.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) conducts research to develop new

technologies, improve operations, and supply the scientific basis for managing natural resources and solving

environmental problems. NOAA’s comprehensive system for acquiring observations—from satellites and radar

to ships and submersibles—provides the quality data and information needed for the safe conduct of daily life

and the efficient pursuit of the complex activities of modern society. Common products and services include

weather and climate warnings and forecasts, environmental technologies, marine fisheries statistics and

regulations, nautical charts, assessments of environmental changes, and hazardous materials response

information. These capabilities, products, and services support the domestic security and global competitiveness

of the United States, and they affect the lives of nearly every citizen. 

NOAA provides the resources to maintain essential services, facilitate progress in key investment areas of

national interest, and address statutory obligations. To provide these services, NOAA needs to strike an

appropriate balance among the environmental assessment, prediction, and stewardship needs of the Nation.

This requires management of natural resources and assessment and prediction of the Earth’s environment.

NOAA’s efforts are key components of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (DOC) strategic plan and contribute

significantly to achieving DOC’s strategic goals.

The challenge of investing strategically in the Nation’s future is accompanied by the requirement of effective

agency management, to identify and realize opportunities for savings, and to focus on what matters to Americans.

NOAA envisions a 21st century in which environmental stewardship, assessment, and prediction serve as

keystones to enhancing economic prosperity and quality of life, more effectively protecting lives and property, and

strengthening of the U.S. balance of trade. This vision depends on NOAA actions that achieve the following:

• Create and disseminate reliable assessments and predictions of weather, climate, space environment, ocean

and living marine resources, and nautical and geodetic phenomena and systems. 

• Implement integrated approaches to environmental management and ocean and coastal resources

stewardship. 

• Ensure continuous operational observing capabilities, including buoys, satellites, ships, submersibles, and

radar. 

• Build and use new information networks such as investment in state-of-the-art computing capabilities. 

• Develop public-private, interagency, and international partnerships for the expansion, transfer, and archiving

of environmental knowledge. 

• Invest in scientific research and the development of new technologies to improve current operations and

prepare for the future. 

• Improve NOAA’s abilities to serve its customers and forge stronger ties with its partners and stakeholders.
Organizational Structure

Priorities

Department-Wide 

• Natural Resources— In support of this program, NOAA will work to reduce overfishing and

overcapitalization of the Nation’s fishery resources, better manage protected and threatened resources,

protect coastal habitats from continued loss and degradation, explore new frontiers in ocean research,

conduct more research into the effects of climate changes on the oceans and atmosphere, and promote safe

navigation. NOAA will also work toward improving short-term weather, water, and climate forecast and

warning products and services, as well as improving its ability to predict longer term climate variability.

• Minority Serving Institutions—NOAA contributes to the Department’s priority to support Minority Serving

Institutions (MSI). This program cuts across all of NOAA’s strategic goals and helps train students in

sciences that serve NOAA’s mission.

162 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National

Weather

Service

Under Secretary for 

Oceans & Atmosphere

& Administrator

Assistant Secretary for 

Oceans & Atmosphere

& Deputy Administrator

Deputy Under Secretary for 

Oceans & Atmosphere

Chief Scientist of NOAA

Program Support

Office of Finance and

Administration

Office of Marine and 

Aviation Operations

National

Ocean

Service

National

Marine

Fisheries

Service

Office of

Oceanic and

Atmospheric

Research

National

Environmental

Satellite, Data 

& Information 

Service
Bureau

• Natural Disaster Reduction—NOAA contributes to this priority by providing weather and climate warnings

and forecasts to the general public. The National Weather Service (NWS); the National Environmental

Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS); and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

(OAR) acquire and process hydrometeorological, ocean, and space-based observations; conduct weather

and climate research; and maintain and makes available to public and private concerns historical

environmental data.

• Sustain Healthy Coasts and Resource Protected Species—In this program, NOAA addresses the most serious

challenges facing the Nation’s coasts and oceans. NOAA will work toward enhancing the 12 National

Marine Sanctuaries that permit NOAA to fulfill its mission of marine resource protection and

management. This program supports maintenance and protection of our critical estuaries, as well as

mapping and monitoring of fragile coral reefs. NOAA will work to address the effects of polluted runoff in

coastal areas, implement priority recommendations of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, enhance the recovery

of threatened and endangered coastal salmon, and provide grants to coastal States involved in offshore oil

and gas production. In addition, NOAA is a key player in the Federal Government’s Clean Water and

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration programs.

• Climate Observations and Services—During recent years, there has been a growing demand from emergency

managers, the private sector, the research community, decision-makers in the United States, international

governmental agencies, and the general public to provide timely data and information about climate

variability, climate change, and trends in extreme weather events. The economic and social needs for

continuous, reliable climate data and longer range climate forecasts have been clearly demonstrated. This

program supports the transition of our current research efforts and knowledge into operational systems

and products. To do this, NOAA will focus its efforts to address key deficiencies in its observation and

data management systems, implement new ocean observations, and develop a broad spectrum of new

forecast products.

• Sustainable Fisheries—NOAA will work to make progress in preventing overfishing and overcapitalization.

Sustainable Fisheries includes programs that, among a host of other activities, will expand observer

programs, improve fishery information technology, provide targeted improvements in stock assessment,

increase days at sea, increase both scientific and vessel crew staffing, improve fisheries enforcement, and

address specific habitat issues.

• America’s Ocean Future—To implement the 1999 interagency report, “Turning to the Sea: America’s Ocean

Future,” NOAA will continue to focus on necessary actions designed to explore, protect, and restore

America’s vital ocean resources. Highlighting the important role the ocean plays in the daily lives of all

Americans, new measures were introduced to promote new scientific insight into the oceans, sustain use of

fisheries and other marine resources, and provide new opportunities for economic growth.

• Infrastructure—NOAA’s infrastructure has a direct impact on its ability to satisfy the demands of its

mission, and the condition and readiness of this infrastructure have consequential effects on human

welfare, economic well-being, and the advancement of the state of science. NOAA will continue to

revitalize its infrastructure in preparation for the unique challenges of the new millennium. Within its

infrastructure, NOAA proposes investments in people and corporate systems, data collection, and

facilities. 

Management Challenges

In fiscal year (FY) 1999, NOAA received an unqualified audit opinion, no material weaknesses, four reportable

conditions, and seven management comments. In FY 2000, NOAA filed corrective action plans for the reportable

conditions and management comments. An independent public accounting firm will track the corrective

activities contained in these plans.

NOAA’s progress indicates a commitment to preparing high-quality, reliable, and meaningful financial

statements. Remaining fiscal internal controls and the production of recurring financial reports and statements

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 163

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
can only be addressed with the replacement of NOAA’s current financial system. To this end, NOAA is

proceeding with the implementation of the Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS).

In FY 2000 NOAA appointed a chief information officer to oversee the management of NOAA’s planning and

implementation of information technology, provide NOAA-wide information technology services, coordinate

and leverage Line Office information technology, and advise senior management about opportunities for

improving NOAA mission execution through adoption of advanced information technology (IT). 

Therefore, NOAA is (1) developing an enterprise IT architecture, (2) strengthening IT security through enhanced

training and technology, (3) improving service delivery using IT and implementing the Government Paperwork

Elimination Act and Section 508 accessibility standards to make its information resources more readily available

and to reduce the burden on the public while ensuring these resources are accessible to people with disabilities,

and (4) identifying opportunities to increase efficiency by leveraging and consolidating IT resources.

Targets and Performance Summary

See individual Performance Goal section for further description of each measure.

NOAA’s mission is to describe and predict changes in the Earth’s environment and conserve and manage the

Nation’s coastal and marine resources to ensure sustainable economic opportunities. NOAA continues to

develop new technologies, improve operations, and supply the scientific basis for managing natural resources

and solving environmental problems. The FY 2002 request reaffirms NOAA’s role by providing resources to

maintain essential service, facilitate progress in key investment areas of national interest, and address statutory

obligations. This request ensures an appropriate balance among the environmental assessment, prediction, and

stewardship needs of the Nation.

* For FY 2002, the targets will be determined based on FY 2000 actuals available in July 2001. 

164 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

1 Data not available prior to release of this report.

FY 1999

Target

-4%

New

New

New

FY 1999

Actual

-4%

New

New

New

FY 2000

Target

-8%

10%

1%

2%

FY 2000

Actual

-7%

10%

N/A1

N/A1

FY 2001

Target

1%

40%

2%

4%

FY 2002

Target

6%

40%

TBD*

7%

Measure

Fewer overfished fisheries

(25% by 2005)

Stocks having sufficient

essential fish habitat 

(60% by 2005)

Increase in employment in

non-capture fishing and other

sectors in fishing communities

(9% by 2005)

Increase in economic

contribution of sustainable

aquaculture to Gross

Domestic Product 

Performance Goal 1: Build Sustainable Fisheries 
** The target for FY 2002 is currently under review pending the recalibration of this performance measure.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 165

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

FY 1999

Target

43,000

1

5%

FY 1999

Actual

43,000

0

5%

FY 2000

Target

55,000

1

14%

FY 2000

Actual

45,000

1

6%

FY 2001

Target

70,000

2

6%

FY 2002

Target

TBD**

2

TBD**

Measure

Number of acres of coastal

habitat restored (cumulative)

Number of U.S. coastal

regions with reduced

introductions and impacts 

on non-indigenous species

(total of 6 regions)

Percent of U.S. shoreline and

inland areas with improved

ability to identify extent and

severity of coastal hazards

Performance Goal 2: Sustain Healthy Coasts 

FY 1999

Target

New

New

New

FY 1999

Actual

New

New

New

FY 2000

Target

New

New

New

FY 2000

Actual

New

New

New

FY 2001

Target

2

2

3

FY 2002

Target

2

6

6

Measure

Reduce the probability of

extinction of 5 out of 23

threatened species

Mortality of strategic marine

mammal stocks incidental to

commercials fishing

operations in 6 fisheries will

be at insignificant levels

Reduce the probability of

extinction of 8 endangered

species (cumulative)

Performance Goal 3: Recover Protected Species 
166 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

2 No hurricanes made landfall in the U.S during the 2000 season.

FY 1999

Target

Lead time –

11 min

Accuracy –

70%

FAR – 72%

Lead time –

54 min

Accuracy –

85%

New

New

New

New

New

FY 1999

Actual

Lead time –

12 min

Accuracy –

70%

FAR – 72%

Lead time –

41 min

Accuracy –

83%

19 hours

New

Lead Time

11 hours

Accuracy –

85%

Accuracy –

19%

FAR – 52%

50%

FY 2000

Target

Lead time –

12 min

Accuracy –

70%

FAR – 65%

Lead time –

55 min

Accuracy –

86%

20 hours

20%

Lead Time

12 hours

Accuracy –

85%

Accuracy –

20%

FAR – 50%

51%

FY 2000

Actual

Lead time –

10 min

Accuracy –

63%

FAR – 76%

Lead time –

43 min

Accuracy –

86%

N/A2

16%

Lead Time

9 hours

Accuracy –

85%

Accuracy –

15%

FAR – 53%

50%

FY 2001

Target

Lead time –

13 min

Accuracy –

68%

FAR – 73%

Lead time –

45 min

Accuracy –

86%

21 hours

22%

Lead Time

13 hours

Accuracy –

86%

Accuracy –

21%

FAR – 51%

53%

FY 2002

Target

Lead time –

13 min

Accuracy –

70%

FAR – 70%

Lead time –

48 min

Accuracy –

86%

22 hours

24%

Lead Time

14 hours

Accuracy –

87%

Accuracy –

23%

FAR – 47%

55%

Measure

Increase lead time (minutes),

accuracy (%), and decrease

false alarm rate (FAR) (%) 

for severe weather warnings

for Tornadoes

Increase lead time (minutes)

and accuracy (%), for severe

weather warnings for 

Flash Floods

Increase lead time (hours) 

of warnings for Hurricanes

Increase accuracy (%) of 3-day

forecast of precipitation

Increase lead time (minutes)

and accuracy (%), 

for warnings for 

Winter Storms

Increase accuracy (%), and

decrease false alarm rate

(FAR) (%) of forecasts of

ceiling and visibility 

(Aviation Forecasts)

Increase accuracy (%) of

forecast for winds and waves

(Marine Forecasts)

Performance Goal 4: Advance Short-term Warnings and Forecasts 

FY 1999

Target

.85

20

New

New

FY 1999

Actual

.85

23.3

New

New

FY 2000

Target

.85

20

New

New

FY 2000

Actual

.84

25

New

New

FY 2001

Target

.85

20

4

120

FY 2002

Target

.85

26

4

150

Measure

ENSO (El Ni ́no/Southern

Oscillation) Forecasts –

Accuracy (correlation)

U.S. temperature – skill score

Number of new monitoring or

forecast products that become

operational / year

New climate observations

introduced

Performance Goal 5: Implement Seasonal to Interannual Climate Forecasts 
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 167

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

FY 1999

Target

20.7

59

FY 1999

Actual

20.7

59

FY 2000

Target

24.3

64

FY 2000

Actual

24.3

71

FY 2001

Target

27.8

74.8

FY 2002

Target

31.3

78

Measure

Percent reduction in the

backlog (square nautical

miles) of hydrographic

surveys for critical areas

(cumulative)

Cumulative percentage of

National Spatial Reference

System (NSRS) complete to

provide a common geographic

framework tied to the Global

Position System

Performance Goal 7: Promote Safe Navigation 

3 Data collected and measured only every three years.

4 Whether or not a report is issued in 2002 depends on the significance of the detected trends. 

5 Data collected and measured only every two years.

6 Data collected and measured only every five years.

FY 1999

Target

1

1

1

N/A6

FY 1999

Actual

1

1

1

N/A6

FY 2000

Target

N/A3

N/A5

N/A6

N/A6

FY 2000

Actual

N/A3

N/A5

N/A6

N/A6

FY 2001

Target

N/A3

1

N/A6

90% cited

FY 2002

Target

TBD4

N/A5

N/A6

N/A6

Measure

Document the “turnover” of

CFC source gases in order to

verify the effectiveness of

global policy actions

Publish updated trend results

of air quality measurements

Lead development of a peerreviewed initial assessment of

regional ozone in North

America, including summarizing

results for customers

Results of 90% of the research

activities cited in the 2001

IPCC Third Assessment of

Climate Change

Performance Goal 6: Predict and Assess Decadel to Centennial Change 
Resource Requirements Summary

(Dollars in Millions. Funding amounts reflect total obligations.)

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)

* IT Funding included in Total Funding.

** Reimbursable Funding is not included in Total Funding.

168 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

FY 1999

Target

421.6

24.5

2330

262.7

N/A

890

80.7

24.5

575

1,276.4

160.9

6351

99.5

20.4

549

110.6

9.6

485

146.9

3.9

878

2,398.4

256.0

243.8

12,058

FY 1999

Actual

418.5

18.8

2371

309.5

3.9

944

268.3

9.9

721

1,301.2

261.2

6153

110.5

31.2

562

101.9

17.1

485

99.2

20.9

878

2,609.1

204.0

363.0

12,114

FY 2000

Actual

369.6

13.5

2205

280.9

2.1

509

102.8

7.2

519

1,358.6

290.3

5812

113.0

22.8

350

96.7

22.1

127

111.8

9.7

807

2,433.4

290.6

367.7

10,329

FY 2000 

Request

434.6

19.5

2479

495.4

7.7

912

303.4

10.3

712

1,383.4

310.8

6178

130.0

19.0

563

93.2

22.2

508

109.8

25.6

868

2,949.8

208.0

415.1

12,220

FY 2001

Enacted

626.5

15.2

2180

661.7

9.8

745

323.8

8.1

778

1,461.0

334.1

5440

140.2

25.7

465

109.2

28.2

195

130.8

13.4

577

3,453.2

294.0

434.5

10,380

FY 2002

Estimate

597.6

25.3

2272

364.5

12.4

884

291.4

11.4

617

1,581.0

334.3

5455

111.1

21.4

501

94.7

33.5

420

142.9

14.0

782

3,183.2

212.0

452.3

10,931

Performance Goal

Performance Goal 1

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE

Performance Goal 2

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE

Performance Goal 3

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE

Performance Goal 4

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE

Performance Goal 5

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE

Performance Goal 6

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE

Performance Goal 7

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE

Grand Total

Total Funding

Reimbursable**

IT Funding*

FTE
Skill Summary 

Marine ecologists, environmental educators, land use planners, toxicologists, economists (Goal 2); hydrologists,

electronic technicians, hydrometeorological technicians (Goal 4); atmospheric scientists, computer specialists

(Goal 5); instrumentation engineers, instrumentation technicians, physicists, mathematicians, electronic

engineers (Goal 6); cartographers, photogrammetrists, geodesists, hydrographers (Goal 7); fishery biologists

(Goals 1-3); fishery economists (Goals 1 and 3); oceanographers (Goals 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7); engineers (Goals 2, 4,

and 7); chemists (Goals 2 and 6); meteorologists (Goals 4-7); physical scientists (Goals 5 and 7); computer

scientists (Goals 6 and 7).

IT Requirements

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Fishing Information Technology System (Goal 1). 

• Sustaining Healthy Coasts (SHC) does not rely on any one IT system (Goal 2). 

• NMFS Fishing Information Technology System (Goal 3).

• Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS), Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) 

System, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) Ground System, Automated Surface

Observing System (ASOS) (Goal 4). 

• Satellite Active Archive, NOAA Virtual Data System, National Environmental Data Archive and Access

System, Climate Prediction Centers Climate Computer (Goal 5). 

• Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Goal 6). 

• Nautical Charting and Hydrographic Surveying System, Physical Oceanographic Real-Time Systems

(PORTS), and Data Processing and Analysis Subsystem (DPAS) for National Water Level Observation

Network, Geodetic Support System (Goal 7).

Comments: The differences between the FY 1999 IT dollars and the FY 2000, FY 2001, and FY 2002 amounts is a

result of several factors: (1) In previous years, the amounts accounted for major projects only. We have

expanded the definition of IT dollars to include all projects identified in Exhibit 53, NOAA’s President’s Budget

FY 1999. (2) The FY 1999 amount for Performance Goal 3, Recover Protected Species, was in error. This amount

was inadvertently duplicated from Performance Goal 1, Build Sustainable Fisheries. The appropriate response

should have been N/A. (3) The apparent decrease in dollars for Performance Goal 1, Build Sustainable Fisheries,

is actually a realignment of the stewardship portfolio.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 169

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
FY 2002 Performance Goals

Performance Goal 1: 

Build Sustainable Fisheries

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 3: Observe and Manage the Earth’s Environment to Promote Sustainable Growth

Objective 3.1: Enhance Conservation of the Natural Environment

Rationale for Performance Goal 

Billions of dollars in economic growth, thousands of jobs, and countless recreational fishing opportunities are

wasted as a result of overfishing and overcapitalization in commercial and recreational fisheries. While many

fisheries are well managed and produce positive benefits, others are severely depleted or overcapitalized and

must be restored and managed to realize their long-term potential. Rebuilding and reducing overcapitalization

in existing fisheries will promote the economic and biological sustainability of U.S. fishing resources. Building

sustainable fisheries will increase greatly the Nation’s wealth and quality of life.

Measure 1a: Fewer overfished fisheries (currently, 86 of 279 stocks are overfished; by 2005,

25 percent, or 22, of these 86 stocks will no longer be overfished)

170 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Report to Congress: Status of Fisheries of the United States.

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NOAA/NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries 

Verification: Stock assessments and peer-reviews (internal and

outside the agency)

Data Limitations: None

Target -4% -8% 1% 6%

Actual -4% -7%

Met / Not Met Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Explanation of Measure

Target met.

The Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), reauthorized in 1996, requires that overfishing be

eliminated in 10 years. A period of 2 years has been provided to amend the Fisheries Management Plans

pertaining to overfished stocks to reflect the new law. To eliminate overfishing and allow fishing at sustainable

levels, NOAA must gather considerable information about the stock size and age structure and the physical and

biological processes that control the ecosystem dynamics. These data are used to determine the size of the stock

and, conversely, how many fish can be caught.

The SFA requires NOAA to report to Congress and identify those fisheries that are overfished or approaching a

condition of being overfished. In accordance with the requirements of the SFA, the basis for the identification of

overfished stocks is the current overfishing definition found in the Fishery Management Plans. These definitions

have changed over the past several years. For this performance measure, the number of fisheries stocks

categorized as overfished has increased from 86 in 1997 to 92 in 2000, representing a minus 7 percent change.

However, this increase was primarily the result of technical changes in the definitions of overfishing rather than

a sudden decline in the biomass of the stocks declared as overfished. It should also be noted that because of

changes in the definitions additional fishery stocks previously not categorized as overfished may be identified as

such and will be addressed accordingly. Of the original 86 overfished fisheries identified in NOAA’s 1997

Fisheries Report to Congress, however, 13 have been removed from the overfished category and 73 remain.

NOAA had anticipated that there would be an overall negative percentage change (hence, the -8 percent target)

due to the change in definition and the identification of new stocks. 

NOAA is providing some financial assistance, such as a disaster relief program, to alleviate some of the

hardships confronting fishermen during the course of rebuilding fisheries stocks.

Measure 1b: Stocks having sufficient essential fish habitat (60 percent* by 2005) 

* For this measure, the goal is to have sufficient essential fish habitat for 60% of the fisheries stocks by 2005.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 171

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Regional offices of NOAA/ National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: Regional offices of NOAA/NMFS

Verification: Inter-agency and internal peer-review.

Data Limitations: None

Target New 10% 40% 40%

Actual New 10%

Met / Not Met New Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Explanation of Measure

Target met.

This performance measure calibrates progress with the essential fish habitat provisions of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Habitat is crucial for fisheries recruitment and the

maintenance of healthy “fishable” stocks. The measure above focuses on the percentage of stocks that have

adequate habitat.

The reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act requires NOAA fisheries to identify,

protect, and restore fish habitats. Regulations have been promulgated to define “essential fish habitat,” and

Regional Fisheries Management Councils, as key stakeholders, have participated extensively in this regulatory

process. However, external factors, including the impact of biological and other natural conditions, may affect

NOAA’s ability to reach this target. In addition, the outyear measures are very much dependent on a stable

funding profile, particularly for determining a scientific baseline from which to measure progress toward annual

targets and goals. 

Measure 1c: Increase in employment in noncapture fishing and other sectors in fishing

communities (9 percent by 2005)

* For FY 2000, the results will not be available until relevant economic and labor data are released.

** For FY 2002, the targets will be determined based on FY 2000 actuals available in July 2001.

Explanation of Measure

The rebuilding of overfished stocks required under the Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 will

result in lower harvest levels and, therefore, fewer fishing vessels and fishing-related jobs and a potential for

overall reduction in economic activity in many coastal communities. The measure above will account for our

activities to shift employment from traditional fishing to aquaculture (noncapture fishing) and to other

vocations, especially marine vocations that will help minimize community change. NOAA is working with other

Federal, State, and local agencies to address these effects on fishing communities through a variety of programs,

172 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)/Bureau of

Economic Analysis (BEA) & National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: DOC/BEA & NMFS

Verification: BEA and/or NMFS have been consulted and may

provide the information and verification.

Data Limitations: BEA statistical data is by county, not by fishing

community

Target New 1% 2% TBD**

Actual New N/A*

Met / Not Met New N/A*

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
including loans, retraining, vessel and permit buyouts, and community planning. While NOAA alone does not

cover the total costs of such programs, it acts as a catalyst in working with other DOC agencies such as the

Economic Development Administration and other Federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Labor and

the Small Business Administration to coordinate community assistance to address the economic and social

effects of reduced fishing levels.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has approached the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to provide

the information, starting with 1999 figures. NMFS has begun discussions with BEA to evaluate the utility of

their data as a metric for this performance measure. NMFS will define “fishing communities” and work with

BEA data and other data to provide a baseline and a measurement methodology.

Measure 1d: Increase in economic contribution of sustainable aquaculture to gross

domestic product (17 percent by 2005)

* The FY 2000 results will not be available until FY 2002 because of reporting and data analysis. However,

research results from preliminary investment are encouraging for new technologies in offshore and recirculating

systems, which will form the base for future industry development.

Explanation of Measure

Marine aquaculture can play an important role in producing fish for food, thereby reducing our dependence on

wild stocks, and can offer new business and employment opportunities in coastal communities affected by

reduced fishing activity. In addition to food production, aquaculture can also be used to enhance wild stock

populations, assist in recovery plans for protected species, and produce nonfood products such as ornamental

fish, baitfish, and drugs and pharmaceuticals. This measure specifically addresses economic benefits of

increased aquaculture production to the Nation. Production that does not have or interfere with wild stocks or

cause environmental damage.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 173

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),

DOC/Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) 

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: BEA, NMFS, USDA

Verification: Discussions with BEA have been initiated, and a

satellite account to provide aquaculture economic information

may be established.

Data Limitations: NMFS data is reported about 18 months after

the end of a calendar year. The first USDA aquaculture census

occurred in 1998, and will be repeated only every third year.

Target New 2% 4% 7%

Actual New N/A*

Met / Not Met New N/A*

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) will serve as a satellite account. Aquaculture is total U.S. aquaculture

production, less catfish and trout. NOAA will work with BEA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to define measurement methodologies.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for NOAA Performance Goal 1: Build Sustainable Fisheries

Virtually every aspect of National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) fisheries science program is peer reviewed,

either internally within NMFS or outside the agency by, for example, the National Academy of Sciences or the

National Science Foundation. NMFS also relies on extensive informal networks of university partnerships and

laboratories throughout the Nation. Moreover, reviews often occur by opposing parties’ scientists in the court

system when fisheries management decisions are litigated.

Discontinued Measures

None.

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 1

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

NOAA will focus on reducing overfishing and overcapitalization of U.S. fishery resources by improving stock

assessment and prediction, improving essential fisheries habitat, and reducing fishing pressure, including

downsizing of fishing fleets. DOC, enlisting the support of key bureaus such as EDA, MBDA, and the

National Institute of Standards and Technology, will play a key role in mitigating the impact of these critical

resource conservation decisions in the transition to economically sustainable communities. 

174 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Strategies

As evidenced by the Sustainable Fisheries Act amendments, there is a

strong consensus among lawmakers, fishery managers, the fishing

industry, and the public that depleted fishery resources must be

restored and that healthy fisheries must be maintained and managed

for greater efficiency.

The rebuilding of overfished fisheries required under the MagnusonStevenson Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 will result in lower

harvest levels and, therefore, fewer fishing vessels and fishing-related

jobs, and potentially an overall reduction in economic activity in

many coastal communities. To minimize economic impact of fisheries

management decisions on communities, NOAA is working with other

Federal, State, and local agencies to address these effects on fishing

communities through a variety of programs, including loans,

retraining, vessel and permit buyouts, and community planning.

Sound marine aquaculture will enhance the Nation’s ability to meet

the growing domestic and global demand for seafood, as a growing

number of wild stocks are overfished or fully utilized.

Activities

Eliminate and prevent overfishing

and overcapitalization.

Attain economic sustainability in

fishing communities.

Develop environmentally and

economically sound marine

aquaculture.
Other Government Agencies

DOC will also enlist the support of other Federal agencies, such as USDA, the Small Business Administration,

and the U.S. Department of Labor in mitigating the effect of resource conservation decisions in the transition

to economically sustainable communities.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

There are external factors that may affect NOAA’s ability to reach the targets mentioned in this report. These

factors include the impact of climate and other natural conditions, such as El Niño, on biological stocks. In

addition, the effect of national and/or local economic conditions may affect NOAA’s ability to reach certain

targets.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 175

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Performance Goal 2: 

Sustain Healthy Coasts

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Strategic Goal 3: Observe and Manage the Earth’s Environment to Promote Sustainable Growth

Objective 3.1: Enhance Conservation of the Natural Environment

Rationale for Performance Goal 

NOAA has three primary objectives to sustain healthy coastal ecosystems and the communities and economies

that depend on them: (1) protect, conserve, and restore coastal habitats and their biodiversity; (2) promote clean

coastal waters; and (3) foster well-planned and revitalized coastal communities. To meet these objectives, NOAA

integrates a broad range of research, assessment, and management activities from four of NOAA’s five line

offices (National Ocean Service (NOS), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service(NESDIS)).

NOAA works with many governmental and nongovernmental partners at local, State, national, and

international levels to address the critical challenges facing coastal areas. NOAA measures its performance in

meeting these objectives by tracking key outcomes, such as the acres of coastal habitat restored, changes in

coastal water quality, number of coastal States with effective nonpoint pollution control programs, and the

percentage of U.S. shoreline, with improved ability to identify and mitigate the impacts of natural hazards.

Measure 2a: Number of acres of coastal habitat restored (cumulative)

* The target for FY 2002 is currently under review pending the recalibration of this performance measure.

176 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Primary source is National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS), Office of Habitat Conservation. Other input from

National Ocean Service. 

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NMFS/Habitat Office will collect information,

conduct assessments, and store data.

Verification: NMFS/Habitat Office will collect quality-controlled

data to ensure criteria are being met by data used to calculate

performance.

Data Limitations: None

Target 43,000 55,000 70,000 TBD*

Actual 43,000 45,000

Met / Not Met Met Not Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Explanation of Measure

Target not met. This target was based on the number of projects anticipated for approval under the Coastal

Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) project selection system in place in FY 1999.

Prior to FY 2000, CWPPRA projects were approved by an interagency review board before detailed engineering

design studies or formalized agreements with affected private landowners. As a result, acreage for approved

projects was higher than actual acres restored as projects were delayed or dropped as not feasible from

engineering or private landowner perspectives. In FY 2000 the project selection protocol was changed to require

engineering design studies before project approval, thereby reducing the total acreage approved but increasing

the likelihood that the number reported reflects actual coastal habitat restoration, creation, or protection. NMFS

is currently working with the Sustain Healthy Coast (SHC) team to recalibrate this performance measure,

establish a new baseline for its actions benefiting coastal habitats, and include acres restored from all relevant

programs. NOAA expects that the revised targets will be reflected in the FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan

This measure shows the cumulative number of acres of coastal wetlands restored through NOAA’s NMFS,

Office of Habitat Conservation. The measure represents the outcome of many different restoration projects, most

of which are implemented by NOAA in partnership with other Federal agencies, State agencies, and local

groups. NMFS, with NOS, will continue to initiate and implement restoration projects for critical coastal habitats

such as wetlands and coral reefs.

Measure 2b: Number of U.S. coastal regions with reduced introductions and impacts on

nonindigenous species (total of six regions within the U.S.)

Explanation of Measure

Target met.

Invasive nuisance species have become a major threat to global biodiversity, second only to habitat degradation

and loss. The Nation’s coastal habitats and aquatic resources are being both directly and indirectly affected by

nonindigenous species silently entering our waters through a variety of pathways, including ballast water

discharge, live bait, and aquaculture. Many of these invaders displace native species, disrupting the ecological

integrity of their ecosystems and threatening the economic and recreational value of these coastal resources. A

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 177

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

(OAR), U.S. Department of the Interior, and State agencies.

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: OAR will collect data, conduct assessments, and store data

Verification: Original research data verified through peer review;

OAR will obtain quality-controlled data from other sources to ensure

criteria are being met for inclusion in performance calculations.

Data Limitations: Reaching these targets will also depend on

activities of other Federal and State agencies with management

responsibilities in this area.

Target 1 1 2 2

Actual 0 1

Met / Not Met Not Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
recent Cornell University assessment estimated that the annual cost of all invasive species to the U.S. economy

exceeds $130 billion, which is more than twice the annual cost of damage caused by all natural disasters. This

measure considers both components that result in a “reduction” in the number of introductions: (1) a decrease in

the number of new nonindigenous species that become established in U.S. coastal regions from other countries,

when compared to some base period, and (2) a decrease in the spread of new nonindigenous species out of the

region where they originally became established. OAR will implement a program to monitor national marine

sanctuaries for invasive species, develop rapid-response strategy to prevent and control invasives in national

marine sanctuaries and other areas, and continue support of ballast water demonstration projects. 

Measure 2c: Percentage of U.S. shoreline and inland areas with improved ability to

identify extent and severity of coastal hazards

* The target for FY 2002 is currently under review pending the recalibration of this performance measure.

Explanation of Measure

Target not met. Subsequent analysis of this measure revealed a need for a reevaluation of the algorithms used in

target planning and for the calculation of actual results, as well as an adjustment in the way milestones are

linked to measures of performance in the future. In the FY 2000 annual planning process, two milestones were

connected to this measure. The existing algorithm was used successfully to calculate “percent of shoreline” for

one of these milestones, resulting in a 1 percent increase. However, the second milestone is actually an amalgam

of many smaller and relatively disparate projects. Though each of these projects, and the milestone, were

completed, problems with the algorithm and an oversight in planning have made it impossible to actually

calculate and measure in any meaningful way the contribution of this milestone to the performance goal by the

publication date of this report. Efforts are under way to correct the problem in FY 2001.

This measure tracks improvements in our ability to identify the risks of natural hazards in U.S. coastal regions.

Activities are under way to develop coastal risk atlases that evaluate the risk, extent, and severity of natural

hazards in coastal areas. These risk atlases will help coastal communities more effectively make land use

decisions before and after severe events such as storms or floods to reduce risks to life and property. Currently,

178 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NOS, other Federal and State agencies.

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NOS will collect information, conduct assessments,

and store data.

Verification: All data used in coastal hazard risk assessments are

quality controlled; risk assessment models are tested for accuracy

and coverage (amount of shoreline covered).

Data Limitations: This measure tracks development and

implementation of “coastal hazard risk atlases” as an indicator of

improved ability to identify the extent and severity of coastal

hazards. Reaching these targets will depend on activities of other

Federal and State agencies with management responsibilities in

this area.

Target 5% 14% 6% TBD*

Actual 5% 6%

Met / Not Met Met Not Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
many coastal communities make major decisions on land use, infrastructure development, and hazard responses

without adequate information on the risks and possible extent of natural hazards in their area. NOS, with other

Federal and State agencies, will evaluate risk of natural hazards for specific U.S. coastal regions; develop coastal

risk atlases to identify the extent and severity of coastal hazards for coastal regions.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for NOAA Performance Goal 2: Sustain Healthy Coasts

NOAA’s goal to sustain healthy coasts is the product of more than 25 years of experience helping to understand

and manage coastal resources so that their ecological and economic productivity can be fully realized and

sustained. Evaluation efforts exist at a variety of levels, from peer reviews of proposals and evaluations of

individual projects, to internal and external reviews of entire programs and quarterly reviews of NOAA’s

overall performance in coastal stewardship areas. Constituent input is an important part of the evaluation

process and is solicited regularly through constituent workshops.

Discontinued Measures

Percentage of U.S. coastline with threats to habitat assessed and ranked

Explanation:

While still collecting this information internally, the Sustain Healthy Coasts (SHC) team has discontinued

reporting on this measure in the Annual Performance Plan to reduce the number of measures that SHC reports

in this plan. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 179

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Target 4% 5% Discontinued Discontinued

Actual 4% 8%

Met / Not Met Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Primary source is NMFS, Office of Habitat Conservation. Other input from National Ocean Service. 

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NMFS/Habitat Office will collect information, conduct assessments, and store data.

Verification: NMFS/Habitat Office will collect quality control data to ensure criteria are being met by data used to calculate

performance. 

Data Limitations: None
Percentage of State coastal nonpoint pollution control programs approved (percentage of

35 coastal States)

Explanation: 

While still collecting this information internally, the SHC team has discontinued reporting on this measure in

the Annual Performance Plan to reduce the number of measures that SHC reports in this plan.

Number of U.S. coastal regions with systems to predict and reduce impacts of harmful

algal blooms (total of six)

Explanation: 

While still collecting this information internally, the SHC team has discontinued reporting on this measure in

the Annual Performance Plan to reduce the number of measures that SHC reports in this plan. 

180 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NMFS, Office of Habitat Conservation. 

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NMFS/Habitat Office will collect information, conduct assessments, and store data.

Verification: NMFS/Habitat Office will collect quality control data to ensure criteria are being met by data used to calculate

performance. 

Data Limitations: None

Target 1 Discontinued Discontinued Discontinued

Actual 1 Discontinued

Met / Not Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NOS, other Federal and State agencies. 

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NOS will collect information, conduct assessments, and store data.

Verification: Verification includes peer-review of research and testing of models used in the prediction systems. 

Data Limitations: None

Target 83% 86% Discontinued Discontinued

Actual 83% 83%

Met / Not Met Met Not Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 2

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Other Government Agencies

NOAA has leveraged its resources through a variety of effective international, interagency, State, local,

private-sector, and other partnerships to develop world-class coastal stewardship capabilities. These

partnerships are essential to effectively integrate coastal science, assessment, monitoring, education, and

management activities. 

In FY 2002, for example, the Sustain Healthy Coast (SHC) team will work with other Federal agencies, States,

and academic partners to initiate new research necessary to sustainably manage the Nation’s coastal

ecosystems. This research will provide managers and decision-makers with information, solutions, and

technologies as part of interagency initiatives developed by the National Science and Technology Council’s

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. 

NOAA provides technical and scientific assistance to a variety of partners involved in protection, monitoring,

and restoration of coastal resources. For example, NOAA provides critical information to the U.S. Coast

Guard to help the Coast Guard respond to approximately 70 serious oil and chemical spills every year.

NOAA is also working closely with other agencies, DOC bureaus, States, local governments, and industry on

important cross-cutting activities such as reducing the risks and impacts of natural hazards, protecting and

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 181

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Strategies

Coastal habitats produce many of the Nation’s commercial and

recreational fisheries. They also are the foundation for most coastal

tourism and recreation industries that contribute more than $58

billion annually to the U.S. economy. Protecting and restoring

coastal habitats and their biodiversity is an investment in the longterm sustainability of the Nation’s coastal resources and the

communities and economies that depend on them.

Clean water is essential for productive coastal ecosystems and

sustainable coastal communities. Contaminated coastal waters

threaten living resources, human health, and economic stability.

The primary source of coastal water pollution is runoff from urban

and agricultural areas that washes nutrients and other

contaminants into coastal waters.

The U.S. economy is increasingly dependent on coastal resources.

One in every six jobs is marine related and one-third of the Nation’s

gross domestic product is produced in coastal areas through

tourism, recreation, trade, and other industries. These industries

depend on healthy coastal resources to survive. Effective planning

and revitalization of coastal communities is essential to sustainable

management of both natural areas and the coastal communities that

depend on them.

Activities

Protect, conserve, and restore

coastal habitats and their

biodiversity.

Promote clean coastal waters to

sustain living marine resources and

ensure safe recreation, healthy

seafood, and economic vitality.

Foster well-planned and revitalized

coastal communities that sustain

coastal economies, are compatible

with the natural environment,

minimize the risks from nature’s

hazards, and provide access to

coastal resources for public use 

and enjoyment.
restoring essential fish habitats, reducing runoff pollution, forecasting and preventing harmful algal blooms,

and exploring the deep ocean and new uses of the ocean’s rich biodiversity.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

Changes in climate, biological, and other natural conditions may affect some of NOAA’s activities to sustain

healthy coasts. In addition, many of these coastal stewardship activities depend on contributions from multiple

partners, particularly States, territories, and other Federal agencies. The failure of one or more of these partners

to fulfill their cooperative contributions could have very serious consequences on the overall effort to sustain

healthy coasts. 

182 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Performance Goal 3:

Recover Protected Species

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 3: Observe and Manage the Earth’s Environment to Promote Sustainable Growth

Objective 3.1: Enhance Conservation of the Natural Environment

Rationale for Performance Goal 

NOAA’s overall objectives for recovering protected species are to prevent the extinction of protected species and

to maintain the status of healthy species. NOAA measures its performance in meeting these objectives by

focusing on the agency’s ability to manage protected species through conservation programs and recovery

plans, and through constant monitoring and research regarding the status of species and the stresses that affect

their mortality.

The quantitative measures (3a–3c) of the probability of extinction for protected species were developed in FY

1999 and FY 2000 to establish the baseline from which program performance (reduction in the probability of

extinction) is to be measured. These new performance measures have been developed to quantify outcomeoriented performance to replace these output measures. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recognizes

the need for objective procedures to determine the status of protected species based on population analyses that

take into account species biology and threats to existence that are the result of both human and natural causes.

The Recover Protected Species (RPS) FY 2002 proposal is based in part on measuring our ability to reduce the

probability of extinction for at-risk species. RPS performance will be measured by the results of attempts such as

reducing incidental and direct takes, increasing species habitat, decreasing negative interactions, and mitigating

natural phenomena to reduce the risk of extinction for protected species from detrimental human activities.

Measure 3a: Reduce the probability of extinction of five threatened species/Evolutionary

Significant Units (ESUs)* (annual) out of 23 threatened species (by 2005)

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 183

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NMFS

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NMFS/Office of Protected Resources

Verification: Audits. Internal peer review within NOAA and

external peer-review by regional fishery councils, the

National Science Foundation, the National Academy of

Science, and other organizations.

Data Limitations: None
* For purposes of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a “species” is defined to include “any distinct population

segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” Federal agencies charged

with carrying out the provisions of the ESA have struggled for more than a decade to develop a consistent

approach for interpreting the term “distinct population segment.” A population (or group of populations) will

be considered distinct (and hence a species) for purposes of the ESA if it represents an evolutionary significant

unit (ESU) of the biological species. A population must satisfy two criteria to be considered an ESU: (1) it must

be reproductively isolated from other nonspecific population units and (2) it must represent an important

component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. 

Isolation does not have to be absolute, but it must be strong enough to permit evolutionary important

differences to accrue in different population units. The second criterion would be met if the population

contributed substantially to the ecological/genetic diversity of the species as a whole.

Explanation of Measure

Five of the 23 threatened species/ESUs have been identified to be the most critical threatened species in danger

of progressing to endangered species listings. These include the North Atlantic loggerhead turtle, Johnson’s

seagrass, and three species of Pacific salmonids. Pacific salmonids are classified as ESUs. If actions are not taken

to reduce or eliminate the threats to their continued existence, these species may become extinct within the next

5-20 years depending on their current status, the magnitude of the threats, and fluctuations in natural

conditions, such as climate and ocean regime shifts. Reducing the probability of extinction requires a reduction

in human activities detrimental to the survival of protected species, that is, reducing incidental and direct takes,

increasing species habitat, decreasing negative interactions, and mitigating natural phenomena. Performance

will be measured by the results of attempts to reduce the probability of extinction for protected species from

detrimental human activities such as reducing incidental and direct takes, increasing species habitat, and

mitigating natural phenomena. 

Measure 3b: Mortality of strategic marine mammal stocks incidental to commercial fishing

operations in six fisheries will be at insignificant levels (cumulative) (by 2006)

184 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Target New New 2 2

Actual New New

Met / Not Met New New

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NMFS

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NMFS, Office of Protected Resources

Verification: Audits. Internal peer review within NOAA and

external peer-review by regional fishery councils, the

National Science Foundation, the National Academy of

Science, and other organizations.

Data Limitations: None
Explanation of Measure

One of the most significant impacts on marine mammal stocks is death from entanglement and drowning in

fishing gear. Certain marine mammal species are particularly vulnerable to interactions with fisheries because of

location and type of fishing gear used. The six fisheries and marine mammal stocks targeted in this measure

include the Harbor porpoise in New England multispecies and Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries; Pilot whales,

beaked whales, sperm whales and humpback whales in the California/Oregon thresher shark and swordfish

drift gillnet fisheries; Pilot whales in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery; North Atlantic right, humpback, fin,

and minke whales in New England multispecies and Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries, Gulf of Maine and MidAtlantic lobster fisheries, and the southeastern Atlantic shark gillnet fishery. New fishing technologies to reduce

gear impacts need to be developed, and strategies to reduce interactions between fishing gear and marine

mammals need to be devised. Education is also needed on ways fishermen can avoid marine mammals while

still allowing them to catch fish.

A successful program to reduce mortality of marine mammal stocks will require research on marine mammal

behavior, assessment of marine mammal populations, reduction of interactions in problem fisheries, and

monitoring/analysis via the observer program.

Measure 3c: Reduce the probability of extinction of eight endangered species/ESUs

(cumulative) (by 2006)

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 185

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Target New New 2 6

Actual New New

Met / Not Met New New

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NMFS

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NMFS, Office of Protected Resources

Verification: Audits. Internal peer-review within NOAA and

external peer-review by regional fishery councils, the

National Science Foundation, the National Academy of

Science, and other organizations.

Data Limitations: None

Target New New 3 6

Actual New New

Met / Not Met New New

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Explanation of Measure

Eight species on a list of 33 endangered species have been identified as the most critically in danger of

extinction. These eight species include the Pacific leatherback turtle, Hawaiian monk seal, North Atlantic right

whale, Western Stellar sea lion, and four species of Pacific salmonids. Efforts to prevent extinction will focus on

identifying the factors contributing to extinction and developing and implementing recovery plans to address

these factors. Reducing the probability of extinction requires a reduction in human activities detrimental to the

survival of protected species, that is, reducing incidental and direct takes, increasing species habitat, decreasing

negative interactions, and mitigating natural phenomena.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for NOAA Performance Goal 3: Recover Protected Species

Evaluation efforts include peer reviews of proposals, internal and external reviews of programs, and quarterly

reviews of NOAA’s overall performance in protected species recovery. Constituent input is an important part of

the evaluation process and is solicited regularly through constituent workshops. 

Discontinued Measures

Six measures were discontinued in FY 2001. New performance measures have been developed to quantify

outcome-oriented performance to replace these output measures.

Number of recovery plans developed (cumulative)

186 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Target 25 27 Discontinued Discontinued

Actual 24 27

Met / Not Met Not Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NMFS/Office of Protected Resources

Verification: Audits and regular communication between field and headquarter offices regarding the status of recovery plans. 

Data Limitations: None
Number of recovery plans priority activities implemented (annual)

Number of species with status improved (annual)

Number of investigations of human-induced and other sources of mortality (annual)

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 187

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Target 15 20 Discontinued Discontinued

Actual 15 20

Met / Not Met Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NMFS

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NMFS, Office of Protected Resources

Verification: Audits. Internal peer-review within NOAA and external peer-review by regional fishery councils, the National Science

Foundation, the National Academy of Science, and other organizations.

Data Limitations: None

Target 15 16 Discontinued Discontinued

Actual 15 16

Met / Not Met Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NMFS

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NMFS/Office of Protected Resources

Verification: Audits. Internal peer-review within NOAA and external peer-review by regional fishery councils, the National Science

Foundation, the National Academy of Science, and other organizations.

Data Limitations: None

Target 10 15 Discontinued Discontinued

Actual 10 15

Met / Not Met Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
188 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Cooperative conservation programs implemented (cumulative)

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 3

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Issues

Other Government Agencies

Over the past year, NOAA has developed innovative partnerships with the States of Maine, Washington,

Oregon, and California to promote the recovery of listed and at-risk salmon and steelhead species. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NMFS

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NMFS, Office of Protected Resources

Verification: Audits. Internal peer-review within NOAA and external peer-review by regional fishery councils, the National Science

Foundation, the National Academy of Science, and other organizations.

Data Limitations: None

Target 10 10 Discontinued Discontinued

Actual 10 10

Met / Not Met Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Cooperative Agreements, Memoranda of Understanding and Memoranda of Agreement, between NMFS and other

involved parties submitted to NOAA.

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NMFS/Office of Protected Resources

Verification: Audits and communication with each party involved in a cooperative conservation program organizations.

Data Limitations: None

Strategies

Prevent extinction of protected species.

Maintain the status of healthy species.

Activities

Reduce threats of commercial, recreational, and other

human induced activities that contribute to stress on

marine species and ecosystems, threatening their survival. 

Recover protected species, avoid further decline of other 

at-risk species, improve science to lead to better long-term

conservation and management strategies. 
External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

The impact of climate, biological, and other natural conditions affect NOAA’s efforts to recover protected

species and maintain the status of healthy species. Research may identify opportunities to pursue the mitigating

strategies in some cases.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 189

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Performance Goal 4: 

Advance Short-term Warnings and Forecasts

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal, Objective, and Strategy

Strategic Goal 3: Observe and Manage the Earth’s Environment to Promote Sustainable Growth

Objective 3.2: Improve Understanding and Prediction of the Natural Environment 

Rationale for Performance Goal 

Our environment has profound effects on human welfare and economic well-being. Each year hundreds of lives

and billions of dollars are lost due to severe storms, floods, and other natural hazards that can be predicted

minutes to months in advance. NOAA’s current ability to predict short-term change is restricted by observations

that are incomplete in time and space. This limits the ability to improve basic understanding and predictive

modeling of weather and other natural phenomena. Although we can do nothing to prevent natural

disturbances, we must do everything possible to minimize their human impact. NOAA must improve its

observing systems, develop a better understanding of natural processes, and enhance numerical weather

prediction models and dissemination systems.

Measure 4a: Increase lead time (minutes), accuracy (percent), and decrease false alarm rate

(FAR) (percent) for severe weather warnings for tornadoes

190 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Target

Lead time – 11 min.

Accuracy – 70%

FAR – 72%

Lead time – 12 min.

Accuracy – 70%

FAR – 65%

Lead time – 13 min.

Accuracy – 68%

FAR – 73%

Lead time – 13 min.

Accuracy – 70%

FAR – 70%

Actual

Lead time – 12 min.

Accuracy – 70%

FAR – 72%

Lead time – 10 min.

Accuracy – 63%

FAR – 76%

Met / Not Met Met Not Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NWS Field Offices

Frequency: Monthly

Data storage: National Weather Service Headquarters (NWS Hq), Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services (OS), Silver Spring,

Maryland 

Verification: Verification is the process of comparing the predicted weather to the actual event. The process begins with the collection of

warnings from every NWS office across the Nation. The severe weather event program includes extensive quality control procedures to

ensure the highest reliability of each report. The data in each report are entered into a database that contains severe weather warnings

where the warnings and events are matched and appropriate statistics are calculated and made available to all echelons of the NWS.

Data Limitations: There are limitations of scientific verification in assessing data. The fundamental purpose of scientific verification is to

objectively assess program performance through the use of standard statistical analysis. However, a number of factors unique to the

atmospheric sciences must be considered to ensure proper interpretation of objectively derived statistics. The primary factor to consider is the

natural variation of this performance measure related to annual fluctuations in meteorological conditions associated with severe weather.
Explanation of Measure

FY 2000 targets were not met. The tornado season had few well-organized weather systems, which resulted in

fewer and weaker tornadoes. It is much more difficult to warn under these circumstances; therefore, this

situation affects these measures.

The lead time for a tornado warning is the difference between the time the warning was issued and the time the

tornado affected the area for which the warning was issued. The lead times for all tornado occurrences

throughout the year are averaged to get this statistic. The accuracy of the warnings is the percentage of times a

tornado actually occurred in an area that was already covered by a warning. The false alarm rate is the

percentage of times a tornado warning was issued but no tornado occurrence was verified. The false alarm rate

was added as a reportable measure in FY 2000, although it had been collected and used internally previously.

NOAA will continue data collection and verification, and false alarm rates will be reported in future years.

Forecaster accessibility to these data will be enhanced.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 191

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Measure 4b: Increase lead time (minutes) and accuracy (percent) for severe weather

warnings for flash floods

Explanation of Measure

One target met (accuracy), one target not met (lead time). FY 2000 was a relatively dry year with fewer than

normal well-organized weather systems. Under these conditions, it is much more difficult to warn for events

with significant lead times.

The lead time for a flash flood warning is the difference between the time the warning was issued and the time

the flash flood affected the area for which the warning was issued. The lead times for all flash flood occurrences

throughout the year are averaged to get this statistic. The accuracy of the warnings is measured by the

percentage of times a flash flood actually occurred in an area that was already covered by a warning. NOAA’s

actions include data collection and verification, and new performance measures will be reported in future years.

Forecaster accessibility to these data will be enhanced.

192 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NWS Field Offices

Frequency: Monthly

Data storage: NWS Hq, Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services (OS), Silver Spring, Maryland 

Verification: Verification is the process of comparing the predicted weather to the actual event. The process begins with the collection of

warnings from every NWS office across the Nation. The severe weather event program includes extensive quality control procedures to

ensure the highest reliability of each report. The data in each report are entered into a database that contains severe weather warnings

where the warnings and events are matched and appropriate statistics are calculated and made available to all echelons of the NWS. 

Data Limitations: There are limitations of scientific verification in assessing data. The fundamental purpose of scientific verification is to

objectively assess program performance through the use of standard statistical analysis. However, a number of factors unique to the

atmospheric sciences must be considered to ensure proper interpretation of objectively derived statistics. The primary factor to consider is

the natural variation of this performance measure related to annual fluctuations in meteorological conditions associated with severe weather. 

Target Lead time – 54 min.

Accuracy – 85%

Lead time – 55 min.

Accuracy – 86%

Lead time – 45 min.

Accuracy – 86%

Lead time – 48 min.

Accuracy – 86%

Actual Lead time – 41 min.

Accuracy – 83%

Lead time – 43 min.

Accuracy – 86%

Met / Not Met Not Met

Not Met for 

Lead time

Met for Accuracy

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Measure 4c: Increase lead time (hours) of warnings for hurricanes

* No hurricane made landfall in the United States during the 2000 season; therefore, there is no actual number

for FY 2000.

Explanation of Measure

While FY 2000 was an active hurricane season in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, there were no

landfalling storms during this time.

Hurricanes are one of natures most destructive storms. NOAA must continue to inform coastal communities of

approaching storms to mitigate the impact from these dangerous storms. This performance indicator measures

the advance warning time a community has to prepare for hurricane conditions. A hurricane warning is issued

when hurricane force winds are predicted to affect a portion of the U.S. coastline. Advance warning is critical for

the evacuation of vulnerable areas. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 193

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NWS/Tropical Prediction Center (TPC)

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: TPC, Miami, Florida

Verification: Hurricane storm verification is performed for

hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical depressions and

verification is considered whether over land or water. The TPC

issues warning when hurricane conditions are expected within 24

hours along the coast. The location and timing of these warnings

are based upon a number of factors, including the official TPC track

forecast. The average errors of the TPC track forecast for the

Atlantic basin are calculated at the end of each hurricane season.

Data Limitations: There is large variability in the hurricane

warning program due to sample sizes and types of storms each

year. There may be years with unusually easy or difficult forecasts.

Outyear measures are dependent on a stable funding profile and

take into account improved use of the WSR-88D, new satellites,

improved forecast models, new and continued research activities of

the USWRP, investments in critical observing systems, and

continued support of AWIPS.

Target New 20 hours 21 hours 22 hours 

Actual 19 hours N/A*

Met / Not Met New N/A*

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Measure 4d: Increase accuracy (percent) of 3-day forecast of precipitation

Explanation of Measure

Target was not met. This year is the first time a 3-day QPF has been issued and, as such, is actually a baseline for

this measure. FY 2000 was a relatively dry year, a factor that often lowers the accuracy score.

The accuracy of a forecast of precipitation issued 3 days in advance. NOAA’s actions include data collection and

verification. NWS Field Office Forecaster accessibility to these data will be enhanced.

Measure 4e: Increase lead time (hours) and accuracy (percent) of warnings for winter storms 

194 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Hydrometeorological Prediction Center (HPC)

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: World Weather Building, Camp Springs,

Maryland

Verification: HPC has produced the Quantitative Precipitation

Forecast (QPF) since the early 1960s and has kept verification

statistics related to the QPF program since that time. All data

are examined for accuracy and quality control procedures are

applied.

Data Limitations: The NWS routinely prepares and distributes

to internal and external customers predictions of heavy

rainfall. The HPC has the responsibility to prepare both

graphical and text products depicting the areas threatened by

heavy precipitation in the contiguous United States. There will

be a significant amount of variability and the improvements

may not be achieved exactly as predicted. Outyear measures

are dependent on a stable funding profile and take into

account improved use of the WSR-88D, new satellites,

improved forecast models, new and continued research

activities of the USWRP, investments in critical observing

systems, and continued support of AWIPS.

Target New 20% 22% 24%

Actual New 16%

Met / Not Met New Not Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Explanation of Measure

One target met (accuracy), one target not met (lead time). FY 2000 was a dry year across the country with below

normal snowfall and fewer well-organized systems, making forecasting difficult.

A winter storm warning is issued when 4 or more inches of snow or sleet are expected in the next 12 hours, or 6

or more inches in 24 hours, or 1/4 inch or more of ice accretion is expected. This performance indicator measures

the accuracy and advance warning lead time of these conditions. Improving the accuracy and advance warnings

of winter storms enables the public to take the necessary steps to prepare for disruptive weather conditions. 

Measure 4f: Increase accuracy (percent) and decrease false alarm rate (percent) of forecasts

of ceiling and visibility (aviation forecasts) 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 195

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NWS Field Offices

Frequency: Daily

Data storage: NWS Hq, Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services (OS) Silver Spring, Maryland

Verification: Verification is the process of comparing the predicted weather to the actual event. The process begins with the collection of

forecasts and observations from each NWS office across the Nation. The quality controlled, collated data are transmitted to the National

Centers for Environmental Prediction in Camp Springs, Maryland, where the data are stored as computer files. The data files are

retrieved by the NWS Hq, Office of Science and Technology (OST). Following additional quality control the data are stored on an OST

workstation and used to generate semi-annual statistics on forecast accuracy.

Data Limitations: Documentation for heavy snowfall is printed annually. Due to the relatively few number of cases each year, the

projections assume a 3-year average (current plus 2 previous years equally weighted). Due to the large volume of data gathered and

computed, a document for the above cannot be finalized until well into the following fiscal year. Outyear measures are dependent on a

stable funding profile and take into account improved use of the WSR-88D, new satellites, improved forecast models, new and

continued research activities of the USWRP, investments in critical observing systems, and continued support of AWIPS.

Target New

Lead time –

12 hours

Accuracy – 85%

Lead time – 

13 hours

Accuracy – 86%

Lead time – 

14 hours

Accuracy – 87%

Actual

Lead time – 

11 hours

Accuracy – 85%

Lead time –

9 hours

Accuracy – 85%

Met / Not Met New

Met for accuracy

Not Met for 

lead time

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Explanation of Measure

Target not met. While extremely low visibilities and cloud ceilings are difficult to forecast because of the limited

number of climatological occurrences, these two elements are extremely important to the aviation community.

History has shown that 85 percent of all aviation accidents are weather related. NOAA will continue to put an

emphasis on improving aviation forecasts. 

In accordance with the NWS Strategic Plan, this measure was added in FY 2000 to reflect a segment of

customers that had not been represented in other performance measures. Visibility and cloud ceiling forecasts

are critical for the safety of aircraft operations. NOAA actions to be taken include data collection and

verification. NWS Field Office Forecaster accessibility to these data will be enhanced.

196 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NWS Field Offices

Frequency: Daily

Data storage: NWS Hq, Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services (OS) Silver Spring, Maryland

Verification: Verification is the process of comparing the predicted weather to the actual event. The process begins with the collection of

forecasts and observations from each NWS office across the Nation. The quality controlled, collated data are transmitted to the National

Centers for Environmental Prediction in Camp Springs, Maryland, where the data are stored as computer files. The data files are

retrieved by the NWS Hq, Office of Science and Technology (OST). Following additional quality control the data are stored on an OST

workstation and used to generate semi-annual statistics on forecast accuracy.

Data Limitations: Due to the large volume of data gathered and computed, documentation for the above cannot be finalized until well

into the following fiscal year. Outyear measures are dependent on a stable funding profile and take into account improved use of the

WSR-88D, new satellites, improved forecast models, new and continued research activities of the USWRP, investments in critical

observing systems, and implementation of AWIPS.

Target New Accuracy – 20%

FAR – 50%

Accuracy – 21%

FAR – 51%

Accuracy – 23%

FAR – 47%

Actual Accuracy – 19%

FAR – 52%

Accuracy – 15%

FAR – 53%

Met / Not Met New Not Met 

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Measure 4g: Increase accuracy (percent) of forecast for winds and waves (marine forecasts)

Explanation of Measure

Target not met. This target was established based on only 1 year of data. NOAA’s best estimate at the time was

a modest increase in accuracy. The goal was missed by less than 1 percent which is considered statistically

insignificant. NOAA will adjust future goals after a good baseline of forecaster skill is attained.

In accordance with the NWS Strategic Plan, this measure was added in FY 2000 to reflect a segment of

customers that had not been represented in other performance measures. This performance indicator measures

the accuracy of wind and wave forecasts important for marine commerce. NOAA actions to be taken include

data collection and verification, which will be added for forecasts for the Great Lakes. NWS Field Office

Forecaster accessibility to these data will be enhanced. 

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for NOAA Performance Goal 4: Advance Short-Term 

Warnings and Forecasts

NOAA’s vision for FY 2005 is to provide significantly improved short-term warning and forecast products and

services that enhance public safety and the economic productivity of the Nation. While it is difficult to see the

improvements on an annual basis because of the scientific nature and seasonal variations of weather events,

historical trends have shown that NOAA continues to improve the accuracy and advance warning lead time of

severe weather hazards.

Program evaluations at NWS Field Offices are conducted annually. Quality control procedures are followed to

ensure the highest reliability of gathered data and weather products. The National Academy of Sciences is also

involved in program analysis and evaluation processes on a national level.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 197

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NWS Field Offices

Frequency: Daily

Data storage: National Weather Service, National Centers for

Environmental Prediction (NCEP), Ocean Modeling Branch

(OMB), Camp Springs, Maryland

Verification: Verification is the process of comparing the predicted

weather to the actual event. The process begins with the collection

of forecasts and observations from each NWS office across the

Nation. The quality controlled, collated data are transmitted to the

National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) in Camp

Springs, MD where it is stored as computer files. The data files are

retrieved by the NWS, NCEP, OMB. Following additional quality

control the data used to generate quarterly statistics on forecast

accuracy.

Data Limitations: Due to the large volume of data gathered and

computed, documentation for the above cannot be finalized until

well into the following fiscal year. Outyear measures are dependent

on a stable funding profile and take into account improved use of the

WSR-88D, new satellites, improved forecast models, new and

continued research activities of the USWRP, investments in critical

Target New 51% 53% 55%

Actual 50% 50%

Met / Not Met New Not Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Discontinued Measures

During FY 1999, NWS developed a Strategic Plan that resulted in adding new and modifying existing

performance measures to meet changing customer demands. While NWS continues to monitor all performance

measures internally, both old and new, the measures outlined in this report have been identified as those

selected few that are the most meaningful to the American public. NWS will continue to factor in customer

input in improving its products and services. 

Increase lead time (minutes) and accuracy (percent) for severe weather warnings for severe

thunderstorms

Explanation of Measure

This measure was discontinued after FY 1999 to focus on the more extreme events of tornadoes and flash floods.

These data are still being used internally.

Increase accuracy (km/mi) of warnings within 24 hours of hurricane landfall

198 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Target

Lead time – 

19 minutes

Accuracy – 84%

Discontinued Discontinued Discontinued

Actual

Lead time – 17

minutes

Accuracy – 82%

Met / Not Met Not Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NWS Field Offices

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NWS Hq, Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services (OS), Silver Spring, Maryland 

Verification: Verification is the process of comparing the predicted weather to the actual event. The process begins with the collection of

warnings from every NWS office across the Nation. The severe weather event program includes extensive quality control procedures to

ensure the highest reliability of each report. 

Data Limitations: There are limitations of scientific verification in assessing data. The fundamental purpose of scientific verification is to

objectively assess program performance through the use of standard statistical analysis. However, a number of factors unique to the

atmospheric sciences must be considered to ensure proper interpretation of objectively derived statistics. The primary factor to consider is the

natural variation of this performance measure related to annual fluctuations in meteorological conditions associated with severe weather. 

Target 84 miles Discontinued Discontinued Discontinued

Actual 92 miles

Met / Not Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Explanation of Measure

This measure was changed after FY 1999 to report a hurricane warning’s lead time, which is critical for the

evacuation of vulnerable areas.

Increase lead time (days in advance) for successfully forecasting 1 inch of precipitation

Explanation of Measure

This measure was modified to report the accuracy of a forecast of precipitation issued 3 days in advance. 

Increase accuracy (percent) of correct forecasts for heavy snowfall

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 199

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Tropical Prediction Center (TPC), Miami, Florida

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: TPC, Miami, Florida

Verification: Hurricane storm verification is performed for hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical depressions and verification is

considered whether over land or water. TPC issues warning when hurricane conditions are expected along the coast within 24 hours.

The location and timing of these warnings are based upon a number of factors, including the official TPC track forecast. The average

errors of the TPC track forecast for the Atlantic basin are calculated at the end of each hurricane season.

Data Limitations: There is large variability in the hurricane warning program due to sample sizes and types of storms each year. There

may be years with unusually easy or difficult forecasts. Outyear measures are dependent on a stable funding profile and take into

account improved use of the WSR-88D, new satellites, improved forecast models, new and continued research activities of the USWRP,

investments in critical observing systems, and continued support of AWIPS. 

Target 2.3 days Discontinued Discontinued Discontinued

Actual 2.3 days

Met / Not Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Hydrometeorological Prediction Center (HPC), Camp Springs, MD

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: World Weather Building, Camp Springs, Maryland

Verification: HPC has produced the QPF since the early 1960s and has kept verification statistics related to the QPF program since that

time. All data are examined for accuracy and quality control procedures are applied.

Data Limitations: NWS routinely prepares and distributes to internal and external customers predictions of heavy rainfall. The HPC has

the responsibility to prepare both graphical and text products depicting the areas threatened by heavy precipitation in the contiguous

United States. There will be a significant amount of variability and the improvements may not be achieved exactly as predicted. Outyear

measures are dependent on a stable funding profile and take into account improved use of the WSR-88D, new satellites, improved

forecast models, new and continued research activities of the USWRP, investments in critical observing systems, and continued support

of AWIPS.

Target 55% Discontinued Discontinued Discontinued

Actual 49%

Met / Not Met Not Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Explanation of Measure 

This measure was replaced after FY 1999 with a measure of lead time and accuracy of winter storm warnings,

which is more meaningful in both time and geographic area.

Increase the accuracy (in degrees Fahrenheit) of temperatures averaged for all forecasts

periods and cycles

200 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NWS Field Offices

Frequency: Daily

Data storage: NWS Hq, Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services (OS) Silver Spring, Maryland

Verification: Verification is the process of comparing the predicted weather to the actual event. The process begins with the collection of

forecasts and observational from each NWS office across the Nation. The quality controlled, collated data are transmitted to the National

Centers for Environmental Prediction in Camp Springs, Maryland, where the data are stored as computer files. The data files are

retrieved by the NWS Hq, Office of Science and Technology. (OST). Following additional quality control the data are stored on an OST

workstation and used to generate semi-annual statistics on forecast accuracy.

Data Limitations: Documentation for heavy snowfall is printed annually. Due to the relatively few number of cases each year, the

projections assume a 3-year average (current plus 2 previous years equally weighted). Due to the large volume of data gathered and

computed, a document for the above cannot be finalized until well into the following fiscal year. Outyear measures are dependent on a

stable funding profile and take into account improved use of the WSR-88D, new satellites, improved forecast models, new and

continued research activities of the USWRP, investments in critical observing systems, and continued support of AWIPS.

Target 87% current

78% freezing Discontinued Discontinued Discontinued

Actual 84% current

62% freezing

Met / Not Met Not Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NWS Field Offices

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NWS Hq, Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services (OS), Silver Spring, Maryland. 

Verification: Verification is the process of comparing the predicted weather to the actual event. The process begins with the collection of

warnings from every NWS office across the Nation. The severe weather event program includes extensive quality control procedures to

ensure the highest reliability of each report. 

Data Limitations: There are limitations of scientific verification in assessing data. The fundamental purpose of scientific verification is

to objectively assess program performance through the use of standard statistical analysis. However, a number of factors unique to the

atmospheric sciences must be considered to ensure proper interpretation of objectively derived statistics. The primary factor to

consider is the natural variation of this performance measure related to annual fluctuations in meteorological conditions associated

with severe weather. 
Explanation of Measure 

This measure was discontinued after FY 1999. Additional performance measures were added in FY 2000 as

improved representation of NOAA’s mission. 

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 4

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

NOAA works closely with NIST and EDA to participate in the Federal Natural Disaster Reduction initiative,

which is focused on reducing the costs of natural disasters and saving lives through improved warnings and

forecasts and the provision of information to improve resiliency to disaster.

Other Government Agencies

NOAA also works very closely with other agencies such as FEMA, the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of

Reclamation, Department of Defense, as well as State and local governments to complement their

meteorological services in the interest of national security. NOAA works closely with the U.S. Coast Guard

for the dissemination of marine weather warnings and forecasts and works directly with the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) on aviation forecasts and with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) on launch forecasts and solar forecast effects.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 201

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Strategies

Sustain modernized weather service

operations. 

Maintain continuous operational 

satellite coverage critical for warnings

and forecasts. 

Strengthen observing and 

prediction systems.

Improve customer service to the public,

emergency managers, the media, and

private forecasters.

Activities

Increase understanding of the environment through research and

investments in new technologies to provide more accurate and

timely weather warnings and forecasts required by the Nation.

Position satellites over the United States to provide uniform

coverage with visible and infrared (day and night) imagery.

Combine satellite coverage with data from other systems to

form a complete set of information about the space from the

Earth’s surface to the upper atmosphere.

Improve observing systems, develop better understanding of

natural processes, and enhance predictive models and

dissemination systems through scientific, technological and

programmatic advances, and international cooperation.

Use telecommunication systems to ensure effective

dissemination to the users of weather forecasts, warnings, and

other products. Expand external outreach activities to ensure

customers can effectively use NOAA’s products.
Government/Private Sector

Weather and climate services are provided to the public and industry through a unique partnership between

NOAA and the private meteorological sector. NOAA provides forecasts and warnings for public safety, and

the private sector promotes dissemination of forecasts and tailors basic information for business uses.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

A number of factors unique to the atmospheric sciences must be considered when reviewing the performance

measures for this goal. The primary factor to consider is the natural variation of this goal related to annual

fluctuations in meteorological conditions associated with severe weather. Another factor is that damage to

critical equipment (for example, supercomputer fire, satellite outage) can affect daily operations for extended

periods, even though numerous safety measures and backup procedures are in place. 

Although the performance measure under this goal may improve, the impact on society may not be obvious due

to factors beyond our control. For example, the hurricane warnings may become more accurate, but because of

the increase in population along the coastlines, the deaths, injuries, and/or damage estimates may increase. 

Improving our understanding of the natural environment requires advanced infrastructure and, therefore, a

continuous investment in new technology such as supercomputers and environmental satellites.

NOAA relies on its partners in the media, private sector, and the State and local emergency management

community to disseminate the weather warnings.

202 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Performance Goal 5: 

Implement Seasonal to Interannual Climate Forecasts

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal, Objective, and Strategy

Strategic Goal 3: Observe and Manage the Earth’s Environment to Promote Sustainable Growth

Objective 3.2: Improve Understanding and Prediction of the Natural Environment 

Rationale for Performance Goal 

NOAA works with academic and international partners to provide 1-year lead-time forecasts of global climate

variability, especially El Niño, and consequent precipitation and surface temperature distributions. These

forecasts increase society’s ability to mitigate economic losses and social disruption from such events.

Measure 5a: ENSO (El Niño/Southern Oscillation) Forecasts—Accuracy (correlation) 

Explanation of Measure

Target not met. Although the .85 goal was not achieved for FY 2001, the difference between .84 and .85 is not

statistically significant enough to be of practical importance.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 203

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Forecasts of sea surface temperature in a portion

of the Pacific Ocean, and observations from buoys, ships, and

satellites.

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NWS’s National Centers for Environmental

Prediction, Camp Springs, Maryland.

Verification: NOAA quality controls the incoming data (e.g.,

error checking, interstation comparison), and the satellite

data can be compared with the in situ data to help validate

the data accuracy.

Data Limitations: This measure assesses the correlation

between forecasts of sea surface temperature (based on

models) and actual sea surface temperature (based on

satellite and in situ observations). Improvements in

forecasting ability depend upon improved observations,

models, and research. Forecasts will likely be better in El

Niño years than in non-El Niño years.

Target .85 .85 .85 .85

Actual .85 .84

Met / Not Met Met Not Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
The 1997–98 El Niño was the best monitored and most successfully predicted El Niño on record. NOAA

provided advanced forecast of El Niño effects, leading to great savings to a variety of economic sectors. ENSO

forecasts require a variety of data, such as ocean observations, remote satellite-based observations, and

terrestrial measurements. This program is the only Federal effort aimed at providing forecasts of climate events

and their consequent impact. Efforts will be undertaken to determine the limits in predictability of the

atmosphere induced by tropical Pacific sea surface temperature changes; to diagnose and model the global

response to warm, cold, and neutral States of the ENSO cycle; and to examine the changes in probabilities of

extreme events induced by ENSO.

Measure 5b: U.S. temperature—skill score

Explanation of Measure

Target met.

Accurate measures of temperature are critical to many sectors of the national economy, including agriculture

and energy utilities. This measure compares actual observed temperatures with those forecasted from areas all

across the country. For those areas of the United States where a temperature forecast (warmer than normal,

cooler than normal, normal) is made, this score measures how much better the prediction is than the random

chance of being correct. Skill score is based on a scale of -50 to +100. If forecasters match what would be

predicted by random chance, the skill score is 0. Anything above 0 shows positive skill in forecasting. Given the

difficulty of making advance temperature and precipitation forecasts for specific locations, a skill score of 20 is

considered quite good and means the forecast was correct in almost 50 percent of the locations forecasted.

Forecasts will likely be better in El Niño years than in non-El Niño years. Temperatures across the United States

will be measured using NOAA’s cooperative network maintained by volunteers across the Nation. Temperature

data will be collected and analyzed by NOAA. 

204 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Forecast data, observations from U.S. Weather

Forecast Offices (WFO), and from a cooperative network

maintained by volunteers across the Nation.

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NWS’s National Centers for Environmental

Prediction, Camp Springs, Maryland

Verification: NOAA performs quality assurance analysis of

the data (e.g., error checking, elimination of duplicates,

interstation comparison) both at the national and WFO

level.

Data Limitations: Given the difficulty of making advance

temperature and precipitation forecasts for specific

locations, a skill score of 20 is considered quite good and

means the forecast was correct in almost 50 percent of the

locations forecasted. Forecasts will likely be better in El

Niño years than in non-El Niño years.

Target 20 20 20 26

Actual 23.3 25

Met / Not Met Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Measure 5c: Number of new monitoring or forecast products that become operational 

per year

Explanation of Measure

The Seasonal to Interannual Climate team will begin to report on this performance measure in FY 2001. This

performance measure replaces the previous performance measure “New and improved data sets developed and

produced (cumulative per year).” The new performance measure more adequately reflects the Seasonal to

Interannual Climate team’s commitment to public service by stressing products that are available for public

usage rather than data sets. A major motivation for this change was the formation of the new NOAA Climate

Observations and Services program. New products will be developed and tested through NOAA research and

implemented operationally through CPC or NCDC, as appropriate. As these products are implemented, usage

will be evaluated through data transfers and external constituent interactions. 

Research advances provide the potential for NOAA to significantly expand its range of climate products and

services, particularly in areas of high customer demand for information and where climate variability

significantly affects national interests. Examples include improved information and forecasts on extreme climate

events, such as droughts and floods, and development of new forecasts on time scales that are not currently

included in NOAA’s operational product line but where customer demand and interest is large and growing.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 205

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NWS’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) and

NESDIS’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 

Frequency: Annual

Data Storage: NCDC

Verification: Products are reported to NOAA management at

quarterly reviews.

Data limitations: The new products are a response to

increasing customer demands for expanded NOAA climate

information and services. New products will be subsequently

monitored for use and, in the case of forecast products,

current skill and projected improvements.

Target New New 4 4

Actual New New

Met / Not Met New New

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Measure 5d: New climate observations introduced

Explanation of Measure

The Seasonal to Interannual Climate team will begin to report on this performance measure in FY 2001. NOAA

is undertaking new efforts to better describe the atmosphere—ocean—land system to improve its climate

monitoring and prediction capability. As a part of this effort, OAR and NESDIS will expand their existing

observation systems, that is, data buoys and new satellites. 

The oceans provide the largest source of potential predictability for the climate system as well as the potential to

produce large climate surprises, and yet they are currently critically underobserved for certain variables and in

many regions. This component will continue a long-term and sustained effort by NOAA to improve ocean

observational capabilities and to increase the usefulness of observations for this critical part of the Earth’s

climate system. An annual report will be completed detailing how these new climate observations increased

data density and coverage and how they will be used in climate analysis and prediction.

NOAA’s actions include, as resources permit, expanding its ocean observing systems, focusing on the highest

priority variables for climate monitoring and prediction, and addressing critical oceanic data voids. NOAA will

also place high priority on improving the assimilation and optimal use of ocean observations in climate models

that are used for its analyses and forecasts. Estimates will be obtained on reduction in analysis error that

accompany increases in data quality, density, and coverage.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for NOAA Performance Goal 5: Implement Seasonal 

to Interannual Climate Forecasts

A number of NOAA line offices participate in the seasonal-to-interannual performance goal. The Office of

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) conducts periodic reviews of the activities of its Environmental

Research Laboratories. NESDIS holds management performance reviews several times a year. NWS conducts

reviews of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). Programs are also evaluated by the

206 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Observations from data buoys, drifters, ships,

satellites, etc.

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

laboratories, NESDIS NCDC.

Verification: NOAA performs quality assurance analysis,

and performs data processing.

Data limitations: Percentages of observing platforms

operational at a given time, analyses of data quality and

errors; observations received in time to be incorporated in

operational climate analyses and forecasts.

Target New New 120 150

Actual New New

Met / Not Met New New

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
National Science Foundation and the National Research Council. NOAA holds annual constituent workshops at

which NOAA’s seasonal climate forecast efforts are discussed with the community of seasonal-to-interannual

climate forecast users, and input is solicited to shape future efforts. 

Discontinued Measures 

New and improved data sets developed and produced (cumulative per year) 

Explanation of Measure

NOAA collects in situ as well as satellite data over the oceans and land. The data are quality controlled and

archived at NOAA. The data sets are used to calibrate, initialize, and verify forecasting models run by

computers. In addition, these databases are valuable because they help monitor the current climate and provide

a better understanding of historical climate variability.

This performance measure was replaced with the new performance measure, “Number of monitoring or forecast

products that become operational per year.” The new performance measure more adequately reflects the

Seasonal to Interannual Climate team’s commitment to public service by stressing products that are available for

public use rather than data sets.

Global Ocean-Atmosphere-Land System experiments implemented (percentage)

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 207

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Target 19 25 Discontinued Discontinued

Actual 19 25

Met / Not Met Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Satellite data sets from NOAA and DoD environmental satellites, and in situ data sets worldwide from ships, buoys,

aircraft, and radiosondes.

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North

Carolina, and Office of Satellite Data Processing and Distribution in Suitland, Maryland.

Verification: NOAA performs quality control, including error checking, elimination of duplicates, and interstation comparison. In

addition, for the satellite data, NOAA itself does the data processing.

Data Limitations: In the future, the National Oceanographic Data Center and the National Geophysical Data Center may also contribute

to this performance measure, if funding levels permit. Compilation of the in situ data sets, particularly the global data sets, relies on

continued international data exchange cooperation.

Target 20 25 Discontinued Discontinued

Actual 20 25

Met / Not Met Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Explanation of Measure

The Global Ocean-Atmosphere-Land System (GOALS) program built upon the successful El Niño research of

the recently completed Tropical Ocean-Global Atmosphere (TOGA) program. While TOGA made possible our

ability to forecast El Niño up to a year in advance with useful skill, the forecasts were limited in that they

focused on the evolution of the tropical Pacific and its related climate impacts. GOALS was designed to continue

research necessary for continuous improvements of El Niño predictions and to extend predictability of climate

fluctuations beyond the tropical Pacific to include the effects of the other tropical oceans, higher latitude oceans,

and land surface processes on seasonal-to-interannual climate variability, particularly at higher latitudes. During

the past 2 years, the NOAA GOALS program has evolved into the broader NOAA Climate Variability and

Prediction (CLIVAR) program with regional focus in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Pan-America. As a result, tracking

of the GOALS’s performance measure will no longer be necessary.

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 5

Action Plan

208 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Progress reports

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NOAA Office of Global Programs, Silver Spring, Maryland

Verification: Progress is reported to NOAA management at quarterly reviews.

Data Limitations: The Global Ocean-Atmosphere-Land System program has been formulated to continue improvements in the

prediction of ENSO, extend our understanding and predictive capability to include global seasonal-to-interannual climate variations,

and develop the observational and computational means for predicting these variations. Should the program be prolonged due to, for

example, unexpected research findings or fiscal constraints, the program could be extended and the percentage of the program

completed could stall.

Strategies

Improve our ability to forecast seasonal climate

variability, including temperature and

precipitation, to provide significant

socioeconomic benefits to the United States,

including the protection of life and property.

Analyze, distribute, and archive information

from climate observations and data systems to

further build our research and forecasting

efforts.

Emphasize research to improve our

understanding of El Niño and other modes of

climate variability, and improve models and

accuracy of predictions with longer lead times.

Foster discussion and assessments with

various user communities to ensure that they

understand and benefit from our climate

forecasts; solicit user input to generate more

Activities

Implement climate predictions systems to deliver useful

seasonal-to-interannual climate forecasts for the United

States and collaborate in a multinational effort to generate

and use similar forecasts.

Expand global observing systems and improve data

management systems required to provide data for the

initialization and validation of model predictions of

seasonal-to-interannual climate variations.

Conduct and/or fund modeling research to improved

predictions critical climate variables, including temperature

and rainfall distributions.

Facilitate discussions among customers, researchers, and

forecasters to improve both the usability of NOAA climate

products and public education about available products

and their importance.
Cross-Cutting Activities

Other Government Agencies

NOAA works with a wide variety of partners in the area of climate forecasts, including other Federal

agencies (for example, Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Agency for International Development),

State and local agencies (for instance, State departments of environmental protection and emergency

preparedness managers), academia, foreign government agencies, and international organizations. In

preparing for the 1997–98 El Niño, NOAA worked closely with FEMA and State and local officials, greatly

improving the public preparedness for the severe weather resulting from El Niño.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

A major failure of Earth observing and computing infrastructure would impair NOAA’s ability to produce

seasonal-to-interannual forecasts. NOAA has been looking for backup outside the organization. For example, the

Department of the Navy provides backup to the National Centers for Environmental Prediction mainframe

computer.

An unanticipated major increase of the customer base for climate-related products may strain NOAA resources.

In such an event, NOAA would prioritize its activities to meet the immediate increase in demand while it looks

for alternative ways to meet the needs of all its customers. 

Improving our understanding of the natural environment requires advanced infrastructure and, therefore, a

continuous investment in new technology, such as supercomputers and environmental satellites.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 209

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Performance Goal 6: 

Predict and Assess Decadal to Centennial Change

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal, Objective, and Strategy

Strategic Goal 3: Observe and Manage the Earth’s Environment to Promote Sustainable Growth

Objective 3.2: Improve Understanding and Prediction of the Natural Environment 

Rationale for Performance Goal

NOAA scientists provide policymakers with the scientific information and expert assessments necessary to

make decisions on long-term global and regional environmental issues. NOAA research, conducted in

conjunction with our national and international partners, contributes significantly to the understanding of these

issues. Experts in these fields periodically compile, summarize, and evaluate the current state of scientific

knowledge and report their findings in assessment documents. NOAA’s research and authors and its review of

these documents are essential to ensure the highest quality science is available to support important decisions

on long-term climate issues.

Measure 6a: Document the “turnover” of CFC source gases (whose atmospheric abundance

is expected to begin decreasing in 1998) in order to verify the effectiveness of

global policy actions

* CFC assessment documents are produced every 3 to 5 years depending on the significance of the measured

trends. In intervening years there are no results to report.

** Whether or not a report is issued in 2002 depends on the significance of the detected trends.

Explanation of Measure

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are man-made pollutants that react with the natural environment of the upper

atmosphere and cause damage to the Earth’s protective ozone layer. Worldwide concern over the depletion of

the ozone layer forced global policies that restrict CFC production. Policymakers rely on the community of

atmospheric scientists to document if new regulations are decreasing CFCs and restoring the Earth’s ozone

210 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Target 1 N/A* N/A* TBD**

Actual 1 N/A* N/A*

Met / Not Met Met N/A* N/A*

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Research from NOAA/OAR/Aeronomy Laboratory

Frequency: Periodic (approximately every 3–5 years)

Data storage: NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Verification: Data are taken using proven, peer-reviewed procedures. The results are also peer-reviewed by internationally qualified

experts as part of the publication process.

Data Limitations: None.
layer. Turnover of gases refers to the increase and decrease of specific gases in the atmosphere over time. NOAA

activities collect information and produce reports for peer-reviewed publication. Five years is the period

generally used to expect reasonable progress in a field so that a new assessment or report can be justified. Those

products take 211⁄42 to 3 years to produce. The scientific assessments of the state of our understanding of the

stratospheric ozone depletion are sponsored by NOAA, the NASA, the United Nations Environmental Program,

and the World Meteorological Organization. They are undertaken every 3 to 5 years based on scientific

advancements. The fourth assessment was published in 1999. The fifth is presently under way and will be

completed in the period 2002–04 depending on the significance of the detected trends.

Measure 6b: Publish updated trend results of air quality measurements

* Updated air quality trend measurements are published every other year. In off years no measure is available. 

Explanation of Measure

NOAA’s mission includes the responsibility to publish scientific findings in peer-reviewed science literature and

to communicate results to the public. This performance measure indicates how well long-term climate findings

are being reported to a growing community of climate scientists and to an increasingly concerned public

constituency. Five years is generally considered the time frame for which to expect reasonable progress in a field

so that a new assessment or report could be justified. Those products take 211⁄42 to 3 years to produce. NOAA’s

actions include collecting information and producing reports for peer-reviewed publication.

Measure 6c: Lead development of a peer-reviewed initial assessment of regional ozone in

North America, including summarizing results for customers

* It generally takes 5 years to collect and analyze sufficient data to make significant statements about regional

ozone. Data are being collected and analyzed in the years between the release of the reports; therefore, there is

no performance measure to report.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 211

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Target 1 N/A* 1 N/A*

Actual 1 N/A*

Met / Not Met Met N/A*

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Research from NOAA/OAR/Aeronomy Laboratory

Frequency: Biennial

Data storage: NOAA/Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, Maryland

Verification: Data are taken using proven, peer-reviewed procedures. The results are also peer-reviewed by internationally qualified

experts as part of the publication process.

Data Limitations: Collection, analysis, and reporting of the data takes 2.5 to 5 years

Target 1 N/A* N/A* N/A*

Actual 1 N/A*

Met / Not Met Met N/A*

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Explanation of Measure

NOAA’s actions include collecting data and providing assessment of regional ozone and air quality. Regional

ozone affects public health by reducing air quality. This measure will provide a baseline assessment of regional

ozone in North America and provide vital data to air quality managers and decision-makers. Five years is the

period generally considered reasonable to expect progress in a field so that a new assessment or report could be

justified. Those products take 211⁄42 to 3 years to produce. The assessments conducted under the North American

Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone are conducted on a 3-to-5 year interval determined by the scientific

advancements that have occurred and the perceived requirements for updates to Congress, the Office of Science

and Technology Policy, and the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. 

Measure 6d: Results of 90 percent of the NOAA climate research activities cited in the 2001

IPCC Third Assessment of Climate Change 

* The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments are only published every 5 years. In off

years there is no performance measure to report.

Explanation of Measure

IPCC assessments provide the scientific, technical, and economic information used to evaluate the effects of

human activities and natural variability on climate system and to evaluate strategies to reduce and respond to

these effects. These assessments are conducted under the sponsorship of the World Meteorological Organization

and the United Nations Environment Program and take several years to produce. They are undertaken every 3

to 5 years based on advancements in science. The current assessment was released in January 2001. NOAA

climate research results in articles describing research methods, results, and conclusions. These articles are

212 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Research from NOAA/OAR/Aeronomy Laboratory

Frequency: Periodic (approximately every 3–5 years)

Data storage: NOAA/Aeronomy Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Verification: Data are taken using proven, peer-reviewed procedures. The results are also peer-reviewed by internationally qualified

experts as part of the publication process.

Data Limitations: Collection, analysis, and reporting of the data takes 2.5 to 5 years

Target N/A* N/A* 90% cited N/A*

Actual N/A* N/A*

Met / Not Met N/A* N/A*

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Research from NOAA/OAR/Aeronomy Laboratory

Frequency: Periodic (approximately every 3–5 years)

Data storage: NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Verification: Data are taken using proven, peer-reviewed procedures. The results are also peer-reviewed by internationally qualified

experts as part of the publication process.

Data Limitations: None.
published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals and become part of the permanent scientific record. This record is

used to write the IPCC assessments. Over 90 percent of the research on climate performed by NOAA scientists

was used (cited) as source material for the current assessment document. This measure was added in the 

FY 2001 Annual Performance Plan to reflect work NOAA has been doing for several years.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for NOAA Performance Goal 6: Predict and Assess 

Decadal to Centennial Change

NOAA’s programs are routinely evaluated by a variety of outside reviewers. The NOAA Science Advisory

Board, made up completely of private sector, university, and other Federal agency scientists, provides input on

climate and air quality research. NOAA’s Office of Global Programs, funded in OAR’s Climate and Global

Change research line item, receives review from international science agencies, universities, and private sector

scientists, as well as the National Research Council and the National Science Foundation. The NOAA Research

Laboratories are reviewed on a regular basis. The Sea Grant Colleges are visited at least every 2 years by a

review panel.

Discontinued Measures

None. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 213

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 6

Action Plan

214 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Strategies

Natural events and human activities can cause

changes in climate. The atmospheric amounts

of many greenhouse gases are increasing. This

goal addresses understanding natural and

human-induced greenhouse processes.

Research has highlighted the role of the oceans

in climate change. Accurate simulations of the

coupled air-sea system are essential for

predicting and assessing climate variability.

A well-documented, long-term record of

climate data is required to ascertain the

sensitivity of the climate system to changes in

atmospheric composition and the impact of

climate change on socioeconomic,

biogeochemical, and physical systems.

A better definition of which substitutes are

"ozone friendly" will help our chemical

industry avoid production of a substitute that

later proves to destroy unacceptable amounts

of ozone.

Stations that detect air quality must be

upgraded and maintained to provide the

required information to achieve a more

effective Clean Air Act implementation.

Explanatory environmental models must be

strengthened through better understanding of

the atmospheric and oceanic processes to meet

the challenges of understanding and foreseeing

climate variability and long-term changes.

Activities

NOAA will continue long-term atmospheric monitoring

and field programs, laboratory studies, and modeling to

characterize the agents and processes that force decadalto-centennial environmental change. 

NOAA will continue deployment of the Argo float

network, maintain and upgrade existing monitoring

network, and execute targeted field programs to

understand the role of the ocean as a reservoir of both

heat and carbon dioxide to address a major source of

uncertainty in climate models. 

NOAA will enhance domestic and international weather

networks, observing procedures, and information

management systems to ensure a long-term climate record.

NOAA will document present and past changes and

variations in the climate system, including extreme events

and rapid climate changes, using national and

international observing networks, satellites, and

paleoclimatic data. 

NOAA will guide the rehabilitation of the ozone layer

through monitoring programs that will provide the

scientific basis for choices associated with ozone-depleting

compounds and their replacements.

NOAA will continue long-term atmospheric monitoring

and field programs, laboratory studies, and modeling to

provide the scientific basis for better air quality. This

research will improve the understanding of high surface

ozone episodes in rural areas.

NOAA will strengthen the monitoring network to detect

changes in air quality and improve the characterization of

airborne fine particles. 

NOAA will develop models for the prediction of longterm climate change (including extreme events and rapid

climate changes), carry out scientific assessments, and

provide human impact information.
Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

In partnership with the Technology Administration (TA) and the International Trade Administration (ITA)

within the Department of Commerce, other Federal agencies, the private sector, and academia, NOAA is

providing the foundation the United States will depend upon to lead new emerging global industries in

economically and environmentally sustainable ways.

Other Government Agencies

NOAA depends strongly on universities to help accomplish its science objectives through a network of Joint

and Cooperative Institutes and universities.

NOAA also funds academic researchers through competitive, peer-reviewed programs, including the Global

Climate Change Program.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies 

The science of climate change crosses generations and has progressed through evolving technology. Our ability

to accomplish measures of performance like these is contingent upon many external factors, including the

advancement of climate change itself. While the time frame of these processes spans decades and even centuries,

the reporting periods extend over years.

Improving our understanding of the natural environment requires advanced infrastructure and, therefore, a

continuous investment in new technology, such as supercomputers and environmental satellites.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 215

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Performance Goal 7: 

Promote Safe Navigation

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 3: Observe and Manage the Earth’s Environment to Promote Sustainable Growth

Objective 3.2: Improve Understanding and Prediction of the Natural Environment 

Rationale for Performance Goal 

NOAA serves commercial and recreational mariners around the Nation by providing these customers with

nautical charts, tides and currents data, and geographic positioning data for safe navigation. Geodetic services

are vital to the broader mapping and surveying industry nationwide. Shoreline data and real-time tides and

currents information also serve the coastal resource management and oil spill/disaster response communities.

NOAA continues to explore innovative ways to modernize its services in a cost-efficient manner to meet

customer needs.

Measure 7a: Cumulative percentage reduction in the backlog (square nautical miles) of

hydrographic surveys for critical areas 

Explanation of Measure

Target met.

Hydrographic surveys are conducted to determine depths and the configuration of the bottoms of water bodies,

especially as pertaining to navigation. This includes the detection, location, and identification of wrecks,

216 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Progress reports on data collected from

hydrographic survey platforms.

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: National Ocean Service will store data and

publish nautical charts.

Verification: National Ocean Service will apply established

verification and validation methods.

Data Limitations: Progress in reducing the backlog is

measured against a baseline value of 43,000 square nautical

miles as determined in 1994. Weather can affect scheduled

surveys.

Target 20.7 24.3 27.8 31.3

Actual 20.7 24.3

Met / Not Met Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
primarily through the use of side scan and multibeam sonar technology and the Global Positioning System

(GPS). This information is critically important to the production of both paper and electronic navigational charts

for safe and efficient navigation. In addition to the commercial shipping industry, other user communities that

benefit include recreational boaters, the commercial fishing industry, port authorities, coastal zone managers,

and disaster response planners. Ships traversing our coastal waters are relying on charts based on sounding data

that are more than 50 years’ old in many places. In 1994, NOAA identified 43,000 square nautical miles of

seafloor in U.S. waters in critical need of resurvey, with over one-half of this area in Alaskan waters. Many of

these high-priority areas carry heavy commercial traffic, are less than 30 meters deep, and are changing

constantly. NOAA’s surveying activities balance in-house resources with contracts and use the latest full bottom

coverage sounding technologies to eliminate the remaining critical area backlog of approximately 32,500 square

nautical miles in the Nation’s ports, harbors, and other coastal areas. NOAA’s hydrographic fleet supporting inhouse surveying capabilities consists of the WHITING, RUDE, and RAINIER. The National Ocean Service will

coordinate acquisition and processing of hydrographic surveys both in house and through contracts. 

Measure 7b: Cumulative Percentage of NSRS completed enough to provide a common

geographic framework tied to the GPS 

Explanation of Measure 

Target Met. This is a new measure to be included in the APP to replace the PORTS measure, which was

discontinued due to lack of funding increases in 1999 and 2000. The NSRS performance measure is effective

since it integrates the different components of the geodesy program into a product with more relevance to users

rather than measuring individual components of horizontal and vertical positioning.

In order to meet the Nation’s navigation and other positioning needs, NOAA is enhancing the National Spatial

Reference System (NSRS) to provide the higher accuracy and accessibility needed for use with the space-based

GPS, whose satellites transmit signals that allow determination of position, height, velocity, and time. The NSRS,

a system of reference stations and monuments across the Nation, provides integrity to geographic coordinates

obtained from GPS satellite signals for accurate positioning in support of numerous applications, including land

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 217

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: National Ocean Service/National Geodetic

Survey (NGS), which defines and manages the NSRS, the

foundation for the Nation’s spatial data infrastructure

Frequency: Ongoing, annual reporting

Data storage: Automated database at National Ocean Service

Verification: National Ocean Service will apply standard

verification and validation methods.

Data Limitations: Weather conditions, security, employment

and funding issues can affect field operations. NGS also

works cooperatively with State organizations; accommodating partners can also impact activities to some extent.

Target 59 64 74.8 78

Actual 59 71

Met / Not Met Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
surveying, navigation, mapping, and infrastructure development such as 911 emergency response and scientific

applications. New uses for GPS are being found every day, and many of them involve precision heights. NOAA

launched its Height Modernization effort in 1998 to accelerate completion of the NSRS in three dimensions.

Access to accurate, reliable, real-time height data can save time and money and protect lives, property, and the

environment. 

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for NOAA Performance Goal 7: Promote Safe Navigation

NOAA’s goal to promote safe navigation is evaluated at a variety of levels, from peer reviews of products,

papers, and projects, to internal and external reviews of entire programs and quarterly reviews of NOAA’s

overall performance in navigation products and services. Constituent input is an important part of the

evaluation process and is solicited regularly through constituent workshops.

From 1992 to 1996, a number of National Research Council Marine Board studies examined the nautical charting

program and its transition into the digital era. NOAA incorporated study recommendations on areas such as

reducing the survey backlog, implementing new digital production techniques, and delivering new electronic

chart products to the program. The Hydrographic Services Improvements Act of 1998 provided Congress and

NOAA an opportunity to evaluate NOAA’s capabilities for acquisition and dissemination of hydrographic data,

develop standards and formats for hydrographic services, and contract for the acquisition of hydrographic data.

NOAA now contracts out over 50 percent of its annual critical area hydrographic survey requirements while

maintaining Federal competence and expertise with existing and developing surveying technologies.

In 1998, Congress authorized the Height Modernization study to evaluate the technical, financial, legal, and

economic aspects of modernizing the national height system with GPS. The study demonstrated the significant

benefits to the Nation in terms of dollars and lives saved associated with GPS technology, and it led to current

development of the vertical component of the NSRS. In 1999 NOAA completed an assessment of its tidal

currents program to develop guidelines for future current surveys to update U.S. reference stations for the Tidal

Current Tables. Finally, the September 1999 Report to Congress that assessed the U.S. Marine Transportation

System (MTS) further articulated the need for coordinated Federal leadership to achieve the MTS vision of

becoming the world’s most technologically advanced, safe, efficient, globally competitive, and environmentally

responsible system for moving goods and people. NOAA’s navigation safety support functions underwent

substantial review to identify opportunities for greater integration among Federal agencies.

Discontinued Measures

Number of PORTS in place to provide quality-assured data in real-time for safe navigation.

218 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Target 7 7 Discontinued Discontinued

Actual 7 9

Met / Not Met Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Explanation of Measure

NOAA dropped the PORTS performance measure because the effort received no funding increase in 1999, and

the outlook at the time was not favorable for support in 2000; in addition, because the measure depended

heavily on external partners, it was determined that it did not effectively capture NOAA’s performance. The

NSRS measure was adopted in its place to capture program effectiveness. 

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 7

Action Plan

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 219

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: National Ocean Service/Ocean Products Service Center automated database, which tracks system operation and

equipment upgrades. 

Frequency: Ongoing, annual reporting

Data storage: Automated database at National Ocean Service

Verification: National Ocean Service will apply standard verification and validation methods.

Data Limitations: Severe weather can impact the water level stations by knocking them off-line, affecting the accuracy of real-time

data, or destroying them completely. This performance measure can also be impacted by maintenance schedules or the need to replace

exiting equipment.

Strategies

Provide mariners with predictions and

observations of water levels, tides and

currents, and weather conditions in ports.

Update nautical surveys to accurately chart

the depth of the sea floor and identify

obstructions to navigation. This survey

activity will balance in-house resources with

contracts and use the latest full bottom

coverage sounding technologies.

Build, maintain, and deliver a digital nautical

charting database.

Enhance the NSRS using GPS to support the

digital revolution in mapping, charting, and

surveying. The ability of GPS to accurately

measure heights is particularly important to

marine surveying and navigation.

Delineate the national shoreline using 

state-of-the-art technology to serve the

Nation’s navigational and coastal

management requirements.

Activities

Increase access to quality-assured tide, current,

meteorological and positioning data, particularly in real

time, enabling commercial mariners to navigate in and out

of ports efficiently and with confidence that they will not

run aground.

Eliminate the remaining backlog of approximately 32,500

square nautical miles of the total 43,000 square nautical

miles critical hydrographic surveys in the Nation’s ports,

harbors, and other coastal areas. 

Create a digital nautical charting database to support new

electronic charting systems that integrate satellite

positioning, tidal heights and currents, radar and sonar,

and navigational aids. 

Develop an accurate national spatial reference system, as

the Nation relies increasingly on the satellite GPS for

surveying and navigation 

Provide accurate shoreline data, a critical component of

nautical charts.
Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

In partnership with the TA and NTIA within the Department of Commerce, and other civil agencies from all

civil departments, NOAA participates on the Interagency GPS Executive Board, which with DoD jointly

manages the GPS satellite program as a national asset. Now a dual-use system heavily employed by civilian

and commercial sectors, GPS is a global information utility that the United States has committed to provide

free to the world for use as the international standard for navigation, positioning, and timing. 

Other Government Agencies

NOAA works closely with agencies such as the Department of Transportation, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in support of Marine Transportation System goals and objectives to identify and

improve navigation services for maritime commerce while preserving navigation and environmental safety.

NOAA and the Department of Transportation also cooperate on the development of the Nationwide Differential

GPS System, which employs NOAA’s Continuously Operating Reference Stations to enable highly accurate

GPS positioning in three dimensions across the Nation. This system benefits from a multipurpose cooperative

effort between government, academia, and the commercial sector, and supports numerous NOAA objectives

and activities. 

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

Weather has a significant impact on the promotion of safe navigation activities. Both in-house and contract

hydrographic survey schedules can be affected by adverse weather conditions (storms, winds, high seas) and

equipment failure, as can aerial photography flights scheduled for shoreline photogrammetry. Storm damage

frequently renders water-level stations inoperable, affecting surveying capabilities and real-time observations of

water levels and currents so critical to safe navigation. Natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes can

elevate the critical priority of an area because of shoreline changes or obstruction accumulation; man-made

impacts such as shifts in shipping patterns, newly regulated shipping lanes, port expansions, or wrecks will also

increase NOAA’s designated critical areas. NOAA also receives requests to survey areas not identified as

critical. For example, ship groundings frequently prompt requests from the Coast Guard and others to survey

“noncritical” areas, diverting efforts away from the survey schedule. Finally, in addition to mission activities,

NOAA ships and aircraft provide immediate response capabilities for unpredictable events such as recovery and

search efforts after the TWA Flight 800 and EgyptAir Flight 990 crashes, damage assessments after major oil

spills such as the Exxon Valdez, the Persian Gulf War and the New Carissa, and severe hurricanes. NOAA

mitigates the impacts of weather, disaster events, and equipment malfunction with backup plans for relocating

assets to other projects, or by reassessing schedules for other windows of opportunity.

220 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
United States Patent and 

Trademark Office

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 221

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Mission Statement

The U. S. Patent and Trademark Office promotes industrial and technological progress in

the United States and strengthens the economy by: Administering the laws relating to

patents and trademarks while ensuring the creation of valid and prompt intellectual

property rights. Advising the Secretary of Commerce, the President of the United States,

and the Administration on all domestic and global aspects of intellectual property.

Priorities

• Enhance the quality of products and services.

• Transition to e-government.

• Optimize processing time.

The American intellectual property system has played a unique role in the history of our country’s economy.

Patents and trademarks have protected American creativity and ingenuity from agrarian times—the first patent

was issued in 1790 for a method of making potash fertilizer—to today’s world of high technology. The strength

and vitality of our economy depends directly on the effectiveness of the mechanisms that protect new ideas and

investments in innovation. The continued growth and increase in applications for patents and trademark

registrations underscore the ingenuity of U.S. inventors and entrepreneurs. Since 1790, when Congress enacted

the first patent law, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been at the cutting edge of our nation’s

technological progress and achievement. 

The primary services provided by USPTO include processing patent and trademark applications and

disseminating patent and trademark information. Through the issuance of patents, we encourage technological

advancement by providing incentives to invent, invest in, and disclose new technology worldwide. Through the

registration of trademarks, we assist businesses in protecting their investments, promoting quality goods and

services, and safeguarding consumers against confusion and deception in the marketplace. By disseminating

both patent and trademark information, we promote an understanding of intellectual property protection and

facilitate the development and sharing of new technologies worldwide. 

With the passage of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, USPTO was established as an agency within

the Department of Commerce. The Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the

United States Patent and Trademark Office carries out dual responsibilities: advising the Secretary of

Commerce, the President of the United States, and the Administration on all domestic and global aspects of

intellectual property, and managing and directing USPTO. The new USPTO is explicitly responsible for

decisions regarding the management and administration of its operations, and has independent control of many

major management functions. Patent operations and trademark operations are treated as separate operating

units.
Organizational Structure

Management Challenges

Workload and IT Challenges

Our patent and trademark workloads have been increasing at significant rates. In FY 2001, we expect to receive

335,000 utility, plant, and reissue (UPR) patent applications (including 7,500 refilings) and 450,000 trademark

application classes. This would represent a 12 percent increase in patent applications (excluding refilings) and a

20 percent increase in trademark applications over the filings received in FY 2000. 

We cannot rely solely on hiring additional personnel to manage our increasing workloads. We must also make

critical investments in information technology systems and reengineered processes now if we are to manage our

future workloads. The diversion of fee collections away from USPTO means that we have had to forego these

investments to focus instead on the immediate need to process current workloads. If the diversion of fees away

from USPTO continues, we will be unable to avoid further tradeoffs and concessions of this nature and our

future workload processing will suffer.

Space Requirements and Financing

On June 1, 2000, the General Services Administration (GSA) signed a lease award to LCOR Alexandria, L.L.C.

(LCOR) for the USPTO space consolidation project. In partnership with USPTO and LCOR, GSA held a

groundbreaking ceremony on January 17, 2001; we expect to begin moving into the new headquarters in

Alexandria in late 2003 and to achieve full occupancy by 2004. Our management challenge is to ensure that

USPTO is able to invest the resources needed to effect a smooth transition to the new facility. 

222 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Commissioner

for Patents

Commissioner

for Trademarks

Chief

Information

Officer

Chief Financial

Officer and 

Chief

Administrative

Officer

Administrator for 

External Affairs

Deputy

Administrator

for External

Affairs

General 

Counsel

Administrator 

for Quality

Management 

and Training

Trademark 

Public

Advisory

Committee

Patent 

Public

Advisory

Committee

Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Intellectual Property and Director for the 

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual

Property and Deputy Director of the United States

Patent and Trademark Office
Targets and Performance Summary

See individual Performance Goal section for further description of each measure.

The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) was signed into law (P.L.106-113) on November 29, 1999.

This legislation designated the USPTO as an agency of the United States within the Department of Commerce,

receiving intellectual property policy direction from the Secretary of Commerce. At the same time, the new

USPTO became responsible for decisions regarding the management and administration of its operations and

gained independent control of major management functions.

In fiscal year 2000, the USPTO updated its strategic plan and took a fresh look at its goals and initiatives. The

USPTO developed a framework of performance indicators that better defines service from the perspective of our

customers. These performance indicators are related directly to the day-to-day management of the USPTO and

are part of the Performance Agreements between the Secretary of Commerce and the Commissioner for Patents

and the Commissioner for Trademarks which are required as a result of the AIPA. The performance indicators

are contained in our Corporate Plan where they are linked to our budget priorities and initiatives, and identified

in the Balanced Scorecards we use to assist our operations in moving from ideas to action, achieving long-term

goals, and obtaining feedback about strategy.

The USPTO has transitioned from four performance goals in the FY 2000 and FY 2001 Annual Performance

Plans (APP) to three performance goals in the combined FY 2000 Annual Program Performance Report/FY 2002

Annual Performance Plan. Additionally, four of the performance measures have revised FY 2000 and FY 2001

targets. The FY 2000 and FY 2001 Performance Agreements were established after the publication of the FY 2000

and FY 2001 APP.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 223

United States Patent and Trademark Office

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target Measure

90 99 102 106 105 125

Increase in technical

assistance to developing

countries and countries

moving to market

economy: Number of

technical assistance

activities completed

Performance Goal 1: Strengthen intellectual property protection in the United States and abroad, making it

more accessible, affordable, and enforceable
224 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

United States Patent and Trademark Office

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target Measure

65% 57% 60% 64% 67% 64% Percent of customers

satisfied overall

New New New New 86% 78%

Percent of patents

granted that do not

qualify for term

extension for exceeding

36 months

23.3 25.0 26.2 25.0 26.2 26.7

Average pendency to

issue/abandonment

(months)

Performance Goal 2: Enhance the quality of patent products and services, transition to E-government, and

optimize patent processing time

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target Measure

80% 69% 72% 65% 65% 60% Percent of customers

satisfied overall

3.9 4.6 4.5 5.7 6.6 8.0

Average time to

examiner’s first action

(months)

15.5 18.9 18.0 17.3 19.0 20.0

Average time to

disposal or registration

(months)

Performance Goal 3: Enhance the quality of trademark products and services, transition to E-government,

and minimize trademark processing time 
Resource Requirements Summary

(Dollars in Millions. Funding amounts reflect total obligations.)

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)

*IT Funding included in Total Funding 

** Reimbursable Funding included in Total Funding

Skill Summary

Knowledge of global intellectual property rights systems and policies; expertise in intellectual property law and

appropriate scientific and technical disciplines.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 225

United States Patent and Trademark Office

FY 1999

Actual

FY 1999

Request

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2000

Request

FY 2001

Enacted

FY 2002

Request Performance Goal

16.1

4.2

85

21.9

3.7

139

23.1

4.7

121

35.4

5.4

152

35.4

5.4

152

37.3

5.5

178

Performance Goal 1

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE

669.5

101.5

4,919

771.8

125.7

5,624

738.8

126.7

5,136

869.1

159.5

6,160

869.1

159.5

6,160

960.2

163.5

5,629

Performance Goal 2

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE

118.0

29.3

856

128.3

25.8

1,038

133.4

34.7

871

134.2

32.8

1,137

134.2

32.8

1,137

141.5

33.7

942

Performance Goal 3

Total Funding

IT Funding*

FTE

803.6

0.3

135.0

5,860

922

0.2

155.2

6,801

895.3

0.6

166.1

6,128

1,038.7

0.2

197.7

7,449

1,038.7

0.2

197.7

7,449

1,139.0

0.2

202.7

6,749

Grand Total

Total Funding

Reimbursable **

IT Funding*

FTE
FY 2002 Performance Goals

Performance Goal 1:

Strengthen intellectual property protection in the United States and abroad,

making it more accessible, affordable, and enforceable 

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 2: Provide infrastructure for innovation to enhance American competitiveness

Objective 2.2: Protect intellectual property

Rationale for Performance Goal 

Providing technical assistance to nationals of foreign countries is one method of promoting U. S.

competitiveness in the global marketplace. Assistance also strengthens and safeguards our nation’s economic

infrastructure by indirectly promoting and shaping intellectual property throughout the world. USPTO provides

seminars and technical training to officials in countries on reforming their intellectual property structures.

Measure 1a: Increase technical assistance to developing countries and countries moving to

market economy: Number of technical assistance activities completed

226 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Target 90 102 105 125

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual 99 106

Met/Not Met Met Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Internal records maintained by the

Administrator for External Affairs 

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: Records of the Administrator for External Affairs

Verification: Completeness and existence of supporting data

is verified during the annual financial statement audit. Final

test for reasonableness is performed internally
Explanation of Measure

Target met. The target for the number of technical activities completed was exceeded due to the increased level

of requests for assistance received by USPTO. Based on performance in FY 1999 and FY 2000, the FY 2001

performance target has been adjusted upward. To protect, promote, and expand intellectual property (IP) rights

abroad, USPTO engaged in numerous international activities, such as intellectual property enforcement training.

USPTO and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) cosponsored three intellectual property

enforcement programs in FY 2000 for government officials from more than 20 countries. The programs provided

high-level government and law enforcement officials with an in-depth review of the Trade Related Aspects of

Intellectual Property (TRIPs) agreement’s substantive and enforcement provisions, and an understanding of

how to create an effective IP enforcement system to protect rights in the digital era. USPTO also partnered with

WIPO to cosponsor regional seminars focusing on Internet enforcement for countries in West Africa and Asia,

and hosted a similar program for countries in the western hemisphere.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for USPTO Performance Goal 1: Strengthen intellectual 

property protection in the United States and abroad, making it more accessible, 

affordable, and enforceable

• USPTO continued its annual self-assessment process using the Baldrige criteria to project key requirements

for delivering ever-improving value to customers while maximizing overall effectiveness and productivity of

the delivering organization. The results of the review helped us to identify key opportunities for

improvement and to prioritize the use of our scarce resources. As a result of the assessment, USPTO

formalized a systematic strategic planning process and a performance management system that was used to

establish linkages between organizational goals; we also initiated the use of balanced scorecards in each

organization to track performance from the financial, customer, employee, and business results perspectives. 

• In FY 2000, USPTO conducted internal and external customer surveys, customer service training for employees,

and supported a wide variety of customer feedback activities. We need customer input to ensure that activities

geared toward improving products and services are supportive of customer needs and expectations, and we

seek this input through the use of focus groups, partnership meetings, technology fairs, workshops, and

publicity campaigns. Customer feedback is taken into consideration when planning future activities.

Discontinued Measures

None

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 1

Action Plan 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 227

United States Patent and Trademark Office

• Partner with other Federal and international government

agencies to provide seminars and technical training 

• Maintain and develop leadership roles in intellectual

property rights; e.g., fund Joint Council on Intellectual

Property Enforcement

Partner and negotiate with foreign

patent and trademark organizations.

Increase technical assistance to

developing countries

Strategies Activities
Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

None

Other government agencies

USPTO partners with the following organizations in meeting this performance goal:

• U. S. Trade Representative: To assess trade issues especially as they relate to Special 301 and TRIPs, and to

review laws for TRIPS compliance.

• Department of Justice, the U.S. Bureau of Customs and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: To provide technical

assistance to developing countries, develop methods for combating piracy and counterfeiting of U.S. goods

in foreign countries, and to jointly chair the Intellectual Property Enforcement Council.

• United States Agency for International Development (USAID): To provide technical assistance to developing

countries.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

• USPTO requires an invitation from the host country before we can provide technical assistance related to

intellectual property in that country.

228 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

United States Patent and Trademark Office
Performance Goal 2:

Enhance the quality of patent products and services, transition to 

E-government, and optimize patent processing time

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 2: Provide infrastructure for innovation to enhance American competitiveness

Objective 2.2: Protect intellectual property

Rationale for Performance Goal 

A decision on patentability must be of high quality and rendered on a timely basis due to its influence on

investment, development, marketing strategies, and ultimately on the financial viability of U.S. businesses. 

USPTO must move aggressively to conduct business in an e-government environment. Our customers expect us

to use the latest information technology to improve our business quality and efficiency. All automation

initiatives must be predicated on their capability to improve our business processes.

Measure 2a: Percent of customers satisfied overall

Explanation of Measure

Target exceeded. FY 2000 and FY 2001 targets were revised based on Performance Agreements between the

Commissioner for Patents and the Secretary of Commerce (performance agreements are a statutory requirement

of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, Sec. 4713). According to the FY 2000 annual customer survey,

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 229

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Target 65% 60% 67% 64%

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual 57% 64%

Met/Not Met Not Met Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Customer surveys 

Frequency: Surveys are conducted and results reported

annually

Data storage: Paper files and electronic files with contractor

Verification: Completeness and existence of supporting data

is verified during the annual financial statement audit. Final

test for reasonableness is performed internally
customer satisfaction with the patent process increased 7 percentage points compared to the previous year. We

will maintain our focus on quality improvement measures such as the sharing of information among employees,

training, analysis of customer feedback, and the provision of better tools to examiners.

Measure 2b: Percent of patents granted that do not qualify for term extension for exceeding

36 months

Explanation of Measure

This is a new performance measure. As a result of the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA), Public Law

106-113, USPTO has established new goals and performance measures and undertaken a comprehensive review

and reorganization of business practices. The AIPA legislation provides a guarantee that seeks to ensure that

diligent applicants maximize the term of their patent. The two main areas of the patent term adjustment

provisions provide that the issuance of a first Office action later than 14 months from the filing date or issuance

of a patent later than 36 months from the filing date will result in a commensurate restoration of patent term to

the diligent applicant.

Measure 2c: Average pendency to issue/abandonment (months)

230 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Target New New 86% 78%

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual

Met/Not Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Patent Application Location and Monitoring (PALM) 

Frequency: Input: daily; reporting: monthly

Data storage: PALM, automated systems, reports

Verification: Completeness and existence of supporting data is verified during the annual financial statement audit. Final test for

reasonableness is performed internally

Target 23.3 26.2 26.2 26.7

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual 25.0 25.0

Met/Not Met Not Met Met
Explanation of Measure

Target exceeded. This performance measure is new and did not appear in the Department’s FY 1999 or FY 2000

annual performance plans; however USPTO has used this measure for several years and has targets and actuals

for previous fiscal years. Average pendancy is measured from the time of filing to the time of issue or

abandonment.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for USPTO Performance Goal 2: Enhance the quality of 

patent products and services, transition to E-government, and optimize patent 

processing time

• USPTO conducted ongoing reviews on the quality of patent examination. The purpose of the reviews is

threefold: to identify patentability errors, assess adequacy of the field of search and proper classification, and

to assess proper examination practice and procedures. The information from these reviews helps the patent

business units identify the training that is necessary to enhance overall product quality and to improve the

consistency of examination. The results of the reviews provide analysis in the form of reports to USPTO

management. These reports serve as a basis for developing training tools for educating examiners. In addition

to reporting specific errors, the analysis provides information on recurring problems and trends.

• USPTO continued its annual self-assessment process using the Baldrige criteria to project key requirements

for delivering ever-improving value to customers while maximizing overall effectiveness and productivity of

the delivering organization. The results of the review helped USPTO to identify key opportunities for

improvement and to prioritize the use of our scarce resources. As a result of the assessment, we have

formalized a systematic strategic planning process and a performance management system that we used to

establish linkages between organizational goals, and we have initiated the use of balanced scorecards in each

organization to track performance from the financial, customer, employee, and business results perspectives. 

• USPTO conducted internal and external customer surveys and customer service training for employees, and

also supported a wide variety of customer feedback activities. We need customer input to ensure that

activities geared toward improving products and services are supportive of customer needs and expectations,

and we seek this input through focus groups, partnership meetings, technology fairs, workshops, and

publicity campaigns. Customer feedback is taken into consideration when planning future activities.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 231

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: PALM 

Frequency: Input: daily; reporting: monthly

Data storage: PALM, automated systems, reports

Verification: Completeness and existence of supporting data

is verified during the annual financial statement audit. Final

test for reasonableness is performed internally
Discontinued Measures

Measure: Average cycle time of original inventions processed (months)

Explanation

This performance measure has been superseded by the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) of 1999,

Public Law 106-113, which was enacted in November 1999. Existing resources were dedicated to tracking the

new measures required by AIPA rather than tracking former measures. 

Measure: Workload cost indicator

Explanation

The USPTO has transitioned from four performance goals in the FY 2000 and FY 2001 Annual Performance

Plans (APP) to three performance goals in the combined FY 2000 Annual Program Performance Report/FY 2002

Annual Performance Plan hence FY 2000 actuals were not tracked. 

232 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Target 10.9 102 Discontinued Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual 12.9 NA

Met/Not Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Automated systems (Patent Application Locator and Monitoring-PALM)

Frequency: Input: daily; reporting: monthly

Data storage: PALM, automated systems, reports

Verification: Completeness and existence of supporting data is verified during the annual financial statement audit. Final test for

reasonableness is performed internally

Target $2,496.03 $2,646.99 Discontinued Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual $2,494.20 NA

Met/Not Met Met
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 2

Action Plan 

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

None

Other government agencies

USPTO partners with the following organizations in meeting this performance goal:

• Departments of Agriculture, Justice and State: To formulate intellectual property proposals.

• USAID: To improve systems for effectively granting and protecting intellectual property rights.

• Departments of Defense, Energy, and NASA: To handle patent applications that have national security

implications.

• Department of Health and Human Services: To handle both AIDS-related and recombinant DNA

information.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

• Business factors that foster dramatic increases or decreases in patent application filings. 

• The degree to which inventors, patent firms, and corporate IP departments move to an e-government

environment.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 233

United States Patent and Trademark Office

• Maintain quality activities such as incentives to recruit and

retain electrical engineers and examiners in hard-to-fill

disciplines; shift formality functions from patent examiners

to support staff; and maintain search capabilities

• Increase the special salary rates for patent professional

employees in exchange for reduced reliance on paper files

Improve quality and processes

Address the 12 percent increase in patent application filings by

replacing patent examiner attritions and providing them with

appropriate technical support and address AIPA operational

issues

Enhance human resources

Continue to develop electronic patent application processing

capability and maintain current information technology

systems and infrastructure

Leverage technology

Strategies Activities
Performance Goal 3:

Enhance the quality of trademark products and services, transition to 

E-government, and minimize trademark processing time 

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 2: Provide infrastructure for innovation to enhance American competitiveness

Objective 2.2: Protect intellectual property

Rationale for Performance Goal 

USPTO must create a structure capable of managing the recent unprecedented growth in application filings in

order to maximize the business potential of trademarks and to contain the cost of trademark application

processing. The recent high demand for trademark registrations dictates that we change our business approach

to serving our customers.

USPTO must move aggressively to conduct business in an e-government environment. Electronic filing and

communication provides benefits to our customers by reducing the time it takes to process initial application

information and therefore by increasing public access to trademark information. Our customers expect us to use

the latest information technology to improve our business quality and efficiency. All automation initiatives must

be predicated on their capability to improve our business processes. We intend to build on our investments in

information technology to ultimately replace our paper-based processes with electronic filing and information

dissemination, in order to serve more customers with better quality results. 

Measure 3a: Percent of customers satisfied overall 

234 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Target 80% 72% 65% 60%

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual 69% 65%

Met/Not Met Not Met Not Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Customer surveys 

Frequency: Surveys are conducted and results reported

annually

Data storage: Paper files and contractors’ electronic files

Verification: Completeness and existence of supporting data

is verified during the annual financial statement audit. Final

test for reasonableness is performed internally
Explanation of Measure

Target not met. FY 2000 and FY 2001 targets were revised based on the Performance Agreement between the

Commissioner for Trademarks and the Secretary of Commerce (performance agreements are a statutory

requirement of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, Sec. 4713). Customer satisfaction efforts are

focused on internal processing issues relating to timeliness and the handling of delays and mistakes, two

problem areas that, although improved in the last quarter, still require further attention and improvement.

Measure 3b: Average time to examiner’s first action (months)

Explanation of Measure

Target not met. FY 2000 and FY 2001 targets were revised based on the Performance Agreement between the

Commissioner for Trademarks and the Secretary of Commerce (performance agreements are a statutory

requirement of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, Sec. 4713). In FY 2000, USPTO received 375,428

trademark classes for registration. Application filings increased 27 percent. Increases of this magnitude help

explain why trademark pendency to first Office action was 5.7 months, an increase of 1.1 months over the prior

year. Meeting the target remains a challenge. To the extent resources are available, we propose to increase hiring

and to invest in technology and new ways of doing business in order to complete this increased workload.

Measure 3c: Average time to disposal or registration (months)

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 235

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Target 3.9 4.5 6.6 8.0

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual 4.6 5.7

Met/Not Met Not Met Not Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Trademark Reporting and Monitoring System

(TRAM) 

Frequency: Input: daily; reporting: monthly

Data storage: TRAM/Trademark Information System

Verification: Completeness and existence of supporting data

is verified during the annual financial statement audit. Final

test for reasonableness is performed internally

Target 15.5 18.0 19.0 20.0

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual 18.9 17.3

Met/Not Met Not Met Met
Explanation of Measure

Target met. FY 2000 and FY 2001 targets were revised based on the Performance Agreement between the

Commissioner for Trademarks and the Secretary of Commerce (performance agreements are a statutory

requirement of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, Sec. 4713). Overall pendency to registration

decreased by 1.6 months to 17.3 months. Reducing the time to issue registrations is a significant accomplishment

given the level of new filings and our inventory of pending applications. In FY 2000, USPTO issued 106,383

trademark registrations, including 127,794 classes, representing an increase of more than 21 percent over the

number of registrations issued in 1999.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for USPTO Performance Goal 3: Enhance the 

quality of trademark products and services, transition to E-government, and

minimize trademark processing time

• USPTO conducted ongoing reviews on the quality of trademark examination. The review of trademark

applications looked at four areas: substantive statutory criteria for registrability; search for confusingly

similar marks; proper examination practice and procedure; and proper application of judicial precedents. The

information from these reviews helps the business units identify the training that is necessary to enhance

overall product quality and to improve the consistency of examination. The results of the reviews provide

analysis in the form of reports to USPTO management. These reports serve as a tool for educating examiners

and examining attorneys. In addition to reporting specific errors, the analysis provides information on

recurring problems and trends.

• USPTO continued its annual self-assessment process using the Baldrige criteria to project key requirements

for delivering ever-improving value to customers while maximizing overall effectiveness and productivity of

the delivering organization. The results of the review helped us to identify key opportunities for

improvement and to prioritize the use of our scarce resources. As a result of the assessment, we formalized a

systematic strategic planning process and a performance management system that we used to establish

linkages between organizational goals, and we initiated the use of balanced scorecards in each organization to

track performance from the financial, customer, employee, and business results perspectives. 

• USPTO conducted internal and external customer surveys, customer service training for employees, and

supported a wide variety of customer feedback activities. We need customer input to ensure that activities

geared toward improving products and services are supportive of customer needs and expectations, and we

seek this input through focus groups, partnership meetings, technology fairs, workshops, and publicity

campaigns. Customer feedback is taken into consideration when planning future activities.

236 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: TRAM transactions

Frequency: Input: daily; reporting: monthly

Data storage: TRAM/Trademark Information System

Verification: Completeness and existence of supporting data

is verified during the annual financial statement audit. Final

test for reasonableness is performed internally
Discontinued Measures

Measure: Workload cost indicator

Explanation:

This performance measure has been discontinued. The USPTO has transitioned from four performance goals in

the FY 2000 and FY 2001 Annual Performance Plan s (APP) to three performance goals in combined FY 2000

Annual Program Performance Report/FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan hence FY 2000 actuals were not

tracked.

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 3

Action Plan 

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

None

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 237

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Target $450.85 $495.95 Discontinued Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Target 

Actual $557.87 NA

Met/Not Met Not Met

Maintain the quality of trademark products by providing new

trademark examiners with on-the-job training and access to

search tools and operate and maintain automated trademark

production search systems

Improve quality and processes

Address the projected increase in trademark applications by

replacing examining attorneys attritions, providing

appropriate technical support, and implementing a group

productivity incentive award program (FY 2000 was the second

consecutive year that applications increased by 27 percent)

Enhance human resources

Continue to develop electronic trademark application

processing capability and maintain current information

technology systems and infrastructure

Leverage technology

Strategies Activities
Other government agencies

USPTO partners with the following organization in meeting this performance goal: 

The U. S. Bureau of Customs: To deal with counterfeit goods or services.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

• Business factors that foster dramatic increases or decreases in trademark application filings. 

• Electronic filing increases access to the registration system and raises expectations for improved service and

shorter time to registration.

• Cooperation of our constituency to change the way they do business so that we can serve more customers

electronically, thereby improving quality and timeliness.

Discontinued Goals and Measures

Performance Goal 4 “Promote awareness of and provide effective access to patent and trademark information”

in the FY 2000 and FY 2001 Annual Performance Plan has been discontinued as a result of USPTO’s

implementation of the AIPA which resulted in updating its strategic plan in FY 2000 by taking a fresh look at its

goals and initiatives. Hence the following measures associated with performance goal 4 have been discontinued.

Measure: Percentage of key products and services meeting schedules or cycle time 

of standards

238 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Target 80 80 Discontinued Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual 64

Met/Not Met Not Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Internal IDO records; automated systems (the Order Entry Management System and the Patent and Trademark System;

customer surveys

Frequency: Quarterly

Data storage: Program reports and automated systems; automated systems; reports

Verification: Completeness and existence of supporting data is verified during the annual financial statement audit. Final test for

reasonableness is performed internally
Measure: Customer satisfaction with key products and services

Measure: Workload cost indicator

Explanation:

The USPTO has transitioned from four performance goals in the FY 2000 and FY 2001 Annual Performance

Plans (APP) to three performance goals in the combined FY 2000 Annual Program Performance Report/FY 2002

Annual Performance Plan hence FY 2000 actuals for the above measures were not tracked.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 239

United States Patent and Trademark Office

90

Conducted

every two

years

Target Discontinued Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual 75

Met/Not Met Not Met

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Customer surveys

Frequency: Surveys conducted and results reported every two years

Data storage: Paper report; electronic file with contractor

Verification: Completeness and existence of supporting data is verified during the annual financial statement audit. Final test for

reasonableness is performed internally

Target $8.66 $8.90 Discontinued Discontinued

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual $14.19

Met/Not Met Not Met
240 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

Mission statement

Text

Technology Administration

Mission Statement

The Technology Administration’s mission is to work with U.S. industry to maximize

technology’s contribution to U.S. economic growth by maintaining and improving key

components of the nation’s technological infrastructure; fostering the development,

diffusion, and adoption of new technologies and leading business practices; creating a

business and policy environment conducive to innovation; and disseminating technical

information.

The Technology Administration (TA) works with U.S. industry to maximize technology’s contribution to U.S.

economic growth. Led by the Under Secretary for Technology, TA fulfills its broad responsibilities through three

component organizations:

The Office of the Under Secretary for Technology provides policy guidance to the Secretary of Commerce and

the Technology Administration’s component agencies and serves as an advocate for innovation and industrial

competitiveness within and outside government. The Under Secretary coordinates the civilian technology efforts

of all Federal agencies and helps to shape Federal civilian R&D priorities based upon the views of industry. The

Under Secretary also provides counsel to the Secretary of Commerce on all matters affecting innovation, and

coordinates with counterpart offices in the trade and economic agencies to create unified, integrated trade and

technology policies. Pursuant to this role, the Under Secretary also oversees the Office of Technology Policy

(OTP) and the Office of Space Commercialization (OSC).

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) develops and disseminates measurement

techniques, reference data, test methods, standards, and other infrastructural technologies and services required

by U.S. industry to compete in the 21st century. In addition to its core measurement, testing, and standards

functions, NIST also conducts three key extramural programs: the Advanced Technology Program, to stimulate

the development of high-risk, broad-impact technologies by U.S. firms; the Manufacturing Extension

Partnership, to help smaller firms adopt new manufacturing and management technologies; and the Baldrige

National Quality Program, to help U.S. businesses and other organizations improve the performance and quality

of their operations by providing clear standards and benchmarks of quality.

The National Technical Information Service (NTIS) operates a central clearinghouse of scientific and technical

information that is useful to U.S. business and industry. NTIS collects scientific and technical information;

catalogs, abstracts, indexes, and permanently archives the information, disseminating products in the forms and

formats most useful to its customers; develops electronic and other new media to disseminate information; and

provides information processing services to other Federal agencies.

U.S. DEP ARTMENT OF COMMERCE

TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRA TION
Organizational Structure

Priorities

Technical infrastructure for 21st century innovation

Leading-edge scientific and technical work requires multiple disciplines, high levels of collaboration among

organizations and people with diverse capabilities, and highly specialized facilities and complex tools. For more

than a century, the NIST Laboratories have successfully collaborated with industry and universities to provide

the measurement techniques and technical tools needed by America’s innovators. 

To continue this record of success, NIST must respond to new and challenging demands in areas where public

and private Research and Development (R&D) investments are large, measurement and standards capabilities

are critical, and the potential benefits are substantial and broad. These areas include health care,

nanotechnology, IT security, and IT interoperability. In each of these areas, NIST will build on its tradition of

using strategic partnerships with industry, universities, and other governmental agencies to implement highly

leveraged R&D infrastructure solutions—solutions that maximize their impact through strategic use of

collaborative research, R&D grants, personnel exchange, and joint planning. 

Opportunities for small manufacturers

Small and medium-sized manufacturers face a complex set of demands: they must increase production

efficiency, respond quickly to market changes, use knowledge effectively, and deliver customized products to

diverse supply chain partners and customers. Moreover, large firms at the center of manufacturing supply

chains are increasingly demanding that their smaller supply chain partners productively use e-business

practices and technologies and operate at internationally competitive cost and quality levels. 

These market pressures raise the need for low-cost, fast, high-quality tools and training to help smaller

manufacturers adopt e-business practices—the types of services that can be provided most readily and

efficiently through the NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program. The MEP program, a

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 241

Technology Administration

Baldrige National 

Quality Program

Technology Administration

Under Secretary for Technology

Office of

Technology Policy

Office of Space

Commercialization

National Institute of 

Standards and

Technology

National Technical

Information Service

Advanced Technology

Program NIST Laboratories

Manufacturing

Extension

Partnership
national network of more than 400 centers and offices that bring together Federal, State, local, and private

resources, must continue to develop new products and services to help small manufacturers overcome the

information and cost barriers to adopting high performance practices. 

Quality and accountability in health care and education organizations

Established in 1988, NIST’s Baldrige National Quality Program (BNQP) has become a highly visible publicprivate partnership that identifies and encourages performance excellence in U.S. manufacturers, service

companies, educational organizations, and health care providers. The criteria for the annual Malcolm Baldrige

National Quality Award are widely distributed and help organizations enhance their competitiveness by

focusing on two goals: delivering ever-improving value to customers and improving overall organizational

performance. The BNQP is a highly leveraged public investment that generates broad economic and societal

benefits. 

Beginning with the 1999 award cycle, the BNQP added two new award eligibility categories, education and

health care, and developed detailed performance criteria for these two sectors. For the education award,

participation is open to for-profit and not-for-profit public, private, and government organizations that provide

education services in the United States and its territories. The addition of these two categories has received wide

praise, and each is expected to generate broad benefits. For instance, as Chair of the National Education Goals

Panel (NEGP), then-Governor Tommy Thompson stated, the Baldrige criteria for education “can provide

educators with a framework and strategies for improving their schools and helping children to reach high

standards.” Through the BNQP, the nation has an opportunity to broadly apply leading-edge thinking about

performance, quality, and accountability to education and health care organizations. NIST will continue to

champion and support this innovative program.

Construction and facilities: The need to invest wisely in facilities modernization

NIST’s leading-edge measurement research requires state-of-the-art laboratory facilities. Unfortunately, many of

NIST’s 30-to-45-year-old facilities are inadequate to support some types of measurement research essential to

U.S. industry in the development of new technologies. The principal inadequacy involves the lack of highquality systems to maintain extremely precise environmental controls, including temperature, humidity,

vibration, electric power quality, and air cleanliness.

NIST plans to address this challenge with a combination of new construction, major renovation of existing

facilities, and attention to safety, capacity, maintenance, and major repair needs. With appropriations received

so far, NIST has constructed an Advanced Chemical Sciences Laboratory and has awarded a contract for

construction of an Advanced Measurement Laboratory in Gaithersburg, MD. These buildings, however, will not

provide enough modern laboratory space to meet the accelerating needs for advanced research. Additional

funds for facilities support and modern laboratories at the Boulder, CO site and for major renovations to the

Gaithersburg general-purpose laboratories are needed. Moreover, NIST’s backlog of safety, capacity, and major

repair needs continues to grow.

Management Challenges

Financial Management

In its recent series on “Major Management Challenges and Program Risks” for Federal agencies, the General

Accounting Office (GAO) noted that the Department of Commerce “needs to address other challenges in order

to build a high-performing organization. These include (1) continuing to successfully produce financial

statement reports and implement a department-wide financial management system . . . ” (GAO-01-243,

“Commerce Challenges,” p. 27). The NIST accounting system has a long history of providing accurate, timely

242 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration
information for managers and reviewers, and NIST is continuing to work to ensure that it provides a sound

financial management environment that complies with Federal laws and regulations. The FY 2000 audit of the

NIST financial statement resulted in the sixth consecutive unqualified opinion issued by an independent audit

firm.

NIST is moving ahead with the implementation of the Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS),

the Department-wide effort to develop and implement a set of standardized systems that will support the

common financial activities of the Department. CAMS is a single, integrated financial management system that

includes a Core Financial System (CFS) interfaced with administrative systems for small purchases, bankcards,

and time reporting/labor cost distribution, collectively called Core CAMS. In its capacity of providing

professional financial services to the Office of the Secretary (OS) and other Departmental bureaus, NIST

deployed CAMS to the OS, the Office of the Inspector General, and the Office of Computer Services early in FY

2001. The rollout will be extended to the Economics and Statistics Administration, the Bureau of Economic

Analysis, and the Minority Business Development Agency during FY 2001. Implementation of the CAMS CFS

system at NIST, the Technology Administration, and the National Telecommunications and Information

Administration will be completed in FY 2004.

Information Technology

The information technology (IT) systems operated by NIST will continue to shape the ability of its employees to

effectively and efficiently accomplish their work and achieve NIST’s mission. It is therefore essential that we are

able to provide an integrated, effective suite of IT resources and services that both support current NIST

personnel and organizational needs and anticipate the future needs of the organization. The efficiency and

quality of other NIST activities, including technology transfer services and many administrative functions,

similarly depend upon seamless, powerful, and highly accessible IT resources. Intramural research programs

comprise the bulk of NIST’s high-performance and laboratory-based computing needs and drive our IT

strategies.

To achieve our IT objectives, NIST must:

• Upgrade computing and communications systems on a regular basis, focusing on high-end computational

resources, networking and electronic information dissemination capabilities, data storage capacity, and

security conditions.

• Promote interoperability within and across hardware and software platforms.

• Provide enhanced management information systems, particularly E-commerce applications for internal

systems.

• Develop central support for local workstations, improving user efficiency and system security. 

• Develop more coordinated and integrated public information dissemination technologies.

• Deploy computer systems security to protect business and scientific information.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 243

Technology Administration
244 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

Targets and Performance Summary

See individual Performance Goal section for further description of each measure.

1 Peer review and economic impact studies are not cumulative; therefore, numerical targets and performance data are not applicable and

are not provided here. Both measures are described in detail in the sections that follow (see sections 2a, 2b, and 3a). For a complete copy

of the most recent peer review report on the NIST Laboratories (conducted by the National Research Council), refer to

http://books.nap.edu/html/nist2000/.

2 1999 actuals differ from previously reported figures due to improved data management, recording, and reporting procedures. Actual

totals and out-year projections have been updated to reflect these improvements.

3 Out-year projections for ATP performance measures are based on the FY 2002 President’s budget, which provides no funding for new

ATP grants in fiscal year 2002. Projections for performance measures in any specific fiscal year depend heavily on the number of

projects expected to be completed in that year; i.e., they reflect outputs from projects funded during the previous three to five years.

Thus, performance forecasts for 2002 will not be impacted significantly by this budget scenario. The impact of the FY 2002 President’s

budget will be reflected in performance estimates beyond FY 2003. These revised out-year projections will be reported elsewhere, as

required.

4 Final data for FY 2000 are not yet available due to surveying procedures and data collection and analysis requirements. Data will not be

available until mid- to late-2001 and will be reported in the FY 2001 Annual Program Performance Report. Final data for FY 1999 are

Measure FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

Performance Goal 1: Promote technology-based growth through partnerships with industry

62 60 63 63 66 68

Standard Reference Materials available

Standard Reference Data titles available

1,315 1,288 1,300 1,292 1,315 1,350

2,150 2,030 2,450 2,115 2,200 2,050

Number of items calibrated

Technical publications produced2

3,375 3,118 3,200 2,969 3,100 2,900

See footnote 1

Measure

Quality assessment and performance

evaluation using peer review1

Economic impact studies See footnote 1 1

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

Performance Goal 2: Provide technical leadership for the nation’s measurement and standards infrastructure

and ensure the availability of essential reference data and measurement capabilities

Measure

Economic impact studies1

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

Performance Goal 3: Accelerate technological innovation and development of the new technologies that will

underpin future economic growth3

120 120 170 Not yet

available4 180 210 Cumulative number of technologies under commercialization

480 468 680 Not yet

available Cumulative number of publications 4 720 830

640 616 770 Not yet

available Cumulative number of patents filed 4 790 940

See footnote 1

Number of roundtables, seminars, and

negotiations New 25 25 30 25 30
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 245

Technology Administration

5

In early 2000, the MEP program substantially revised the survey method and instrument it uses to gather information from its clients.

Due to these improvements, data for FY 1999 and future years cannot be compared with FY 1998 and previous years. Moreover, two of

the previously reported metrics (inventory savings and labor and material savings) have been combined into a more comprehensive

metric called “cost savings,” which includes but is not limited to inventory, labor, and materials savings. In addition, out-year

projections have been significantly updated based on the initial data gathered from the improved survey instrument and process. See

the section entitled “Performance Goal 4: Improve the technological capability, productivity, and competitiveness of small

manufacturers” (below) for additional information.

6 FE indicates “final estimate.” FY 1999 data are listed as final estimates because the switch to the new survey instrument occurred in the

middle of the reporting cycle for FY 1999 (January 2000 data collection corresponds to activities undertaken in early 1999). Final data for

FY 1999 cover only January–October 1999.

7 Data reflect partial counts obtained from State and local quality programs collected through 3/16/01; final data will be available in

April 2001. 

8 Milestones for program establishment have been established and are explained in Section 6a, below. Activity milestones include:

complete an implementation plan for the program (already underway); hire or assign staff, as necessary; establish grant review teams

and advisory committees; coordinate and support the competitive grant review process; award the first round of research grants;

disseminate the results of the funded research; and establish an evaluation system for the program.

Measure FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

892 1,067 916 Partial

data: 9117 935 954

Measure

Number of applications per year to

MBNQA and Baldrige-based State and

local quality awards

203,700 211,028 197,600

Partial

data:

176,248 7

193,600 191,700

Number of Baldrige Criteria mailed by

BNQP and by Baldrige-based State and

local quality programs

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

Performance Goal 5: Assist U.S. businesses and other organizations in continuously improving their productivity,

efficiency, and customer satisfaction by adopting quality and performance improvement practices

Measure FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

Performance Goal 6: Protect the national information infrastructure

New New New New Successful

establishment8

Measures to 

be established

Activity milestones related to program

establishment

Measure FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

Number of items in archive 2,873,431 2,874,416 2,924,416 2,916,204 2,966,200 3,016,200

600,000 721,295 750,000 805,332 850,000 850,000 Number of documents reproduced from

electronic media

Increased sales attributed to MEP

assistance $443 M $447M(FE) 6 $670M Not yetavailable4 $708M $736M

Capital investment attributed to MEP

assistance $359M $576M(FE) 6 $864M Not yetavailable 4 $913M $949M

Cost savings attributed to MEP assistance New $364M

(FE) 6 $545M Not yetavailable 4 $576M $599M

Performance Goal 7: Collect, organize, preserve, and disseminate government scientific, technical, and

business-related information

Performance Goal 4: Improve the technological capability, productivity, and competitiveness of small manufacturers5
Resource Requirements Summary

(Dollars in Millions. Funding amounts reflect total obligations.)

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)

* IT funding is included in Total Funding

246 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

9 “Total funding” includes direct and reimbursable obligations.

10 In FY 2000, the Department of Commerce proposed the elimination of NTIS and the transfer of its collection to the Library of Congress.

Performance Goal

Performance Goal 1

Total Funding9

*IT Funding

FTE

Performance Goal 2

Total Funding9

*IT Funding

FTE

414.3

48.0

2762

493.5

49.8

2767

612.5

50.2

2670

475.4

54.8

2820

514.3

55.9

2772

499.9

61.9

2935

Grand Total

Total Funding9

Reimbursable

*IT Funding

FTE

786.5

138.7

64.0

3547

923.4

163.7

57.1

3653

970.0

153.3

69.9

3351

854.2

108.4

61.8

3317

824.8

170.7

64.1

3522

748.5

162.9

70.2

3532

Performance Goal 3

Total Funding9

*IT Funding

FTE

Performance Goal 4

Total Funding9

*IT Funding

FTE

190.3

2.8

271

251.5

3.7

280

198.8

5.8

270

198.6

3.3

280

133.0

3.7

278

80.4

3.7

124

131.4

2.6

109

99.9

2.8

113

104.4

2.9

91

114.1

2.9

114

109.0

3.0

109

106.6

3.1

109

Performance Goal 5

Total Funding9

*IT Funding

FTE

6.2

0.5

39

7.0

0.6

42

8.8

0.7

51

6.8

0.6

40

7.7

0.7

51

7.3

0.7

51

Performance Goal 6

Total Funding9

*IT Funding

FTE

Performance Goal 7

Total Funding9

*IT Funding

FTE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

50.0

N/A

12

5.0

0.1

1

5.0

0.1

2

33.3

9.9

322

62.0

N/A

400

38.3

9.9

230

0.010 

N/A

0

47.1

N/A

260

40.5

N/A

260

FY 1999

Actual

FY2000

Request

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Request

FY 2001

Enacted

FY 2002

Request

11.0

0.2

44

9.5

0.2

51

7.2

0.4

39

9.3

0.2

51

8.7

0.7

51

8.8

0.7

51
Skill Summary: 

At the end of FY 2000, the staffs of the three component bureaus of the Technology Administration (TA)

reflected the following levels of educational attainment:

• Total US/OTP staff included 8 percent PhD, 29 percent MA/MS, and 29 percent BA/BS holders.

• Total NIST staff included 29 percent PhD, 14 percent MA/MS, and 18 percent BA/BS holders. The

breakdown of professional staff by major NIST program was:

— NIST Laboratories: 55 percent PhD, 19 percent MA/MS, 18 percent BA/BS holders

— Advanced Technology Program: 45 percent PhD, 34 percent MA/MS, 19 percent BA/BS holders

— Manufacturing Extension Partnership: 14 percent PhD, 64 percent MA/MS, 21 percent BA/BS

holders

— Baldrige National Quality Program: 13 percent PhD, 63 percent MA/MS, 12 percent BA/BS holders

• Total NTIS staff included 7 percent MA/MS and 20 percent BA/BS holders.

IT Requirements:

Please refer to the Management Challenges section, above.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 247

Technology Administration
FY 2002 Performance Goals

Performance Goal 1:

Promote technology-based growth through partnerships with industry

(US/OTP)

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 2: Provide infrastructure for innovation to enhance American competitiveness

Objective 2.1: Provide infrastructural tools and capabilities that improve the productivity, quality, and efficiency

of research and innovation processes

Rationale for Performance Goal

The Technology Administration’s Office of the Under Secretary/Office of Technology Policy (US/OTP) serves as

the focal point within the Federal Government for leadership on civilian technology policy, supporting

technology-based growth through a variety of programs that provide technical support to industry and helping

to develop and transfer new technologies to the private sector for commercial application.

US/OTP plays an important role in developing and coordinating national technology policy, working in

partnership with industry and serving as an advocate for policies that best leverage the benefits of new

technology and contribute to the nation’s economy. US/OTP’s undertakings include providing leadership for

the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles initiative between the Federal Government and the nation’s

auto makers; monitoring foreign government science and technology policies and encouraging the adoption of

policies that would promote a favorable environment for U.S. business partnerships overseas; promoting the

commercialization of space-related technologies; and working to promote productive research partnerships

between the Federal Government and the private sector across the full spectrum of Federal research programs.

Measure 1a: Number of roundtables, seminars, and negotiations held with industry,

government, and academia to advance TA policy goals

248 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: US/OTP

Frequency: US/OTP performance data cumulate throughout

the year and are reported annually

Data storage: US/OTP

Verification: Data represent verifiable tabulations of

US/OTP activities
Explanation of Measure

The data represent a direct count of the roundtable discussions, seminars, and negotiations that US/OTP has

held with industry, other government agencies and academia to advance the Department’s technology policy

goals. US/OTP’s core functions—such as providing policy advice and influencing the policymaking process—

are difficult to capture quantitatively. This output measure is intended to quantitatively characterize US/OTP’s

annual performance, but recognizes that it can represent only a partial indicator of US/OTP work. The

performance target for fiscal year 2002 has been updated from previously reported figures to reflect actual

performance in fiscal year 2000. As with other output metrics, targeting mechanisms are imperfect; there are

inaccuracies inherent in any forecasting methodology. 

This specific measure was added in the FY 2001 Annual Performance Plan to replace the previously reported

measure “Reports published” (see also below, “Discontinued Measures”). It has been tracked since fiscal year

1999. Note also that this Performance Goal was referred to as “Performance Goal 5: Analyze and develop

technology policies” in the FY 1999 Annual Performance Report and as Performance Goal 6 in the FY 2000

Annual Performance Plan. The renumbering of the Performance Goals was done to maintain consistency with

the Department’s new Strategic Plan for FY 2000–FY 2005. This Performance Goal has also been modified to

make it more outcome-oriented, and is now called “promote technology-based growth through partnerships

with industry.” 

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for TA Performance Goal 1: Promote technology-based

growth through partnerships with industry 

US/OTP did not conduct a formal program evaluation in FY 2000 for two reasons: (1) the intrinsic difficulty of

measuring the efficacy of policy analysis functions, and (2) the high cost of formal program evaluation relative

to US/OTP’s size.

Discontinued Measure: Reports published

As mentioned above, the current measure was introduced to replace the earlier measure “Reports published”

(see FY 2000 Annual Performance Plan). The new measure offers a more comprehensive gauge of the

programmatic activities and core functions of US/OTP. As this old metric appeared only in the FY 2000 Annual

Performance Plan and was discontinued soon after, actual data were not collected and reported. Data for 

FY 2000 for the replacement metric (“Number of roundtables, seminars . . .”) and out-year projections were

calculated and are reported here.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 249

Technology Administration

Target New 25 25 30

Actual 25 30

Met / Not Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 1 

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Other government agencies

Through the Committee on Technology of the President’s National Science and Technology Council, the

Under Secretary helps to establish clear national goals for Federal science and technology investments and to

ensure that Federal civilian R&D priorities reflect the requirements of industry customers. In FY 2000, the

Committee coordinated several major Administration R&D initiatives in materials, construction and building,

manufacturing infrastructure, electronics, and automotive technologies.

Government / Private sector

US/OTP works closely with private industry to develop and coordinate national technology policy; it also

serves as an advocate for policies that best leverage the benefits of new technology and contribute to the

nation’s economy. 

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

Outputs associated with coordination and leadership functions depend in part upon the interest and

commitment of numerous public and private sector participants operating at the State and Federal levels.

US/OTP can influence but not control other participants.

250 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

Strategies

Coordinate and lead key interagency

technology programs

Coordinate and lead interagency efforts to

strengthen technology partnerships between

States and the Federal Government

Improve the information base for science and

technology policy

Activities

• Recognize and promote technological achievement

(for example, through the National Medal of

Technology)

• Improve the conditions for international technology

cooperation

Specific activities will depend on administration

priorities

Generate reports and analyses of foreign technology

policies and domestic industrial and technological

trends
Performance Goal 2:

Provide technical leadership for the nation’s measurement and standards

infrastructure and ensure the availability of essential reference data and

measurement capabilities (NIST)11

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 2: Provide infrastructure for innovation to enhance American competitiveness

Objective 2.1: Provide infrastructural tools and capabilities that improve the productivity, quality, and efficiency

of research and innovation processes

Rationale for Performance Goal

The NIST Laboratories develop and deliver measurement techniques, reference data, test methods, standards,

and other infrastructural technologies and services that provide a foundation for industry in all stages of

commerce: research, development, testing, production, and marketing. The NIST Laboratories also support U.S.

firms in the global marketplace by working to eliminate trade barriers associated with different national

standards, testing, and certification requirements. Since its establishment in 1901 as the National Bureau of

Standards, NIST has collaborated closely with industry to anticipate and address the nation’s measurement,

standards, and technology needs. 

NIST has designed its performance evaluation system to accommodate the laboratories’ diverse outputs as well

as to respond to the intrinsic difficulty of measuring the results of investments in scientific and technological

products and services. Like other Federal science organizations, the primary output of NIST’s research is

scientific and technical knowledge, which is inherently difficult to measure directly and comprehensively. In

addition, the outcomes from research often do not begin to accrue until several years after the research program

has been completed, and the diffusion of benefits often affects broad segments of industry and society over long

time periods. Given these challenges, NIST evaluates its performance and plans its work in part through direct

customer feedback, but also through three distinct evaluation mechanisms: (1) peer review and other forms of

external assessments; (2) economic impact studies; and (3) quantitative output tracking. Taken alone, no

individual measurement mechanism can provide a comprehensive source of performance evaluation data.

Taken together, however, the three evaluation mechanisms, combined with continual feedback from customers,

collectively provide NIST management and external stakeholders with a highly detailed and reliable set of

performance data encompassing NIST’s strategic goals. 

Measure 2a: Qualitative assessment and performance evaluation using peer review

Peer review assessments and reports are inherently qualitative and noncumulative in nature; therefore,

numerical targets and performance data are not applicable and are not provided here. NIST’s peer review

process is described in more detail in the sections that follow.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 251

Technology Administration

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: National Research Council (NRC) Board on Assessment panel members observe and analyze each NIST Laboratory

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: NRC

Verification: NRC independence and high technical capability; internal NRC quality controls

11 This Performance Goal was called Performance Goal 1 in previous versions of the Annual Performance Plan. The Performance Goals

were renumbered to maintain consistency with the Department’s new Strategic Plan for FY 2000–FY 2005.
Explanation of Measure

Since 1959, the NIST Laboratories have been reviewed annually by the National Research Council (NRC). The

annual NRC Board on Assessment of NIST Programs review is independent, technically sophisticated, and

extensive. In FY 2000, the NRC Board was composed of approximately 150 scientists and engineers, organized

into seven panels (one for each of the seven laboratories) plus two sub-panels for specialized programs. Panel

reviews are reported at the division level (the major organizational unit for the laboratories) and build upon

assessments of research processes at the project and program levels. 

In FY 2000, each panel conducted a two- to three-day on-site review of each laboratory’s technical quality,

paying particular attention to the following factors:

• Technical merit of the laboratory programs relative to the state of the art.

• The degree to which the laboratory programs conform to their mission.

• The effectiveness with which the laboratory programs are carried out and the results disseminated.

• Insofar as they affect the quality of the technical programs, the adequacy of the laboratory’s facilities,

equipment, and human resources.12

The NRC panel reports for each laboratory provide the basis for a comprehensive annual peer review report on

the NIST Laboratories. As in prior years, the NRC report for FY 2000 provides each laboratory not only with an

external quality assessment, but also with valuable information that it can use for its own performance

assessment, planning, and management functions. The table below provides summary statements for the

laboratories, excerpted from NRC’s most recent report. (For the complete FY 2000 report, see

http://books.nap.edu/html/nist2000/.) 

252 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

12 For FY 2001, the NRC Board on Assessment’s charge has been reoriented slightly and a new crosscutting programmatic panel has been

added. The results of this review will be reported in the FY 2001 Annual Program Performance Report.
Sample Statements from FY 2000 NRC Peer Review

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 253

Technology Administration

LABORATORY

Electronics and

Electrical

Engineering

(EEEL)

Manufacturing

Engineering

(MEL)

Chemical

Science and

Technology

(CSTL)

Physics

(PL)

Materials

Science and

Engineering

(MSEL)

Building and

Fire Research

(BFRL)

Information

Technology

(ITL)

NRC SUMMARY FINDINGS, FY 2000

"The panel is very impressed by the high quality of the technical work under way in the Electronics and

Electrical Engineering Laboratory. The push to be the best in the world is appropriate and is being

realized. . . . The strategic planning process continues to improve, and the impact of the process on the

laboratory’s portfolio of programs is beginning to be seen. The process has not been uniformly adopted

in all of the divisions, but the panel encourages the serious effort that is being made. The quality of

facilities and equipment available to the EEEL is not yet at an acceptable level." (p. 47).

"The Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory has made significant progress in the past year on

developing and implementing a strategic planning process. The mission statement is clearly defined. . . .

The quality of the people in the MEL is very high, and their work produces world-class results.

Collaborations among the divisions and with other laboratories at NIST appear to be effective and

successful. The decreasing number of technical staff and the decline in the overall resources available to

the MEL concern the panel." (p. 69).

"The technical merit of the work in the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory continues to be of a

very high level and quality. The panel particularly observes enthusiastic staff and the outstanding

leadership provided by the laboratory director. . . . Extensive evidence of successful collaborative

research was noted. . . . The panel finds the work in CSTL to be highly relevant industrially. . . . Facility

inadequacies, which prevent some state-of-the-art measurement work, are being addressed as funding

permits. However, continuous improvement of facilities is needed to ensure that current and future work

can be accomplished. . . . The panel notes that the biotechnology industry is working on a time line

different from that of other industries serviced by CSTL. The panel recommends that NIST develop a

cohesive strategy in biotechnology that addresses the rapid pace of change in this important industry."

(pp. 103–4).

"Overall, the technical merit of ongoing programs and projects in the PL is very high. Many projects are

at or define the state of the art, and in some cases NIST is not just the leader but the dominant force in

highly competitive areas of scientific research. . . . In nanotechnology, the PL is already a world leader in

the fabrication and analysis of small structures such as thin magnetic layers. Future plans include better

understanding of edge effects in small magnetic and electronic structures and of electron transport and

tunneling in ferromagnetic, semiconductor, and superconductor materials. This work would be

complementary to ongoing work in other NIST laboratories on single-electron tunneling devices,

nanoscale metrology, nanoscale analysis, and other areas." (p. 107).

"MSEL continues to undertake programs that are well suited to the mission of NIST and have extremely

strong technical merit. MSEL expends considerable effort in determining industry needs for materials

measurements and standards. MSEL should give particular attention to developing industrial ties at the

appropriate technical and managerial levels that will allow it to anticipate future needs for

measurements and standards. The panel is pleased with the high priority MSEL places on releasing its

results to the public domain—staff clearly understand that their results must reach customers to be of

worth." (p. 172).

"The quality of the technical work under way in BFRL and the impact of laboratory programs continue to

impress the panel. The laboratory is a unique resource for the very fragmented building-related

industries, and the positive impact on the competitiveness of U.S. companies and on public safety and

quality of life should not be undervalued. The increasing pressure on BFRL staff to secure external

funding is hurting morale in the laboratory and has the potential to adversely affect the quality and

appropriateness of the work done at NIST. . . . BFRL’s relationship with [HUD], the potential

formalization of its relationship with [FEMA], and its involvement in consortia such as FIATECH are all

highly encouraged by the panel." (pp. 216–17).

"ITL continues to have a positive impact on the industrial IT community. Its portfolio of projects is

extensive and appropriate and generally chosen to maximize NIST’s impact. ITL has been effective in

influencing industry, especially in areas such as XML, where industry was stalled in coming to

agreement." (p. 224) "The panel is very concerned about the constant or, in some cases, decreasing

staffing levels within ITL. This situation is due in large part to the limited funding available to cover

salaries. The panel observes that the situation has two consequences: the first is that ITL personnel are

spread very thin and some projects have only single-point coverage; the second is that many areas exist

in which NIST participation could make a significant difference but ITL cannot afford to be active at this
Measure 2b: Economic impact studies

Economic impact studies are not cumulative; therefore, aggregate numerical targets and performance data are

not applicable and are not provided here. NIST’s process for conducting economic impact studies, as well as the

results of studies completed in FY 2000, are described in the sections that follow.

Explanation of Measure

NIST augments the performance information obtained through peer review with formal microeconomic

assessments of the long-term impacts that derive from the NIST Laboratories’ programs. NIST has been

conducting economic impact studies on a regular basis since 1992, and initiates approximately four new impact

studies annually. Impact assessments of NIST’s R&D in specific technical areas are conducted by external

economic and technical experts contracted by NIST. These studies provide both quantitative estimates and

qualitative assessments of the economic impacts resulting from the different types of technology infrastructure

that NIST provides to U.S. industry. Quantitative estimates compare project costs with quantitative impact

evidence in such areas as productivity, quality, time-to-market, transaction costs, sales, market share, and

profits.

Quantitative estimates of impact typically are provided in one of two forms: a benefit-cost ratio, which compares

the net present value of benefits and costs over the time period being analyzed; or a social rate of return, which

represents the annual percentage rate that would be required to reduce the net present value of the benefit time

series to zero (i.e., to yield a benefit-cost ratio of one—the break-even point for a project). Recent impact studies

also seek to provide qualitative descriptions of impacts that are significant but difficult to quantify, such as the

impact of NIST infratechnologies on R&D strategies and capabilities, organizational efficiency, market access,

and effectiveness in working with external actors such as suppliers and standards organizations. Studies

conducted over the last five years indicate that NIST outputs generate rates of return on R&D that consistently

exceed the estimated average returns on R&D conducted by private industry.13 In addition to quantitative

information, these studies also provide management with a broader range of useful qualitative information on

such important factors as the nature of the R&D life cycle in individual industries; the points at which

measurement technologies affect R&D, production, and market transactions at different levels of the supply

chain; and the modes of potential impact associated with different types of NIST infratechnologies. Additional

information about economic impact studies published in FY 2000 is presented in the table below. 

254 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

Data Validation and Verification

Data collection: Research is contracted to economic and technical experts, who generate quantitative estimates and qualitative

information using performance data gathered through industry surveys and field research. Project cost data are supplied by NIST

Frequency: Intermittent

Data storage: Contractors collect and maintain all data. Survey results, cost data, and all calculations are presented in final reports

Verification: Data are gathered and analyzed by highly qualified economists and technical specialists using well-developed research

methods and standard economic and business analysis metrics, as specified and monitored by NIST

Data limitations: Elements of study populations often are too diffuse to measure; availability and quality of industry data often are

uneven; impact estimation typically requires counterfactual data, which can be difficult to estimate; outcomes are specific to each

project—i.e., results are not cumulative and not readily comparable

13 Nadiri (National Bureau of Economic Research, 1993) estimates an average 20 to 30 percent private return and an average 50 percent

social return on R&D conducted by private industry. 
Measure 2c: Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) available

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 255

Technology Administration

Customer Base

Instrument

manufacturers; clinical

laboratories; medical

services

Chemical industry

Component

manufacturers and users

in the electronics and

communications

equipment industries

NIST Outputs Cholesterol reference

materials

Sulfur reference

materials

Laser and fiberoptic

power and energy

calibration services

Impact Metric: 

social rate of return15 154 percent 1,056 percent Range: 43–136 percent

Outcomes/Impacts

Improved quality and

accuracy; lower

transaction costs; higher

productivity 

Improved product

quality; higher

production efficiency

and productivity; lower

transaction costs 

Higher accuracy; lower

transaction costs;

increased productivity

Impact Metric: 

cost–benefit ratio14 4.5 113 Range: 3–11

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF NIST LABORATORY OUTPUTS: ESTIMATES FROM STUDIES PUBLISHED IN FY 2000

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: NIST Standard Reference Materials Program

Frequency: Ongoing

Data storage: NIST Standard Reference Materials Program 

Verification: Data represent direct and verifiable counts of

SRMs produced. Internal verification includes review by

NIST Technology Services and the NIST Director’s Office and

Budget Division. In addition, data associated with SRM

availability are included in NIST’s audited Financial

Statements

Target 1,315 1,300 1,315 1,350

Actual 1,288 1,292

Met / Not Met Not Met Not Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

14 The cost–benefit ratio compares the net present value of benefits and costs over the time period being analyzed. 

15 Social rate of return represents the annual percentage rate that would be required to reduce the net present value of the benefit time

series to zero (i.e., to yield a benefit-cost ratio of one—the break-even point for a project).
Explanation of Measure

The number of Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) available illustrates the breadth of measurements

supported by NIST. SRMs are certified for their specific chemical and material properties in the NIST

Laboratories. SRMs are the definitive source of measurement traceability in the United States—all measurements

using SRMs can be traced to a common and recognized set of basic standards that provides the basis for

compatibility of measurements among different laboratories. In addition, as economic exchange has become

more global, customers are using SRMs to achieve measurement quality and conformance to process

requirements that address both national and international needs for commerce and trade. The data represent a

direct count of available SRMs and are updated on an ongoing basis by NIST Technology Services. Data provide

information on output levels only. There are no obvious replacements for these output tabulations; NIST

continues to explore the use of additional metrics that could capture leverage in the secondary market and other

factors related to downstream impact. As with other NIST products and services, downstream outcomes are

measured through project-specific economic impact studies. The text box below describes an example of one

NIST SRM and its impact. 

At the close of FY 2000, the number of SRMs available (1,292) represented more than 99 percent of the projected

level (1,300, as reported in previous GPRA-related documents). Out-year projections assume modest growth in

the number of SRMs available, given NIST’s strategy of focusing on those SRMs that cannot be produced by

secondary laboratories and which have broad and/or high downstream impact. In establishing its out-year

projections, the NIST SRM Program monitors, among other things, trends in emerging technologies, new

regulations that will depend on SRMs for enforcement, and the reference material needs of other Federal

agencies.

256 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

HIGH-LEVERAGE STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIALS: NIST STANDARDS FOR SULFUR

NIST standards to help measure sulfur in fossil fuels have saved the U.S. economy more than $400 million

and have generated about $80 million in environmental benefits—all for a NIST investment of less than $4

million. Sulfur in coal and petroleum products is a major source of air pollution when the fuels are burned in

power plants, steel mills, and other factories, and sulfur in gasoline poisons catalytic converters that help

reduce harmful emissions from automobiles. Fuel producers and consumers need to accurately measure the

sulfur content of fuels both to verify product quality (low sulfur fuels cost more) and to meet environmental

regulations. The NIST standards substantially reduce the margin of error in measurement of trace amounts of

sulfur, enabling more accurate transactions and better compliance with regulations. The economic impact of

the NIST sulfur standard was calculated in an independent study by the Center for Economic Research of the

Research Triangle Institute, a nonprofit organization. The sulfur standard is one of about 1,300 Standard

Reference Materials produced and distributed by NIST to help all types of industries make accurate

measurements and verify product quality.
Measure 2d: Standard Reference Data (SRD) titles available

Explanation of Measure

This measure describes the number of Standard Reference Data (SRD) titles that the NIST Laboratories produce

and make available through the NIST Standard Reference Data Program. Standard Reference Databases provide

numeric data to scientists and engineers for use in technical problem solving, research, and development. These

recommended values are based on data that have been extracted from scientific and technical literature,

assessed for reliability, and then evaluated to select the preferred values. In addition to these titles, the NIST

Labs also provide direct and free access to many databases via the Internet. The data represent a direct count of

available SRD titles and are updated on an ongoing basis by the NIST Standard Reference Data Program. Data

provide information on output levels only. There are no obvious replacements for these output tabulations.

NIST continues to explore the use of additional metrics that could capture use rates, leverage, and other factors

that may provide partial indicators of downstream impact. 

Historically, NIST has produced two new SRD titles per year. At the same time, NIST also provides numerous

upgrades to existing databases. Each year, however, some database titles are eliminated from the NIST catalog if

it is determined that it would be more effective to distribute the data free via the Internet. The FY 2000 target for

this metric was originally set at 64 in the FY 2000 Annual Performance Plan. This target was subsequently

revised to 63 in the FY 2001 Annual Performance Plan and FY 1999 Annual Program Performance Report as

more data became available for formulating accurate projections. In FY 2000, the number of database titles

available represents 100 percent of the forecast level. Out-year projections assume modest growth in the total

number of SRD titles available; over time, a larger percentage of these titles will be distributed via the Internet.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 257

Technology Administration

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: NIST Standard Reference Data Program

Frequency: Ongoing

Data storage: NIST Standard Reference Data Program

Verification: Data represent a direct and verifiable count of

SRD products developed and disseminated by NIST. Internal

verification includes review by NIST Technology Services and

the NIST Director’s Office and Budget Division. Data

associated with SRD availability are included in NIST’s

audited Financial Statements 

Target 62 63 66 68

Actual 60 63

Met / Not Met Not Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Measure 2e: Number of items calibrated

Explanation of Measure

This measure illustrates the quantity of physical measurement services provided by NIST for its customers,

including calibration services, special tests, and Measurement Assurance Programs (MAPs). NIST offers more

than 500 different types of physical calibrations in areas as diverse as radiance temperature, surface finish

characterization, and impedance.

NIST calibration services and special tests are characterizations of particular instruments, devices, and sets of

standards with respect to international and national standards. NIST calibration services provide the customer

with direct traceability to national and international primary standards. MAPs are quality control programs for

calibrating entire measurement systems. The output data represent a direct count of the number of items external

customers sent to NIST for formal calibration services. The data provide information on service output levels only

and represent a measure of throughput but not workload per se, as the number of tests and/or the time and

calibration effort required can vary substantially across items. As with SRMs and SRD titles, downstream impact

is a function of the nature of individual calibration services more than the sheer volume of items calibrated. There

are no obvious replacements for these output tabulations. NIST continues to explore complementary metrics that

could capture leverage in the secondary market and other factors that may provide partial indicators of

downstream impact. NIST incorporated this particular measure for GPRA purposes in FY 1999.

The FY 2000 target for this metric was originally set at 3,250 in the FY 2000 Annual Performance Plan. This

target was subsequently revised to 3,200 in the FY 2001 Annual Performance Plan and FY 1999 Annual Program

Performance Report as more data became available for formulating accurate projections. In FY 2000, the number

of items calibrated represents 93 percent of the expected level. The slight difference between the actual

performance and the target level is due to the inaccuracies inherent in any forecasting methodology. Targeting

mechanisms are imperfect. Out-year forecasts, which do not need to be revised based on FY 2000 performance,

show a relatively high but declining projected number of items calibrated. This trend is a result of NIST’s

expectation that it will provide fewer but more highly leveraged calibration services over time. This strategy is

258 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

Target 3,375 3,200 3,100 2,900

Actual 3,118 2,969

Met / Not Met Not Met Not Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: NIST Calibration Program

Frequency: Ongoing

Data storage: NIST Calibration Program

Verification: Data represent direct and verifiable counts of

items calibrated by the NIST Laboratories. Internal

verification includes review by NIST Technology Services and

the NIST Director’s Office and Budget Division. In addition,

data associated with calibration counts are included in NIST’s

audited Financial Statements
driven by the need to effectively manage trends in demand from its major industry and government customers

for these services. NIST is pursuing two strategies: (1) performing only those calibrations that require a direct

connection to the national standards; and (2) improving calibration accuracy in those areas where new industry

demands are emerging. Through this overall approach NIST can efficiently leverage its primary calibration

services to support a broader base of secondary calibrations conducted within the private sector. 

Measure 2f: Technical publications produced

Explanation of Measure

This measure represents the annual number of technical publications generated by NIST Laboratories staff.

Technical publications are a primary product of NIST’s research activities in measurement science and

technology. Many of these publications appear in prestigious scientific journals and withstand peer review by

the scientific community. Others appear in technological forums where measurement standards and

technologies developed by NIST staff (at times in collaboration with private sector partners) are disseminated.

NIST uses publications as one of the mechanisms to transfer the results of its work to the U.S. private sector and

to other government agencies that need cutting-edge measurements and standards. Data represent a direct

count of available technical publications and are updated on an ongoing basis by the NIST Office of Information

Services. Data are not adjusted for quality and do not capture utility or impact. NIST is working to develop a

subcategory measure of publications in peer review journals as a proxy for quality, and is exploring the costeffectiveness and validity of conducting regular citation tracking as a proxy for breadth of dissemination

(partially indicative of impact). See also text box. 

The FY 2000 target for this metric was originally set at 2,150 in the FY 2000 Annual Performance Plan. This

target was subsequently revised to 2,450 in the FY 2001 Annual Performance Plan and FY 1999 Annual Program

Performance Report as more data became available for formulating projections and in anticipation of an increase

in the number of publications as a result of the NIST centennial year celebration. Actual publications in FY 2000

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 259

Technology Administration

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: NIST Office of Information Services

Frequency: Ongoing

Data storage: Publications data are gathered and

maintained by NIST Office of Information Services

Verification: Data represent direct and verifiable counts

of NIST technical publications that have been cleared for

publication by the internal Washington and Boulder

Editorial Review Boards. Internal verification includes

review by NIST Technology Services and the NIST

Director’s Office 

Target 2,150 2,450 2,200 2,050

Actual 2,030 2,115

Met / Not Met Not Met Not Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
represent 86 percent of the

expected level. Actual

performance did not meet the

forecasted level for several

reasons. First, at least a

portion of the difference

between the actual and target

levels is due to the

inaccuracies inherent in any

forecasting methodology.

Targeting mechanisms are

imperfect. In addition, the FY

2000 target was based on data

gathered using since-revised

data management procedures

for recording and reporting

publication counts. Recently,

the system was improved

and, as a result, the actual

totals for FY 1999 and earlier

have been updated from

previously reported figures.

The FY 2000 target was not

changed, but the actual data

were compiled using the new

procedures. In addition to actual totals, out-year projections also have been updated to reflect these

improvements. Over time, NIST expects a relatively constant level of high quality publications (at or slightly

above 2,000) by its technical staff. 

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for TA Performance Goal 2: Provide technical leadership 

for the nation’s measurement and standards infrastructure and ensure the availability 

of essential reference data and measurement capabilities 

Due to the complexity of the NIST Laboratories’ programs and their diverse roles and customer base, the NIST

Labs are not amenable to formal, aggregate program evaluation. NIST does, however, conduct rigorous labwide evaluation of technical program quality, relevance, and effectiveness. As explained in Section 2a above, the

NIST Laboratories are reviewed annually by the National Research Council. In addition, the programmatic

objectives and performance of the Labs are reviewed by the Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology

(VCAT), a legislatively mandated panel of external advisors that meets quarterly to review NIST’s general

policy, organization, budget, and programs. As described above, NIST’s overall approach to performance

measurement consists of three distinct evaluation mechanisms: peer review and other forms of external

assessments, economic impact studies, and quantitative output tracking. The NIST Laboratories use these three

evaluation mechanisms as a system that, combined with the VCAT review, provides a comprehensive picture of

Laboratory performance. 

260 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS: 

HIGH DEMAND FOR ACCURATE INFORMATION

Print publications are a major channel through which NIST diffuses the

scientific and technical knowledge generated by its staff. For GPRA purposes,

NIST reports the number of publications produced by its staff as a partial

indicator of the institute’s research output. However, output levels alone

provide no information about the demand for or relevance of NIST’s

research. Within the scientific community, citation rates often are used for

this purpose: the cumulative number of citations per publication provides a

rough gauge of the level of use and hence “impact” of the publications

generated by an individual, group, or organization. 

NIST has assessed the citation rates for its publications by using data collected

by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), which has been collecting

research publication data for more than 40 years and now maintains the most

comprehensive source of available publication data for scientific and technical

organizations. According to these data, NIST’s “relative impact”—that is, the

average citation rate per NIST publication relative to ISI’s baseline citation

rate number for all scientific and technical organizations in its database—has

been consistently above average since 1981. These data indicate that NIST

consistently produces relevant scientific and technical publications that are

cited frequently and hence used quite broadly.
Discontinued Measures

No discontinued measures.

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 2

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DoC

The NIST Laboratories work with other Department of Commerce bureaus, including NOAA and NTIA, on

issues of joint interest to the Department, Administration, and Congress. For example, NIST works with

NOAA on the Federal Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative, which is focused on reducing the costs of natural

disasters and saving lives through improved warnings and forecasts and information dissemination. NIST

and NTIA cooperate to support development of ultrawideband signal technology, a new wireless technology

that will improve communications for emergency services and other applications.

Other government agencies

NIST provides research and services in measurement and standards to almost every other agency in the

Federal Government with scientific missions contracted through specific Interagency Agreements or

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 261

Technology Administration

Strategies

Anticipate and address the

nation’s most important 

needs for physical and

information-based

measurements and standards

Strengthen the national system

of standards, measurement,

measurement traceability, and

conformity assessment

Provide leadership in

harmonizing international

measurements and standards to

facilitate international trade

Activities

• Work with industry, government, and the scientific community to

identify the science and technology required for a robust

measurements and standards infrastructure

• Perform laboratory research that develops the measurement tools,

data, and models for advanced science and technology

• Promote the efficient delivery of measurement services to meet both

current and future infrastructure needs

• Foster the development of domestic voluntary standards needed by

government and industry

• Stimulate the development of a robust private conformity

assessment system in the United States

• Compare measurement systems and practices with other

industrialized countries, to assure consistency and eliminate

measurement-related reasons for duplicate testing

• Foster international voluntary standards needed by government and

industry

• Collaborate with international standards organizations and

counterpart laboratories in researching and developing standards

• Use training and consultation to strengthen national 

metrology systems
memoranda of understanding. NIST measurement research, services, and facilities have long contributed to

national defense and security, to the nationwide safety and quality assurance systems that ensure the

accuracy of health care measurements, to the accuracy of environmental measurements, and to law

enforcement standards.

NIST plays a large role in a wide variety of intragovernmental and government–industry coordination

committees. For example, NIST has leadership positions on the committees, subcommittees, and working

groups of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC).

Government / Private sector

NIST’s mission is to work with industry to develop and apply technology, measurements, and standards. As

such, the NIST Laboratories have extensive and diverse interactions with industry, which provide an

important source of information about the quality, direction, and future demand for NIST products and

services. Many of the laboratories’ primary outputs, such as Standard Reference Materials and calibration

services, are critically important to the quality and cost efficiency of products and production processes

throughout American business. In addition, the NIST staff use technical publications, conferences, and

workshops as mechanisms to transfer the results of their work to the U.S. private sector and to other

government agencies that need cutting-edge measurements and standards. 

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

Industry-specific business conditions and technological developments affect the level and range of demand for

NIST products and services over time. For instance, annual demand for calibrations—only one of numerous

outputs of the NIST Laboratories—can fluctuate due to several factors outside NIST’s control, including changes

in the calibration intervals of large customers, changes in the average calibration interval rate in any given year,

consolidation of calibration activities within large R&D organizations, and industry consolidation (as, for

example, in defense-related industries).

In general, NIST seeks to mitigate the effects of external technological and market uncertainties by maintaining

varied and close relationships with its customer base. Through conferences, workshops, technology roadmaps,

and many other forms of interaction with its customers, NIST regularly evaluates and adjusts to the direction

and level of demand for measurements, standards, reference data, test methods, and related infrastructural

technologies and services. 

262 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 263

Technology Administration

Performance Goal 3:

Accelerate technological innovation and development of the new

technologies that will underpin future economic growth (NIST)16

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 2: Provide infrastructure for innovation to enhance American competitiveness

Objective 2.1: Provide infrastructural tools and capabilities that improve the productivity, quality, and efficiency

of research and innovation processes

Rationale for Performance Goal

Market pressures often deter firms from investing in particular types of technology and R&D projects. For

instance, private industry does not account for a large percentage of the nation’s basic R&D, because firms must

be able to earn appropriate returns within a time frame and at a level satisfactory to investors. For the same

reasons, industry tends to avoid investing or significantly under-invests in certain types of enabling

technologies: infrastructural technologies, which require distinct competencies and are broadly applied; multiuse technologies, which benefit multiple segments of an industry or group of industries; and high-potential

breakthrough technologies, which typically involve risk levels and time frames that far exceed the horizons of

individual firms. In each of these areas, the financial and market interests of individual firms tend to produce a

suboptimal level of investment for the economy and society as a whole. To address this problem, the Advanced

Technology Program (ATP) provides industry with the opportunity to invest in and develop innovative

technologies that promise significant commercial payoffs and broad benefits for the nation. 

ATP evaluates its performance through a combination of methods, including economic assessments of project

developments and long-term impacts, output tracking, detailed status reports on completed projects, and

various activity metrics. ATP continuously strives to define the state of the art in technology impact/outcome

evaluation. Highly qualified academic and consulting economists and other experts in evaluation, in addition to

in-house staff, assist ATP in planning, modeling, and developing databases, and in conducting surveys, case

studies, and statistical and econometric analyses. 

Measure 3a: Economic impact studies

Economic impact studies are not cumulative; therefore, aggregate numerical targets and performance data are

not applicable and are not provided here. Additional information is provided below.

Explanation of Measure

Fully successful ATP projects are expected to contribute significantly to the U.S. scientific and technical

knowledge base, yield private benefits to the innovators, and ultimately yield benefits to others in the United

States through market, knowledge, and/or network spillovers. The measurement of long-term economic

outcomes requires well-established projects with technological outputs that have been in the market for long

time periods.

16 This Performance Goal was called Performance Goal 2 in previous versions of the Annual Performance Plan. The Performance Goals

were renumbered to maintain consistency with the Department’s new Strategic Plan for FY2000-FY2005.
Few technologies generated through ATP funding have existed for long enough to generate impact data that

would support reliable estimates of benefit/cost ratios, social rates of return, and similar outcome measures.

However, significant interim impacts have been generated by ATP projects funded to date. For instance, in FY

2000 ATP updated its analysis of data gathered through its Business Reporting System; this confirmed the

results of a prior study and extended the findings to encompass a larger portfolio of projects and participants

and a longer period of ATP funding.17 This study found positive results for each of ATP’s major programmatic

goals:

1. Generating high-risk, high-impact technologies: 73 percent of organizations reported a higher level of

technical risk than could be supported by industry alone, and 38 percent of the applications represent

“new-to-the-world” solutions. 

2. Fostering collaboration: 86 percent of organizations reported that their project had involved

collaboration with other organizations (88 percent of those organizations reported that ATP was

responsible to a great or moderate extent for the collaboration).

3. Accelerating the development and commercialization of advanced technologies: 86 percent of

organizations reported they would not have undertaken the project without the aid of ATP or were

significantly ahead in their R&D cycles as a result of ATP funding. 18

In addition to analyzing data gathered through the Business Reporting System, ATP also conducts or contracts

detailed and rigorous case studies. These studies focus on evaluating ATP’s performance in the three output

categories that derive from ATP’s core programmatic goals. Where possible, these studies also estimate longterm project outcomes (see table below).

264 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

17 Jeanne W. Powell and Karen L. Lellock, Development, Commercialization, and Diffusion of Enabling Technologies: Progress Report

(NISTIR 6491; 2000).

18 Ibid.
(table continues next page)

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 265

Technology Administration

Two new data storage

technologies: one based

on linear scanning,

magnetic tape; one based

on optical tape

Collaborators on the

magnetic tape project

included a tape media

company, Imation; a

data storage systems

company, Seagate

Technology; two small

technology companies,

Advanced Research

Corporation and

Peregrine Recording

Technology; and four

universities

Investments would not

have occurred without

ATP support

These new data storage

technologies improve the

performance of

information/computing

systems by offering

faster writing and

retrieval of information

and increased storage

capacity. Spillover

benefits to

purchasers/users are

projected to be $2.2

billion for the new

magnetic tape

technology and $1.5

billion for the new

optical tape technology

New flow-control

machining (FCM)

processes for achieving

precision in airflowbalancing for engine

components

Collaborators included

Extrude Hone and

General Motors, Ford,

the University of

Nebraska, and the

University of Pittsburgh 

Collaborative research

project would not have

occurred without ATP

support

New FCM technologies

improve engine

performance, fuel

efficiency, and emissions

output; these outputs in

turn increase revenues

for auto manufacturers.

Spillover benefits accrue

to consumers as well as

to other manufacturers

(turbine engines, diesel

injectors, rocket fuel

orifices)

Estimating Future Consumer

Benefits From ATP-Funded

Innovation: The Case of Digital

Data Storage (2000) 

(two case studies with

projections)

Economic Impacts of FlowControl Machining Technology:

Early Applications in the

Automobile Industry (1999) 

(case study with projections)

New dimensional

control technologies

Collaborators include

seven auto supplier

companies, two

universities, and two

major U.S. automotive

companies 

Collaborative research

project would not have

occurred without ATP

support

Reduced production

costs ($10–$25 per

vehicle) and

maintenance costs

($50–$100 per vehicle);

estimated long-term

impacts include higher

customer satisfaction,

increased market share,

increased output, and

higher employment

Advanced Technologies and

Systems for Controlling

Dimensional Variation in

Automobile Body

Manufacturing (1997) 

(case study with projections) 

Seven new tissue

engineering

technologies. 

All seven projects

reported R&D

acceleration and higher

probability of success

due to ATP funding

Preliminary estimates

based on a single early

application of each

technology suggest a

high social rate of return 

Benefits of ATP Funding of

Medical Technologies (1998)

(seven case studies with

projections) 

Fund high-risk,

high-impact R&D

Foster

collaboration

Accelerate

development and

commercialization

Generate economic

spillovers 

(e.g., broad-based

ATP Outputs ATP Outcomes

Completed studies* 

(year and type)
* Copies of completed studies can be obtained at: http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/eao_pubs.htm.

Measure 3b: Cumulative number of technologies under commercialization 

266 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

R&D cycle time reduced

by at least 50 percent for

most projects (median

value of year saved is

$5.5 million); 86 percent

of projects expected

faster market entry as a

result

86 percent of projects

expected cycle-time

improvements would

carry over to non-ATP

projects as a result of

new practices adopted in

ATP project

Acceleration of Technology

Development by the ATP: The

Experience of 28 Projects

Funded in 1991 (1997).

New manufacturing

processes for printed

wiring board (PWB)

interconnect systems; 214

research papers

produced 

Collaborators include

four PWB producers and

two supplier/user

companies, and Sandia

National Laboratory

Approximately half of

the 62 research tasks

would not have been

performed at all; others

were undertaken sooner

than would have been in

the absence of ATP

support

Research cost savings of

$35.5 million; time to

implement new

processes shortened for

approximately 80

percent of research tasks;

productivity gains to

date in 40 percent of

research areas, with an

estimated value of $5

million

Early Stage Impacts of the

Printed Wiring Board (1997)

(case study)

Fund high-risk,

high-impact R&D

Foster

collaboration

Accelerate

development and

commercialization

Generate economic

spillovers 

(e.g., broad-based

ATP Outputs ATP Outcomes

Completed studies* 

(year and type)

Data Validation and Verification

(see below for information on all ATP metrics)

Target 120 170 180 210

Actual 120

Not yet available

due to data

collection lag

Met / Not Met Met Uncertain

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Explanation of Measure

This metric tabulates the cumulative number of new technologies under commercialization that are traceable to

ATP funding at the close of a fiscal year. Commercialization is broadly defined as any group of activities

undertaken to bring products, services, and processes into commercial applications, including development of

commercial prototypes, adoption of processes for in-house production, development of spin-off products and

processes, scale-up for volume production, and the sale and licensing of products and services derived from the

technology base created by the ATP-funded project. This measure indicates the extent to which ATP-funded

research and development has leveraged new products and services, which in turn improve the prospects for

technology-led economic growth.

The data provide a cumulative direct count of the number of technologies commercialized, as determined

through ATP’s Business Reporting System. Final data for FY 2000 are not yet available due to surveying

procedures and data collection and analysis requirements. 19 Final data for FY 1999 are reported here for the first

time (this information was not included in previous GPRA-related reports). For FY 1999, the number of

technologies commercialized represents 100 percent of the expected level; FY 2000 and out-year projections are

based on extrapolations of past commercialization rates and projections of projects initiated and completed.

These projections have been updated to take into account all currently available data. For example, the FY 2000

target for this metric was originally set at 180 in the FY 2000 Annual Performance Plan. This target was

subsequently revised to 170 in the FY 2001 Annual Performance Plan and FY 1999 Annual Program Performance

Report as more data became available for formulating accurate projections. 

Out-year projections for ATP performance measures are based on the FY 2002 President’s budget, which provides

no funding for new ATP grants in fiscal year 2002. Projections for performance measures in any specific fiscal year

depend heavily on the number of projects expected to be completed in that year; i.e., they reflect outputs from

projects funded during the previous three to five years. Thus, performance forecasts for 2002 will not be impacted

significantly by this budget scenario. The impact of the FY 2002 President’s budget will be reflected in performance

estimates beyond FY 2003. These revised out-year projections will be reported elsewhere, as required. 

Measure 3c: Cumulative number of publications

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 267

Technology Administration

Data Validation and Verification

(see below for information on all ATP metrics)

Target 480 680 720 830

Actual 468

Not yet available

due to data

collection lag

Met / Not Met Not Met Uncertain

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

19 For all ATP output metrics, final data for FY 2000 will not be available until approximately May 2001 and will be reported in the FY

2001 Annual Program Performance Report.
Explanation of Measure

As described above (see measure 2f), NIST uses publications as one mechanism for transferring the results of its

work to the U.S. private sector and to other government agencies. Data represent a cumulative direct count of

the number of publications generated by ATP-funded research. Final data for FY 2000 are not yet available due

to surveying procedures and data collection and analysis requirements. Final data for FY 1999 are reported here

for the first time (this information was not included in previous GPRA-related reports). ATP incorporated this

measure for GPRA purposes in FY 1999; forecast data are therefore not available for FY 1998. In FY 1999, the

number of publications produced represents 98 percent of the expected level; the slight difference between the

actual performance and the target level is due to the inaccuracies inherent in any forecasting methodology.

Projections are based on extrapolations of past publication rates and projections of projects initiated and

completed over time and are updated to reflect all currently available data; however, these targeting

mechanisms are not perfectly accurate. The FY 2000 target for this metric was originally set at 900 in the FY 2000

Annual Performance Plan. This target was subsequently revised to 680 in the FY 2001 Annual Performance Plan

and FY 1999 Annual Program Performance Report as more data (including actual data for FY 1998) became

available for formulating accurate projections. 

Out-year projections for ATP performance measures are based on the FY 2002 President’s budget, which

provides no funding for new ATP grants in fiscal year 2002. Projections for performance measures in any

specific fiscal year depend heavily on the number of projects expected to be completed in that year; i.e., they

reflect outputs from projects funded during the previous three to five years. Thus, performance forecasts for

2002 will not be impacted significantly by this budget scenario. The impact of the FY 2002 President’s budget

will be reflected in performance estimates beyond FY 2003. These revised out-year projections will be reported

elsewhere, as required. 

Measure 3d: Cumulative number of patents filed

268 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

Data Validation and Verification

(see below for information on all ATP metrics)

Target 640 770 790 940

Actual 616

Not yet available

due to data

collection lag

Met / Not Met Not Met Uncertain

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Explanation of Measure

Data represent a cumulative direct count of the number of patents filed by ATP-funded research project

participants through the close of a fiscal year. Final data for FY 2000 are not yet available due to surveying

procedures and data collection and analysis requirements. Final data for FY 1999 are reported here for the first

time (this information was not included in previous GPRA-related reports). As with the publication count, ATP

first incorporated this measure for GPRA purposes in FY 1999; forecast data therefore are not available for FY

1998. In FY 1999, the cumulative number of patents filed represents 96 percent of the expected level; the slight

difference between the actual performance and the target level is due to the inaccuracies inherent in any

forecasting methodology. Projections are based on extrapolations of past patenting rates and projections of

projects initiated and completed over time and are updated to reflect all currently available data; however, these

targeting mechanisms are not perfectly accurate. The FY 2000 target for this metric was originally set at 690 in

the FY 2000 Annual Performance Plan. This target was subsequently revised to 770 in the FY 2001 Annual

Performance Plan and FY 1999 Annual Program Performance Report as more data (including accurate data for

FY 1998) became available for formulating accurate projections. 

Out-year projections for ATP performance measures are based on the FY 2002 President’s budget, which

provides no funding for new ATP grants in fiscal year 2002. Projections for performance measures in any

specific fiscal year depend heavily on the number of projects expected to be completed in that year; i.e., they

reflect outputs from projects funded during the previous three to five years. Thus, performance forecasts for

2002 will not be impacted significantly by this budget scenario. The impact of the FY 2002 President’s budget

will be reflected in performance estimates beyond FY 2003. These revised out-year projections will be reported

elsewhere, as required. 

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for TA Performance Goal 3: Accelerate technological

innovation and development of the new technologies that will underpin future

economic growth

While the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) did not complete a formal program evaluation in FY 2000, the

programmatic objectives and performance of ATP are reviewed regularly by the Visiting Committee on

Advanced Technology, a legislatively mandated panel of advisors that meets quarterly to review NIST’s general

policy organization, budget, and programs, and by the Advanced Technology Program Advisory Committee.

The Advisory Committee is charged with: (1) providing advice on ATP programs, plans, and policies; (2)

reviewing ATP’s efforts to assess the economic impact of the program; (3) reporting on the general health of the

program and its effectiveness in achieving its legislatively mandated mission; and (4) functioning solely as an

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 269

Technology Administration

Data Validation and Verification: ATP Technologies Commercialized; Publications; and Patents Filed

Data source: Data are gathered from the portfolio of ATP project participants (funded since 1993) through company filings of patent

information to the NIST Grants Office (a legal requirement) and an electronic survey instrument under ATP’s Business Reporting

System (BRS). Separate portfolio-based telephone surveys are conducted of project participants funded prior to 1993 and for postproject data collection

Frequency: Annual over the course of ATP funding for projects funded since 1993; intermittent for projects funded prior to 1993; every

two years (up to six years) after ATP funding ends

Data storage: ATP’s Office of Economic Assessment maintains BRS data in an integrated set of databases covering both descriptive

information about the funded organizations and survey responses for all participants in ATP-funded research projects

Verification: ATP’s Business Reporting System has been evaluated by external auditors. In addition, all ATP reports using BRS data and

patent reports filed through the NIST Grants Office are monitored closely by ATP for research quality and are subject to extensive NISTwide review and critique prior to being issued 

Data limitations: The BRS electronic survey and other telephone survey instruments represent a standardized reporting system.

Standard sources of uncertainty include variation in interpretation of specific questions; variation in the estimation techniques used in

response to specific questions; variation in the quality of industry data; and missing values
advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. ATP has also been

subject to a number of external reviews focused on program performance over the past decade, including a

broad programmatic review by the National Research Council (NRC) Board on Science, Technology, and

Economic Policy (STEP). The first volume of this review, entitled The Advanced Technology Program: Challenges

and Opportunities (1999), is available on-line at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309067758/html/. 

Discontinued Measures

None.

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 3 

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Other government agencies

The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) leverages the expertise of scientists and engineers from a wide

variety of government agencies and laboratories participating on ATP Source Evaluation Boards. In addition,

ATP program managers work with program managers from other government agencies to ensure that

projects are complementary and relevant: coordination committees in several disciplines have been brought

together for this purpose. This also creates an opportunity to examine government R&D from a high level for

specific technologies.

Government / Private sector

The Advanced Technology Program was established to co-fund with the private sector a broad array of pathbreaking new industrial technologies. The program solicits proposals for innovative, high-risk R&D in any

industry or field of technology that offers the potential for widespread benefits for the U.S. economy and

society as a whole. ATP projects range from aquaculture to X-ray lithography, and the program has

contributed significantly to technological advances in fields as diverse as automated DNA analysis,

automobile assembly, tissue engineering and software systems. Companies of any size may apply to the

program and many successful projects have been developed by small companies. Many universities have

participated in ATP-supported research, but industry must lead ATP projects. 

270 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

Strategies

Support high-risk, broad-impact,

infrastructural technologies

Support Department efforts to 

evaluate ATP

Activities

Maintain partnerships for the development of emerging,

infrastructural, and/or multi-use technologies

Specific activities will depend on the nature of the review

and evaluation of ATP
External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

ATP has little control over many aspects of the performance measures listed in this document. ATP is designed

to fund high-risk technologies through partnerships with industry; both the nature of the projects and the

location of the research performance intrinsically convey a high degree of uncertainty and a relatively low

degree of control. For instance, the rate at which ATP-funded technologies are commercialized will vary in part

due to technological uncertainties intrinsic to the R&D enterprise and in part to the particular strategies and

efforts of the businesses performing the research. Other metrics, such as publication and patenting rates, will be

affected not only by the level of technologies commercialized but also by company-specific strategies and

market conditions. For example, patenting is more common in some industries than others, and a variety of

factors affect the patenting and/or publishing choices of individual firms. Variation in growth rates and

development trajectories add additional uncertainty: some technologies are commercialized rapidly once the

research is completed, while others require extensive product development and clinical trials before significant

commercialization can occur. There are no practical mitigation strategies for these external sources of

uncertainty other than maintaining robust program management and data collection systems. ATP insists that

its companies abide by the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement, which include intellectual

property and commercialization provisions.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 271

Technology Administration
272 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

Performance Goal 4:

Improve the technological capability, productivity, and competitiveness of

small manufacturers (NIST)20

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 2: Provide infrastructure for innovation to enhance American competitiveness

Objective 2.1: Provide infrastructural tools and capabilities that improve the productivity, quality, and efficiency

of research and innovation processes

Rationale for Performance Goal

While U.S. manufacturing firms are among

the most productive in the world, small

manufacturers consistently lag behind their

larger counterparts, which are able to apply

their greater financial, technical, and

human resources to production

modernization and continuous performance

improvements. But the nation’s 361,000

small manufacturers employ more than 11

million people—about two-thirds of the

manufacturing workforce—and produce

intermediate parts and equipment that

contribute more than half of the value of

U.S. manufacturing production. Their role

in manufacturing supply chains means that

the nation’s future manufacturing productivity will rest largely on the ability of these small firms to improve

their quality, raise their efficiency, and lower their costs. 

The comparatively low productivity growth of small U.S. firms can be attributed to numerous factors, including

technical, cost, and information barriers. NIST helps small firms overcome these barriers through the

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). MEP, comprised of a national network of centers and field offices

serving small manufacturers, provides information, decision support, and implementation assistance to help

businesses adopt new and more advanced manufacturing technologies, techniques, and business practices. 

Through an annual client survey, MEP reports performance measures that track the impact of MEP assistance

on several major business indicators, including (1) increased sales attributed to MEP assistance, (2) capital

investment attributed to MEP assistance, and (3) cost savings attributed to MEP assistance. 

In FY 2000, MEP significantly improved the process by which it evaluates its clients’ performance by updating

its survey instrument and collection methods. Improvements to the survey design and implementation process

have made it more likely that a larger number of surveyed clients will be able to provide high-quality,

quantifiable responses to interview questions. For example, new categories of questions were added to improve

data utility and the wording of the questions was revised to improve accuracy and efficiency. In addition, clients

are asked to comment on the impact of MEP services on intermediate outcomes such as improvements in

20 This Performance Goal was called Performance Goal 3 in previous versions of the Annual Performance Plan. The Performance Goals

were renumbered to maintain consistency with the Department’s new Strategic Plan for FY 2000–FY 2005.
manufacturing, sales/marketing, human resources, information and management systems, and client

satisfaction. The new survey process is client-based rather than activity-based—it takes a more holistic

approach, asking clients to estimate how the entire group of services an MEP Center has provided over the

previous two years has affected business performance in the 12 month period prior to the survey date. 

Until FY 1999, MEP used data from its survey to report annual performance on four major quantitative business

indicators: (1) increased sales, (2) capital investment, (3) inventory savings, and (4) labor and material savings.

However, based on the improvements to the survey instrument and method, the data collected now map more

directly to three performance metrics (described below), rather than the original four. The principal change was

that the previously reported metrics of inventory savings and labor and materials savings were rolled into a

more comprehensive measure, cost savings. Cost savings includes not only inventory, labor, and materials costs,

but also additional savings such as energy costs. This metric offers a more complete picture of the cost savings

that MEP Centers provide to their clients. 

Two additional factors should be noted when considering the measures discussed below. First, MEP’s data

collection and reporting process lags by approximately one year due to the requirements of its surveying

procedures; for example, clients who completed a project with MEP in January 1999 were surveyed in early

2000. Second, based on the initial data collected using the new survey instrument and process, more accurate

out-year projections for MEP’s performance on its three indicators are now possible. As a result of the improved

survey system, the data collected in FY 2000 for FY 1999 outcomes significantly surpass the original forecasts,

which were based on the data patterns observed through the old survey instrument. In the sections that follow,

the data and targets for FY 1998 and the targets for FY 1999 were computed using the old survey and method.

The actual data for FY 1999 and all out-year projections are based on the new survey instrument and process. 

Measure 4a: Increased sales attributed to MEP assistance

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 273

Technology Administration

Data Validation and Verification

(see below for validation and verification information on all

MEP metrics)

Target $443M $670M (revised) $708M (revised) $736M (revised)

Actual $447M (FE) 21

Not yet available

due to data

collection lag 22

Met / Not Met Met Uncertain

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

21 FE indicates final estimate. FY 1999 data are listed as final estimates because the switch to the new survey instrument occurred in the

middle of the reporting cycle for FY 1999 (January 2000 data collection corresponds to activities undertaken in early 1999). Final data

for FY 1999 cover only January–October 1999.

22 For all MEP output metrics, final data for FY 2000 will not be available until the end of FY 2001, and will be reported in the FY 2001

Annual Program Performance Report.
Explanation of Measure

See below.

Measure 4b: Capital investment attributed to MEP assistance

Explanation of Measure

See below. 

Measure 4c: Cost savings attributed to MEP assistance

274 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

Data Validation and Verification

(see below for validation and verification information on all

MEP metrics)

Target $359 M $864M (revised) $913M (revised) $949M (revised)

Actual $576M (FE) 21

Not yet available

due to data

collection lag 22

Met / Not Met Met Uncertain

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification

(see below for validation and verification information on all

MEP metrics)
Explanation of Measures

The goal of MEP is to assist small firms in overcoming barriers to productivity growth by providing

information, decision support, and implementation assistance to help businesses adopt new and more advanced

manufacturing technologies, techniques, and business practices. The measures reported above allow MEP to

track the impact of its services on three key quantitative business indicators: (1) increased sales attributed to

MEP assistance, (2) capital investment attributed to MEP assistance, and (3) cost savings attributed to MEP

assistance. However, the measures represent only partial indicators of the impact of the MEP Centers. Many of

the benefits of MEP’s services are intangible, difficult to quantify, and/or are qualitative in nature. 

As described above, the out-year projections for the improved MEP performance metrics have been revised

based on the initial FY 1999 data reported via the new client survey system. The tables and graphs above have

been updated accordingly and differ from previously reported figures. Also, note that FY 1999 figures are listed

as final estimates (“FE”) because the switch to the new survey instrument occurred in the middle of the

reporting cycle for FY 1999 (January 2000 data collection corresponds to activities undertaken in early 1999).

Final data for FY 1999 cover only January–October 1999. (See also “Discontinued Measures,” below.)

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for TA Performance Goal 4: Improve the technological

capability, productivity, and competitiveness of small manufacturers 

In addition to program guidance provided by NIST management, MEP evaluates its performance through a

combination of methods, including: (1) independent evaluation of MEP program plans and policies by the MEP

National Advisory Board; (2) legislatively mandated independent panel reviews of individual MEP Center

operations and outcomes conducted against criteria adapted from the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality

Award; (3) regular program oversight and periodic review of individual MEP Center operations and outcomes

by NIST staff; and (4) special studies of national program impacts. These reviews and assessments use a variety

of performance measures, including output tabulations; estimates of interim impacts on client competitiveness,

derived from regular surveys of MEP Center clients; and analyses of more detailed information regarding the

operations and performance of individual MEP Centers. MEP uses the information obtained through these

review mechanisms primarily to anticipate potential changes that may impact small manufacturers (such as to

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 275

Technology Administration

Target NEW $545M (new) $576M (new) $599M (new)

Actual $364M (FE) 21

Not yet available

due to data

collection lag 22

Met / Not Met Uncertain

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification: MEP Competitiveness Indicators

Data source: Extensive telephone survey of MEP clients conducted by Market Facts Incorporated (MFI), a nationally recognized survey

research firm headquartered in Arlington Heights, IL

Frequency: The survey is conducted four times per year, but each client is contacted only once per year. This change was implemented

to reduce respondent burden, improve overall response rates, raise data quality, and align the measures with MEP’s strategic emphasis

on long-term relationships designed to transform client firms. Clients are asked to estimate how the entire group of services an MEP

Center has provided over the previous two years has affected their business performance in the 12-month period prior to the survey

date

Data storage: MEP collates and stores survey data received from MFI
the economic or regulatory environments), improve the quality of the services its centers provide to their clients,

and develop or adapt products and services for dissemination through the MEP Centers. 

Discontinued Measures: Inventory savings attributable to MEP assistance; Labor and material savings attributable to

MEP assistance

As explained above, the survey instrument and method used by MEP to gather information from its clients was

revised significantly in FY 2000. Based on this improved survey instrument, the data collected now map more

directly to three performance metrics rather than the four reported in previous GPRA-related documents. A

summary of the changes to the MEP metrics (and corresponding performance data and targets) follows in the

table below.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO MEP METRICS AND CORRESPONDING DATA AND PERFORMANCE TARGETS

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 4 

Action Plan

276 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

Old Metric

Increased sales attributable 

to MEP assistance

Capital investment

attributable to MEP 

assistance

Inventory savings 

attributable to MEP 

assistance

Labor and material 

savings attributable to 

MEP assistance

New Metric

Increased sales attributable 

to MEP assistance

Capital investment

attributable to MEP 

assistance

Cost savings attributable 

to MEP assistance

Comments

No change to these two metrics. Considerable

increases for FY 1999 final estimates (over

target) and out-year projections are

attributable to the changes in survey

implementation. Specifically, the new survey

is client-based rather than activity-based,

taking a more holistic approach to client-MEP

Center interaction; it has been redesigned so

that respondents can more easily provide

quantifiable answers to survey questions; it

reflects an emphasis on longer-term

relationships with clients; and MEP Centers

confirm contact information 

Represents inventory, labor, and materials

savings, combined with additional savings

such as energy costs. This metric offers a more

comprehensive picture of the cost savings that

MEP Centers may provide to their clients 

Strategies

Assist in transforming a larger

percentage of the nation’s small

manufacturers into highperformance enterprises

Activities

• Provide MEP Centers and clients with access to a wider range of

technologies and business practices by generating an integrated

knowledge network focused on high-performance processes,

market dynamics, technological trends, and competitiveness

indicators

• Improve each center’s effectiveness and efficiency by improving

the level of technical capacity in the field and assisting centers in

developing effective management information systems
Cross-Cutting Activities

Intradepartmental

MEP has collaborated with the International Trade Administration (ITA), the Minority Business Development

Agency (MBDA), and the Economic Development Administration (EDA) on a number of projects. For example,

MEP has worked with ITA on efforts to open global markets to American small and medium-sized

manufacturers interested in but inexperienced with exporting activities.

Other government agencies

MEP collaborates with a wide range of agencies that regulate or provide programs and services that affect

small manufacturing businesses, including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and Human

Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor, as well as with the Environmental Protection Agency,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Small Business Administration. 

Government / Private sector

As described above, MEP Centers, delivering services to firms in all 50 States and Puerto Rico, work directly

with small and medium-sized manufacturers—typically, those with fewer than 500 employees. Because the

MEP Centers are joined together in a network through NIST, even the smallest firms are able to tap into the

expertise of knowledgeable manufacturing and business specialists throughout the United States. MEP

Centers assist firms in areas such as quality management systems, business management systems, human

resource development, market development, materials engineering, plant layout, energy audits, and

environmental studies.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

The economic and technological environment for small manufacturers in the United States continues to change

rapidly. To maximize its effectiveness, MEP must not only respond rapidly to its clients’ changing needs, but

also must anticipate changes in the business environment facing small manufacturers. In areas such as 

E-commerce, where technological developments are revolutionizing the competitive landscape for virtually all

small businesses, MEP has been working aggressively to develop solutions to common needs among its client

base. Anticipating and developing solutions to broad business challenges requires long-term budget and

planning commitments, however. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 277

Technology Administration
Performance Goal 5:

Assist U.S. businesses and other organizations in continuously improving

their productivity, efficiency, and customer satisfaction by adopting quality

and performance improvement practices (NIST)23

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 2: Provide infrastructure for innovation to enhance American competitiveness

Objective 2.1: Provide infrastructural tools and capabilities that improve the productivity, quality, and efficiency

of research and innovation processes

Rationale for Performance Goal

Quality and performance improvement have become requirements—not options—for competitive businesses

and high-performance organizations of all types. Through the Baldrige National Quality Program (BNQP), NIST

provides a systematic and well-tested set of business values, performance criteria, and assessment methods that

all organizations can use to improve their productivity and effectiveness. Overall, BNQP catalyzes the business

community to define what organizations must do to improve their performance and attain (or retain) market

leadership, and provides a mechanism for broadly disseminating that information.

Measure 5a: Number of applications to the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award

(MBNQA) and Baldrige-based State and local quality awards

278 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Application data are collected and tracked by

the Baldrige National Quality Program

Frequency: Based on the application cycle. Data from State

programs are collected annually

Data storage: Baldrige National Quality Program

Verification: Data represent direct and verifiable counts of

BNQP business activities and processes. Internal verification

includes review by the NIST Director’s Office 

Target 892 916 935 954

Actual 1,067 Partial data: 

91124

Met / Not Met Met Uncertain

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

23 This Performance Goal was called Performance Goal 4 in previous versions of the Annual Performance Plan. The Performance Goals

were renumbered to maintain consistency with the Department’s new Strategic Plan for FY 2000–FY 2005. 

24 Data reflect partial counts obtained from State and local quality programs collected through 3/16/01; final data will be available in

April 2001.
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 279

Technology Administration

Explanation of Measure

See below. 

Measure 5b: Number of Baldrige Criteria mailed by BNQP and Baldrige-based State and

local quality programs

Explanation of Measures

BNQP reports two key output metrics: (1) the total number of applications to the MBNQA and Baldrige-based

State and local programs, which reflects high-level corporate commitment to quality and high-performance

business practices throughout the country; and (2) the number of printed BNQP Criteria for Performance

Excellence documents that are distributed by BNQP and Baldrige-based State and local quality programs, which

illustrates the dissemination of BNQP concepts and methods. Both of these metrics illustrate progress on core

BNQP objectives: expanding the program itself and promoting the growth of quality awareness and

performance excellence throughout the United States. However, the data are only partial representations of

BNQP’s output. The application count does not capture the large number of organizations that use Baldrige

Criteria internally but do not formally apply for MBNQA or State awards. The number of documents mailed also

does not capture additional dissemination channels, such as electronic acquisition and dissemination,

reproduction of the Baldrige Criteria in textbooks, articles, and other documents, and secondary modes of

copying and distribution. Moreover, direct counts of BNQP Criteria do not capture various formal and informal

ways in which BNQP concepts can be disseminated, such as through academic programs, consulting channels,

business and organizational management literature, etc. Data from State programs is uneven and difficult to

collect, resulting in significant time lags. Even with time lags, however, the available data provide a rough proxy

for the leveraging effect of the MBNQA on State-level programs. BNQP uses other methods to assess the

program’s relevance and utility, such as occasional executive surveys and review of anecdotal evidence.

Timeliness of data generated by State quality programs is difficult to influence. 

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: Application data are collected and tracked by

the Baldrige National Quality Program

Frequency: Based on the application cycle. Data from State

programs are collected annually

Data storage: Baldrige National Quality Program

Verification: Data represent direct and verifiable counts of

BNQP information dissemination. Internal verification

includes review by the NIST Director’s Office 

Target 203,700 197,600 193,600 191,700

Actual 211,028 Partial data: 

176,248 24

Met / Not Met Met Uncertain

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
The measure, “Number of Baldrige Criteria mailed by BNQP and Baldrige-based State and local quality

programs,” was added in the FY 2001 Performance Plan.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for TA Performance Goal 5: Assist U.S. businesses and 

other organizations in continuously improving their productivity, efficiency, and 

customer satisfaction by adopting quality and performance improvement practices 

In FY 2000, BNQP began a formal economic impact assessment to evaluate the program’s longer-term economic

impact on corporate performance management practices, profitability, and related factors. A final report on this

assessment is expected in FY 2001. BNQP will incorporate the results of this assessment into its ongoing efforts

to improve the program and increase its impact on American businesses and other organizations. In general, the

performance of BNQP is evaluated by the Board of Overseers, a Federal panel of national quality experts from

business and academia that advises the Secretary of Commerce. An important part of the board’s responsibility

is to assess how well BNQP is serving the national interest. The board reviews all aspects of BNQP, including

the adequacy of the Criteria for Performance Excellence and processes for making Baldrige Awards, and reports its

recommendations to the Secretary. Other annual external reviews are provided to NIST by the Panel of Judges

and the Foundation for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA). The House Committee on

Science, Space and Technology additionally conducts occasional oversight hearings involving winners of the

award, NIST, and outside experts to review the program’s effectiveness and management issues. To ensure

ongoing responsiveness to the needs of U.S. industry and business, BNQP also uses an improvement

questionnaire and hosts an annual Improvement Day.

Discontinued Measures

No discontinued measures. The second metric, “number of Baldrige Criteria mailed by BNQP and Baldrigebased State and local quality programs,” was added after the FY 2000 Annual Performance Plan was published

in order to provide additional information about BNQP’s performance.

280 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 5 

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Other government agencies

BNQP provides the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) with Baldrige Criteria, processes, and Baldrige

Examiner Board members for the Presidential Quality Award.

Government / Private sector

BNQP has proven to be a remarkably successful government and private sector team effort. The annual

government investment of about $5 million is bolstered by a contribution of more than $100 million from

private sector and State and local organizations, including $10 million raised by private industry to help

launch the program, and the time and efforts of hundreds of largely private sector volunteers. The

cooperative nature of this partnership is perhaps best illustrated by the Baldrige Award’s Board of Examiners.

Each year, more than 300 experts from industry, educational institutions, governments at all levels, and

nonprofit organizations volunteer many hours reviewing applications for the Award, conducting site visits,

and providing each applicant with an extensive feedback report citing strengths and opportunities to

improve. 

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

BNQP’s ability to further promote quality awareness and performance excellence will depend in part upon

acquiring the formal authority to conduct research, develop data on best practices, and generate self-assessment

primers and other educational materials.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 281

Technology Administration

Strategies

Continuously improve the Malcolm

Baldrige National Quality Award

and efforts to disseminate materials

for evaluating performance and

promoting quality awareness and

performance excellence 

Continue to promote quality

awareness and business excellence

practices to small businesses,

manufacturers, and other

organizations (including in the

fields of education and health care)

Activities

• Continue to promote the new award programs for the education

and health care sectors, and explore possibilities for additional

award categories

• Prepare educational materials (such as case studies) and acquire

the capacity to conduct research and generate documents that:

identify best practices and articulate the underlying principles of

leading management practices; and/or help businesses and other

organizations initiate and sustain performance improvement

strategies

• Use flexible partnerships to reach and address the needs 

of smaller firms

• Lead an expanding national system of State and local 

quality programs

• Prepare educational materials designed to help businesses 

and other organizations initiate and sustain performance

improvement strategies
Performance Goal 6:

Protect the national information infrastructure (NIST)25

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 2: Provide infrastructure for innovation to enhance American competitiveness.

Objective 2.1: Provide infrastructural tools and capabilities that improve the productivity, quality, and efficiency

of research and innovation processes.

Rationale for Performance Goal

The ubiquitous and interconnected nature of information technology (IT) increases the extent to which even

limited attacks on or failures of our information infrastructure can broadly disrupt the nation’s work. The U.S.

economy and society now depend heavily upon computers, and the reliability, security, and quality of our

computer systems must be strengthened. The potential dangers of inadequately maintained or constructed

systems accumulate as IT systems expand and often are not apparent until major systems fail. Without adequate

assurance, the viability of the entire information infrastructure and therefore of the U.S. economy is at risk.

Ensuring the security, reliability, and survivability of the information technology systems and networks that

comprise the nation’s information infrastructure is an extremely important goal and a major challenge.

Vulnerabilities affecting the information and communications infrastructure can potentially affect the entire U.S.

economy, not just a single sector or industry. The U.S. Government has sponsored considerable research in the

area of computer security for military systems, some of which applies to the critical infrastructure protection

problem, but much remains to be done. The Critical Infrastructure Protection Grants Program, a competitive

grants program administered by NIST, will target infrastructure security issues applicable to civilian and

commercial systems. Since both the military and law enforcement communities rely upon the same public

infrastructures as commercial interests, all sectors of the economy and the government will benefit from this

research. There is a substantial need for significant new research into advanced technologies, measurements,

and methods that can raise the level of reliability and security of critical IT-based systems and networks. This

new program will build this R&D capacity by providing research grants, on a competitive basis, to

organizations eligible for NIST grants (including universities, private companies, nonprofit organizations, and

Federal agencies and laboratories as permitted by law). 

Measure 6a: Activity milestones related to program establishment

The NIST program is in the very early stages of development, funded for the first time for FY 2001. NIST is in

the process of developing an implementation plan for the program, which will be subject to Congressional

approval. In the short-term, activity milestones are more appropriate measures of performance than numerical

targets for specific programmatic outcomes.

Explanation of Measure

The primary objective of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Grants Program is to fund research to provide

solutions to information security problems that are central to critical infrastructure and that are not being

adequately addressed. A secondary objective of the program is to cultivate a security-capable and securityconscious community. 

282 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

25 This Performance Goal was called Performance Goal 5 in the previous version of the Annual Performance Plan. The Performance Goals

were renumbered to maintain consistency with the Department’s new Strategic Plan for FY 2000–FY 2005. 
Milestones

In the formative stages, the Critical Infrastructure Protection Grants Program will be evaluated through the

timely and successful completion of appropriate activity milestones, including:

• completing an implementation plan for the program (already underway)

• making staffing decisions, as necessary

• establishing grant review teams and possible advisory committees

• coordinating and supporting the competitive grant review process

• awarding the first round of research grants

• disseminating the results of the funded research to all relevant parties through the NIST web site, publication

in professional journals, and focused meetings

• establishing an evaluation system for the program

Outputs

In subsequent phases, the program will be evaluated through the production, by recipients of the infrastructure

protection grants, of core R&D outputs that support the nation’s critical information infrastructure. These

outputs include advanced technologies and solutions, testing and implementation tools, and standards. 

Outcomes

In the longer-term, evaluating the program’s performance will require the development of outcome measures

that gauge the security, reliability, quality, and survivability of IT systems and networks. Appropriate measures

would evaluate the degree to which the expected goals of the program are being achieved. These goals include:

• Improving the scientific and technological basis for infrastructure protection.

• Improving the information security of the nation’s critical infrastructure through technology transfer.

• Developing new hardware and software tools and components for the design, construction, and evaluation of

security enforcing systems.

• Initiating a technology base of advanced testing and evaluation techniques focused on key security

infrastructure components and systems.

• Improving the quality, quantity, and breadth of expertise of the infrastructure security research community.

Comprehensive outcome measures of this nature likely will be difficult to develop, and undoubtedly will apply

only after the program has been in operation long enough for its R&D outputs to generate measurable aggregate

impacts. 

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for TA Performance Goal 6: Protect the national 

information infrastructure

Because this is a new program, formal program evaluation is neither feasible nor applicable at this time. As the

program becomes established, an appropriate evaluation process will be designed and implemented.

Discontinued Measures

No discontinued measures.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 283

Technology Administration
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 6 

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Coordination of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Grants Program will necessarily require extensive

interactions with industry, other government agencies, academia, and nonprofit organizations. For example,

the program plans to conduct regional meetings each year to provide a forum for individuals and companies

to share issues or concerns relative to the security of their infrastructures and to identify large issues that exist

across domains. Advisory and oversight committees comprised of representatives from relevant government

agencies, academia, and the private sector, also are being considered.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

As noted above, the program’s implementation plan must be reviewed and approved by Congress. In addition,

NIST’s ability to meet the milestones and objectives outlined above will depend on Congressional funding

decisions. Three major external factors are most likely to affect the program’s progress toward its longer-term

programmatic goals: (1) the technical uncertainty that is intrinsic to the R&D enterprise; (2) the scope of the

technologies involved and the pace of technological change; and (3) the dynamics of evolving domestic and

international markets. There are no real mitigating strategies for the first factor, other than supporting R&D with

the best available people and organizations. To mitigate the effects of the second and third factors, the program

will rely on the breadth and technical expertise of the members of the program’s and NIST’s advisory

committees.

284 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

Strategies

In FY 2001 and FY 2002, the Critical

Infrastructure Protection Grants

Program will work toward its

milestones related to program

establishment

Activities

• Complete an implementation plan for the program (already

submitted to Congress for approval)

• Hire or assign staff, as necessary

• Establish grant review teams, as well as possible advisory

committees

• Coordinate and support the competitive grant review process

• Award the first round of research grants

• Disseminate the results of the funded research

• Establish an evaluation system for the program
Performance Goal 7:

Collect, organize, preserve, and disseminate government scientific,

technical, and business-related information (NTIS)

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 2: Provide infrastructure for innovation to enhance American competitiveness

Objective 2.1: Provide infrastructural tools and capabilities that improve the productivity, quality, and efficiency

of research and innovation processes

Rationale for Performance Goal

The National Technical Information Service (NTIS) operates a central clearinghouse of scientific and technical

information that is useful to U.S. business and industry. NTIS collects scientific and technical information;

catalogs, abstracts, indexes, and permanently archives the information and disseminates products in the forms

and formats most useful to its customers; develops electronic and other new media to disseminate information;

and provides information processing services to other Federal agencies.

NTIS continues to meet the challenge of permanent preservation of and ready access to the taxpayers’

investment in research and development through the acquisition, organization, and preservation of the titles

added annually to the permanent collection. NTIS promotes the development and application of science and

technology by providing technologically advanced global E-commerce channels for dissemination of specialized

information to business, industry, government, and the public; and is implementing an initiative that will enable

users to locate and download information directly from agency Internet sites.

NTIS collects its material primarily from U.S. Government agencies and their contractors and grantees, as well

as from international sources. The NTIS collection includes approximately 3 million titles, including reports

describing the results of Federally sponsored research; statistical and business information; audiovisual

products; computer software and electronic databases developed by Federal agencies; and reports prepared by

foreign research organizations. NTIS maintains a permanent repository of its information products and offers

copies of this material to its many customers, largely researchers and business managers in private industry. The

disseminated materials may include computer downloads or paper, microfiche, audiovisual, or electronic media.

Overall, dissemination metrics adequately convey NTIS’ performance relative to its statutory responsibilities.

However, they do not comprehensively represent NTIS’ overall output and performance(for instance, NTIS also

assists agencies in the production and dissemination of their information). Moreover, these measures do not

convey the impact of all of NTIS’ services.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 285

Technology Administration
Measure 7a: Number of items in archive

Explanation of Measure

The number of items in the NTIS archive represents the total number of scientific, technical, and engineering

information products permanently available for sale to the public. Each publication added to the collection is

abstracted, catalogued, and indexed so that it can be identified and merged into the permanent bibliographic

database for future generations of researchers and the public who may benefit from this valuable research and

innovations. This material is acquired primarily from U.S. Government agencies and their contractors and

grantees, but also from international sources. The collection grows by approximately 50,000 items each year, but

is largely dependent on input from other government agencies. The FY 2000 actual items input was slightly

short of the number anticipated, reflecting possible source agency budgetary and program decisions,

particularly regarding use of the Internet as a vehicle for disseminating materials. 

Measure 7b: Number of documents reproduced from electronic media

286 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

Data Validation and Verification

Data source: NTIS operates and maintains internal systems for

processing collected information into available products. NTIS

records every transaction using a commercial order processing

system modified to meet its specific needs

Frequency: Internal management activity reports are produced

daily, with monthly summaries

Data storage: All performance-related information is stored

within the NTIS order processing system

Verification: NTIS accounting and budget offices analyze and

report performance output data and revenue and cost data to

management. Data verification is provided through regular

internal and independent auditor reporting

Target 2,873,431 2,924,416 2,966,200 3,016,200

Actual 2,874,416 2,916,204

Met / Not Met Met Not Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Data Validation and Verification

(see section above regarding the number of items in 

the archive)
Explanation of Measure

This measure reflects NTIS’ success in operation of an electronic storage and on-demand printing system, a large

part of NTIS’ information dissemination activities. This system, which was implemented in FY 1997, provides an

efficient method for distribution of the scientific and technical information maintained in the permanent

collection. The electronic document retrieval system allows the imaged files to be located, queued, and printed

immediately after an order is placed. All new information products received are scanned and stored in this

system, and as older documents are ordered the archived paper copy is scanned into the system and retained

electronically.

In FY 2000, the actual number of documents reproduced exceeded the target because the target was established

when the program was still in its developmental stages and has since proven to be conservative. The targets for

FY 2001 and beyond have been adjusted to better represent an estimate of the anticipated activity based on

historical results and projections of inputs to the system. 

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for TA Performance Goal 7: Collect, organize, preserve, 

and disseminate government scientific, technical, and business related information 

Agency reviews of these performance measures reinforce recent concerns that the use of the Internet, as well as

source agency budgetary and program decisions, are adversely affecting the number of items entered into the

permanent archive. NTIS recognizes that the migration from traditional paper copy reports to electronic

products is inescapable, and is exploring various methods of preserving and disseminating electronic

information.

Discontinued Measures

No discontinued measures.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 287

Technology Administration

Target 600,000 750,000 850,000 850,000

Actual 721,295 805,332

Met / Not Met Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 7 

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Other government agencies

NTIS provides a variety of services that assist other agencies in developing, producing, and disseminating

their information.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

The General Accounting Office and the National Commission on Libraries and Information Sciences are

reviewing the NTIS mission and functions and their place within the Federal Government’s overall scientific

and technical information dissemination policies and programs. 

288 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Technology Administration

Strategies

Play a leadership role in assisting

Federal agencies with

dissemination of their scientific,

technical, and business information

Provide services and infrastructure

to control scientific, technical, and

business-related information and

increase the effectiveness of

systems for locating and delivering

information in the form required 

by customers

Activities

• Leverage NTIS experience with information dissemination

• Leverage NTIS joint venture authority to broaden distribution

• Leverage NTIS investment in production technologies

• Leverage NTIS core capabilities for information management

• Leverage NTIS sales and distributor channels

• Develop information products and services for agencies
National Telecommunications and

Information Administration

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 289

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Mission Statement

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration advises the President

on domestic and international communications policy, manages the Federal

Government’s use of the radio frequency spectrum, and performs research in

telecommunications sciences. 

The telecommunications and information sector has become the driver for this country’s economic growth. The

White House Council of Economic Advisors recently determined that revenues of communications services and

equipment companies rose over 60 percent in the last 5 years. Information technology sectors are growing at

double the rate of the overall economy. Over a third of real domestic product growth in the past 3 years has

come from information technology industries. In 1996, 7.4 million people worked in high-tech jobs, earning an

average salary of $46,000, over 50 percent greater than the average wage of $28,000. Investments in new

technologies—including computers, satellites, wireless devices, and information processing systems—account

for over 45 percent of total real business equipment investment. 

These developments are affecting every American to some extent, and they are expected to continue. New

technologies will shape our economy even more significantly in the 21st century, particularly with the growth of

the Internet and electronic commerce (E-commerce). Today some 160 million users worldwide are going on-line

to shop, invest, trade, and e-mail, according to Nua Internet Surveys. That figure is expected to increase to 320

million by the end of next year. As more people and businesses connect on-line, the “virtual marketplace” will

become commonplace. Electronic commerce among businesses is expected to grow more than 15-fold in the next

few years, from $64 billion in 1999 to $980 billion in 2003, according to International Data Corporation analysts. 

In this environment, NTIA’s continuing work through the series of Falling Through the Net reports has led to the

identification of the “digital divide” as a major national and international issue. With the Secretary of

Commerce, NTIA’s policy efforts will continue to address this issue so that all can benefit. NTIA’s spectrum

management and cutting-edge research activities also promote the goal of universal service by identifying

innovative uses and resources for affordable, alternative communications services. 

NTIA’s grant programs serve to demonstrate the effectiveness of new communications and information

technology applications in meeting the real needs of community development programs, schools, libraries, and

other non-profit organizations. NTIA’s grants also help maintain the reach of public broadcasting infrastructure

and support its transition to the digital age. Each of these program areas, through integrated domestic and

international policy and technical work, keeps promotion of the benefits of competition and universal service as

a primary strategic planning goal. The combined technical and policy expertise of the agency helps enable the

U.S. to continue its lead in this integral part of global competitiveness.
Organizational Structure

Priorities

NTIA’s goals define the agency’s priority efforts:

• Promote Open Markets and Encourage Competition. Through its domestic policy activities, NTIA is emphasizing

the implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as Congress intended, opening the door to

increased competition at both the long-distance and local level for the long-term benefit of both consumers

and industry. Broadband services, E-commerce (electronic commerce), and Internet taxes are examples of the

issues NTIA is addressing. Internationally, NTIA is promoting pro-competitive U.S. policies, including

regulatory reform and technical policies related to advanced technologies and the Internet. These activities

will improve the international competitiveness of the U.S. telecommunications and information industry and

the ability of U.S. businesses and consumers to have access to high-quality, reasonably priced international

services. 

• Ensure Spectrum Provides the Greatest Benefit to All People. The priorities under this goal include identifying and

supporting new wireless technologies with innovative proposals for the benefit of both Federal and privatesector users; providing Federal agencies (53) with the spectrum needed to support their missions for national

defense, law enforcement and security, air traffic control, national resource management and other public

safety services; developing plans and policies to use the spectrum effectively and efficiently; satisfying the

United States’ future spectrum needs globally through participation with 190 other countries in the

International Telecommunication Union in establishing treaty-binding agreements through the world radio

communication conference process; and improving the understanding of radio-wave transmission to enhance

spectrum utilization and the performance of radio communications systems through telecommunications

research and engineering.

290 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Assistant Secretary

Deputy Assistant

Secretary

Office of Policy

Coordination and

Management

Office of the

Chief Counsel

Office of

International

Affairs

Office of

Congressional

Affairs

Office of 

Public Affairs

Office of Spectrum

Management

Institute for

Telecommunications

Sciences

Office of Policy

Analysis and

Development

Office of

Telecommunications

and Information

Applications
• Advance the Public Interest in Telecommunications, Mass Media, and Information. Digital divide, universal service

reform, minority ownership development, E-Rate (education rate—program authorized by the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 to connect schools, libraries, hospitals, and other non-profit entities to the

information infrastructure), Internet privacy, and consumer billings are priority issues where NTIA’s

expertise will make a difference. NTIA has also been designated by the Secretary to serve as the lead agency

for the Information and Communications Sector under the Critical Infrastructure Program, as defined by

Presidential Decision Directive 63 (signed in May 1998).

• Promote the Availability and Sources of Advanced Telecommunications and Information Services. Access to

broadband technology is a critical next step in the evolution of advanced telecommunications and

information services. NTIA will influence developments by participating in a joint Federal and State

conference, creating a wireless broadband development task force, funding broadband demonstration

projects at the community level, and assisting public broadcasters in using digital technologies to improve the

public broadcasting infrastructure and expanding services to the public. NTIA helped create the U.S.

positions on E-commerce and the Internet, and now advocates these positions abroad. In addition, largely

through NTIA’s efforts, the Department of Commerce has made substantial progress in transferring the

responsibility for managing the Internet Domain Name System to a new corporation and making the domain

name registration system competitive. 

Management Challenges

Domestic and international policy

There are many aspects of the digital economy and electronic commerce that require the attention of NTIA,

including the construction of a policy and regulatory framework that promotes competition and universal

service. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an independent agency, regulates U.S. nongovernment communications. NTIA provides Executive Branch views before the FCC, and works with the State

Department and the FCC in international forums regarding telecommunications and information policy. The

convergence of telecommunications and information policy requires that NTIA personnel continuously monitor

industry developments and assess current policy approaches.

Spectrum management

The availability of the radio frequency spectrum is key to the development and implementation of innovative

telecommunications technologies. NTIA manages the Federal Government’s use of the radio frequency spectrum

and is involved in designing a cooperative interagency process with regard to supporting the development of

Third-Generation (3G) wireless networks. The demand for spectrum by government and private-sector users

requires a continuous assessment of current and future spectrum requirements and the technologies used to

meet those requirements.

Telecommunication sciences research

NTIA’s telecommunications laboratory, Institute for Telecommunications Sciences (ITS), provides unbiased

research and engineering to underpin the policy development and spectrum management work of NTIA, as

well as to resolve the myriad telecommunications problems of other Federal agencies and the private-sector. 

Grant programs

Formerly titled the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program, the Technology

Opportunities Program (TOP) demonstrates the viability of innovative systems, the utility of interconnection

among existing systems, and the use of advanced information technology in the public and non-profit sectors.

Funded via the Information Infrastructure Grants account, the model programs can show how advanced

telecommunications and information systems stimulate economic expansion, improve learning at all levels,

improve the delivery of health care, strengthen public safety communications, and allow greater access for

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 291

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
ordinary citizens to information resources throughout the country. These services are especially needed in rural,

remote, and economically disadvantaged areas.

In addition, NTIA continues its program of assisting communities with the equipment needed by local public

broadcasting organizations. The Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) distributes funds through

a merit and need-based competitive grant program that is intended to expand the availability of public

broadcasting services to areas without such service. In addition, PTFP assists public radio and television stations

in purchasing replacement equipment to maintain existing services. PTFP, in conjunction with the Corporation

for Public Broadcasting, also provides the funds to help meet the FCC mandate for digital broadcasting by 2003.

Targets and Performance Summary

See individual Performance Goal section for further description of each measure.

292 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

New New 30 32 30 30

Measure

Number of reports, filings, testimonies,

and speeches

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

New New New New New 1

Measure

Increase the number of State, city, and

county governments actively engaged in

critical infrastructure protection programs.

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

Performance Goal 2: Minimize the effects of crisis by preparing the U.S. telecommunications and

information infrastructure protection programs

N/A 80,181 80,000 90,615 91,000 91,000

Measure

Number of new agency-requested

spectrum assignment actions

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

Performance Goal 3: Ensure allocation of radio spectrum – a scarce resource essential to all communications

– provides the greatest benefit to all people

43 43 50 35 80 30

Measure

Number of models / grants available for

non-profit or public- sector organizations

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target

Performance Goal 4: Promote the availability, and support new sources, of advanced telecommunications

and information services

Performance Goal 1: Promote competition within the telecommunications sector and promote universal

access to telecommunications services for all Americans
Resource Requirements Summary

(Dollars in Millions. Funding amounts reflect total obligations.)

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)

* It Funding included in Total Funding

** Reimbursable funding included in Total Funding

Skill Summary

NTIA employs policy analysts with legal, economics, and technical skills to perform these activities. NTIA does

not have a separate budget category for these activities.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 293

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Performance Goal

Performance Goal 1

Total Funding

*IT Funding

FTE

Performance Goal 2

Total Funding

*IT Funding

FTE

0

0

0

4.0

0

16

1.0

0

3

6.0

0

21

0

0

0

0

0

0

Grand Total

Total Funding

Reimbursable**

*IT Funding

FTE

74

18

0

256

94

21

4.5

343

74

20

4.5

246

247

22

5.3

340

129

30

5.3

283

95

22

5.6

286

Performance Goal 3

Total Funding

*IT Funding

FTE

Performance Goal 4

Total Funding

*IT Funding

FTE

19.0

0

137

21.0

2.4

139

19.0

2.4

132

21.0

3.1

130

23.0

3.1

132

23.0

3.4

135

45.0

0

33

55.0

0.6

55

45.0

0.6

30

205.0

0.7

65

90.0

0.7

37

59.0

0.6

37

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Request

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Request

FY 2001

Enacted

FY 2002

Request

10.0

0

86

14.0

1.5

133

9.0

1.5

81

15.0

1.5

124

16.0

1.5

114

13.0

1.6

114
FY 2002 Performance Goals

Performance Goal 1: 

Promote competition within the telecommunications sector, and promote 

universal access to telecommunications services for all Americans

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably

Objective 1.1: Provide the infrastructure to enable the participation of all Americans in the new economy

Rationale for Performance Goal 

The telecommunications and information sectors account for approximately 10 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic

Product (GDP). Driven in large part by growth of the Internet, this figure is predicted by some experts to

approach 20 percent of GDP by 2004. The uneven penetration of Internet usage nationwide means the

Department of Commerce must seek ways to redress this imbalance, however, and the National

Telecommunications and Information Administration is accordingly pursuing digital inclusion strategies to

increase access to advanced communications technologies.

The original FY 2000 performance goal, “Open Markets: Promote open markets and encourage competition,”

was reworded and strengthened to better define NTIA’s strategic direction and reflect evolving FY 2002

departmental strategic goals and objectives.

Measure 1a: Number of reports, filings, testimonies, and speeches

294 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Explanation of Measure

The FY 2000 target was met. One of NTIA’s primary missions is to serve as the President’s principal policy advisor

on telecommunications and information issues, and to be the Administration’s primary voice on them. NTIA

fulfills this policy-setting role in a number of ways during the course of a year, by preparing and issuing a number

of special reports on topics that emerge over time, by testifying before Congress and other organizations which are

concerned with telecommunications policy, and by NTIA executives and technical experts making speeches to

appropriate policy-oriented groups. This measurement of studies, reports, filings, testimonies, and speeches is

intended to illustrate the breadth of NTIA’s policy-setting involvement in these debates.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for NTIA Performance Goal 1: Promote Competition 

within the telecommunications sector and promote universal access to 

telecommunications services for all Americans 

NTIA conducts semi-annual strategic planning retreats with senior executives to evaluate progress and to

develop and refine new program goals. These program goals are coordinated with the Secretary of Commerce

and the White House to ensure that policy priorities are met within existing resources. Program evaluations

determine whether existing resources are being assigned appropriately to the highest priority issues.

Discontinued Measures

None.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 295

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Target New 30 30 30

Actual 32

Met / Not Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: All NTIA’s public materials are posted at http://www.ntia.doc.gov

Frequency: Material are posted on the website as soon as they are released to the public

Data storage: Data is stored on servers located at NTIA headquarters in HCHB

Verification: Data is manually verified
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 1

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

NTIA supports the Secretary of Commerce on a broad range of telecommunications policy issues. NTIA

works with the International Trade Administration on international issues and with the Technology

Administration on domain name issues.

Other Government Agencies

NTIA works with the White House and other Federal agencies to develop Administration-wide policy

statements.

Government/Private-Sector

NTIA obtains private-sector views on a broad range of telecommunications and information policy issues

through formal proceedings in which public comments are solicited and through public workshops and

meetings on specific subjects.

296 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Strategies

NTIA is pursuing digital inclusion

strategies to increase access to advanced

communications technologies.

Electronic commerce and Internet taxes

are examples of the issues NTIA is

addressing. Internationally, NTIA is

promoting pro-competitive U.S. policies,

including regulatory reform and

technical policies related to advanced

technologies and the Internet.

Activities

During FY 2000, NTIA released a wide range of reports,

including the following: 

• How Access Benefits Children: Connecting Our Kids to the

World of Information, 

• Advanced Telecommunications in Rural America, The Challenge

of Bringing Broadband Service to All Americans, 

• Joint Study of Section 1201(g) of The Digital Millennium

Copyright Act (with the Library of Congress), and

• Community Connections: Preserving Local Values in the

Information Age. 

Also during the year, NTIA testified before Congress on

providing loan guarantees to providers to carry local broadcast

signals to residents of small, rural local broadcast markets, filed

with the FCC on numerous proceedings (including wireless

medical telemetry service, maritime mobile and maritime

mobile-satellite radio services, extending telecommunications

services to tribal lands, reform of interstate access charges,

telecommunications deployment and subscribership in unserved

and underserved regions, software defined radios, and ultrawideband transmission systems), and spoke before numerous

forums to advance this goal.
External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

Consideration of telecommunications and information policy issues is affected by the activities of independent

regulatory agencies (e.g., the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission), and

priorities established for NTIA by the Secretary of Commerce, the White House, and the Congress. The

explosive growth of the Internet and its supporting technologies sometimes makes it difficult for Government

institutions to coordinate timely policy responses.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 297

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Performance Goal 2: 

Minimize the effects of crisis by preparing the U.S. telecommunications and

information infrastructure to operate under extreme conditions

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably

Objective 1.2: Promote responsible economic growth and trade while protecting American security

Rationale for Performance Goal 

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration has been assigned the role of lead agency for

protecting the U.S. information and communications infrastructure from intentional cyber or physical attack.

This critical infrastructure underpins virtually every national objective, including national security, economic

competitiveness, and the health and welfare of the American people. It is also increasingly vulnerable to attack,

yet is owned and operated by companies that manage their business risks according to the measure of impact

upon their own enterprises. The calculus of risk management, as practiced by industry, does not take into

account the potential for devastation on a national scale that is far beyond the responsibilities of these

enterprises. 

The Nation rightly expects the U.S. Government to bear that responsibility, but while the Government is

charged with protecting national interests, it does not have the access, technical capability, or resources to solve

the problem alone. The President has therefore directed U.S. Government agencies to work in partnership with

the private-sector to meet this responsibility. Developing this partnership, which involves the establishment of

new, intricate relationships between Government and industry to eliminate or mitigate sector vulnerabilities,

has been difficult, but the partnership is slowly beginning to show promise of growth.

The original FY 2000 performance goal, “Public Interest: Advance the public interest in telecommunications,

mass media, and information,” was combined with Performance Goal 1 to simplify reporting and to reflect 

FY 2002 departmental strategic goals and objectives.

Measure 2a: Increase the number of State, city, and county governments actively engaged

in critical infrastructure protection programs

298 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Target New New New 1 demonstration

project*

Actual

Met / Not Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 
Explanation of Measure

* This is a new measure added to the FY 2002 plan. It reflects NTIA’s commitment to developing the Critical

Infrastructure Protection (CIP) program’s telecommunications and information capabilities and activities. This

demonstration project would be funded by existing resources, since no new funds for it are included in the 

FY 2002 budget request. If NTIA is successful in conducting the demonstration, NTIA would undertake

additional demonstration projects that could serve as examples or models for programs at the State and local

level across the country.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for NTIA Performance Goal 2: Minimize the effects of 

crisis by preparing the U.S. telecommunications and information infrastructure to

operate under extreme conditions 

Program evaluation will be conducted by NTIA management in coordination with the Department of Defense.

An evaluation component will be built into each demonstration project that is conducted.

Discontinued Measures

None.

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 2

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD-63) establishes the Department of Commerce as the lead agency for

physical and cyber protection of the Information and Communications (I&C) sector. Within the Department,

this role has been designated to NTIA. NTIA works on CIP issues in coordination with other Commerce

agencies, including BXA and NIST.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 299

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Department of Defense, NTIA’s Institute for Telecommunication Sciences and Spectrum Management evaluation reports.

Frequency: Annual.

Data storage: Agency headquarters.

Verification: Agency records.

Strategies

NTIA will develop demonstration projects in

collaboration with the Department of Defense

(DoD) with selected States and cities, to develop

coordinated Critical Infrastructure Protection plans.

Activities

NTIA / DoD will invite interested local governments

to submit letters of interest and proposed

commitment of resources.
Other Government Agencies

NTIA works on CIP issues in coordination with the Department of Defense and the Critical Infrastructure

Assurance Office (CIAO). 

Government/Private-Sector

NTIA coordinates on CIP issues and activities with the private-sector primarily through the Sector

Coordinators—the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), the U.S. Telecom Association (USTA),

and the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA).

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

As a new initiative, decisions on funding will determine the extent to which NTIA can pursue this activity. 

300 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Performance Goal 3: 

Ensure allocation of radio spectrum—a scarce resource essential to all 

communications—provides the greatest benefit to all people.

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and

equitably

Objective 1.2: Promote responsible economic growth and trade while protecting American security

Rationale for Performance Goal 

The availability of the radio frequency spectrum is key to the development and implementation of innovative

telecommunications technologies. NTIA manages the Federal Government’s use of spectrum and is involved

in designing a cooperative interagency process with regard to the development of Third-Generation wireless

networks. NTIA’s activities include identifying and supporting new wireless technologies that promise

innovative applications that would provide the greatest benefit to all people served by the Federal and

private sectors; providing the 53 Federal agencies with the spectrum needed to support their missions for

national defense, law enforcement and security, air traffic control, national resource management, and other

public safety services; developing plans and policies to use the spectrum effectively; satisfying the United

States’ future spectrum needs globally through participation with the 190 other countries of the International

Telecommunications Union in establishing binding treaty agreements through the world radio

communication conference; and improving, through telecommunications research and engineering, the

understanding of radio-wave transmission and thereby improving spectrum utilization and the performance

of radio communications systems.

The original FY 2000 performance goal, “Radio spectrum Assignments: Ensure spectrum provided the greatest

benefit to all people,” was reworded and strengthened to better define NTIA’s strategic direction and reflect

evolving FY 2002 departmental strategic goals and objectives.

Measure 3a: Number of new agency-requested spectrum assignment actions

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 301

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Explanation of Measure

The FY 2000 target was met. The targets and actuals for this measure have been changed with the FY 1999 APPR

to reflect new frequency assignment actions in each year—a more meaningful measure of activity than total

numbers of frequency assignments as in previous plans.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for NTIA Performance Goal 3: Ensure allocation of radio 

spectrum—a scarce resource essential to all communications—provides the greatest 

benefit to all people 

NTIA continued to maintain and enhance the automated Federal spectrum management system under a program

begun in 1993. Included in the program is a capability for total electronic transfer of Federal spectrum

management data and information to include a standard suite of software for use with a personal computer for

the Federal agencies to technically select spectrum that is interference-free, submit applications for spectrum

support, and validate that the spectrum requested is within the rules and regulations governing spectrum

authorization. NTIA conducted 10 training classes from January-November 2000, attended by nearly 120

frequency management personnel from more than 15 Federal Government agencies. This training will enable

frequency assignment personnel throughout the Federal Government to use the automated spectrum

management system effectively. NTIA also initiated planning for a series of training sessions in 2001.

Discontinued Measures

None.

302 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Target N/A* 80,000 91,000 91,000

Actual 80,181 90,615

Met / Not Met Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

* See explanation of measure

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Government Master File (GMF) of frequency assignments

Frequency: Monthly updates

Data storage: GMF is stored on a mission critical system and is issued monthly to Federal agencies on CD

Verification: GMF has built-in checks and receives extensive program staff review
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 3

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

NTIA participates with the TA and NOAA within the Department of Commerce on the Interagency GPS

Executive Board, which with DoD jointly manages the GPS satellite program as a national asset.

Other Government Agencies

NTIA works with the 23 other Federal agencies on the Inter-department Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) to

manage frequency assignment requests. Uses of shared frequency bands are coordinated with the Federal

Communications Commission. Permissible uses of frequency bands are established by international bodies in

which NTIA participates.

Government/Private-Sector

NTIA coordinates on spectrum management issues through advisory committees and special informationsharing initiatives. Information on these activities may be found at

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/osmhome.html

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

The Congress from time to time has required some changes in Federal use of radio frequency spectrum, which

can affect availability of frequencies to suit Federal needs. The speed of development and implementation of

wireless technologies will affect the level and type of demand by Federal agencies for certain frequencies. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 303

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Strategies

NTIA’s spectrum frequency assignments

are conducted through the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee

(IRAC), which meets to consider pending

actions. 

Activities

To fulfill the Federal Government's needs for radio frequency

spectrum, NTIA's Office of Spectrum Management (OSM)

maintains the Government Master File (GMF) of radio

frequency assignments (439,829 frequency assignments as of

the end of FY 2000). During the past year, there were 90,615

Federal agency requests for frequency assignment actions

which included 21,483 new requests, 46,847 requests for

modifications of existing assignments, 11,967 requests for

deletion of existing assignments, and 10,691 requests for

recoordination of previous submissions (revotes). The

Spectrum Planning Subcommittee (SPS) of the IRAC reviewed

and recommended spectrum certification of 76 systems.
Performance Goal 4: 

Promote the availability, and support new sources, of advanced 

telecommunications and information services

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective

Strategic Goal 2: Provide infrastructure for innovation to enhance American competitiveness

Objective 2.3: Provide the infrastructure for a digital economy and a digital government 

Rationale for Performance Goal 

NTIA’s Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) aims to demonstrate advanced, innovative applications of

telecommunications and information technology in the non-profit and public sectors. The program provides

matching demonstration grants to State and local governments, health care providers, school districts, libraries,

social service organizations, public safety services, and other non-profit entities to help them develop information

infrastructures and services that are accessible to all citizens, in rural as well as urban areas. 

The original FY 2000 performance goal, “Advance Telecommunications: Promote the availability and sources of

advanced telecommunication and information services,” was reworded and strengthened to better define

NTIA’s strategic direction and reflect FY 2002 departmental strategic goals and objectives.

Measure 4a: Number of models/grants available for non-profit or public-sector

organizations

304 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Explanation of Measure

The target was not met. Experience has shown that in order to accomplish their goals, grants must have

sufficient resources, and that below certain dollar thresholds, various types of grants cannot be expected to

succeed. Thus the idea of resource sufficiency has been built into decisions on how many grants can be

supported within the funding provided by Congress in any given year. The FY 2000 target had been developed

on the basis of a higher budget request, while the FY 2001 target reflects a higher number of grants as a result of

a higher appropriation. The FY 2002 target was decreased to reflect a lower budget request.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for NTIA Performance Goal 4: Promote the availability, 

and support new sources, of advanced telecommunications and information services 

In April, 2000, NTIA released its Evaluation Report: Technology Opportunities Program—1996 Projects. This report is

one of a series of evaluations conducted by Westat, a Rockville, Maryland, research and consulting firm. The

report summarizes findings from a survey of 49 projects funded by TOP in 1996 that were completed and no

longer receiving grant monies as of January 1, 1999. The purpose of the study was to assess the effects that the

funded projects are having at the local and national levels. The Technology Opportunities Program requires all

grant recipients to conduct evaluations of their projects. Evaluations based on project goals and objectives are

expected to aid in self-monitoring that allows course corrections, assessment of short-term impacts, and

development of indicators of long-range impact. Taken collectively, evaluations should provide practitioners in

different programmatic areas with guidance in the development of new projects. Further, individual project

evaluations provide TOP with information for program planning and design. 

Discontinued Measures

None.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 305

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Target 50 50 80 30

Actual 43 35

Met / Not Met Not Met Not Met

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: NTIA’s grant awards are made annually and information on all applicants and recipients is posted on the NTIA web site at

http:/www.ntia.doc.gov

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: Data is stored on servers located at NTIA headquarters in HCHB.

Verification: Data on grants awarded can be verified by the DOC Office of Financial Management
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 4

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

NTIA works closely with the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and with the White House in

determining funding priorities for each annual grant round. 

Intra-DOC

NTIA works closely with the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Commerce in determining funding

priorities for each annual grant round, to establish rules and procedures for the grant program, and to

administer the program.

Other Government Agencies

NTIA works closely with the White House in determining funding priorities for each annual grant round.

Government / Private-Sector

None.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

The number of grants that can be awarded in each grant round is determined in large part by the amount of

funds appropriated for the grant program. 

306 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Strategies

NTIA’s expertise in broadband digital

services and radio-based technologies, and

knowledge of telecommunications and

information markets, network innovations,

and regulatory environment, enabled NTIA

to initiate and manage a technologies

opportunities grant program. This

expertise will be applied in the

determination of funding priorities and

objectives and in the evaluation and

promotion of successful grantees. 

Activities

• In 2000, 35 public and non-profit institutions,

competitively selected from more than 650 applicants,

were awarded $13.9 million in Federal grants. Projects

were selected on the basis of their ability to serve as

models that can be replicated by similar organizations

across the country. 

• Since the TOP program was initiated in 1994, NTIA has

awarded nearly $150 million in matching funds that has

spurred $370 million in total investments. 

• TOP continuously disseminates the results and insights

learned from the projects it supports by providing

technical assistance; creating publications, newsletters,

and on-line resources; and hosting conferences. 
Department Management

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 307

Department Management

Mission Statement

The Department of Commerce promotes job creation and improved living standards for

all Americans by creating an infrastructure that supports economic growth, technological

competitiveness, and sustainable development.

The Department of Commerce’s mission and three Strategic Goals – promoting economic growth, stimulating

technological development, and supporting sustainable development—encompass the range of our

Department’s program activities. The Goals were discussed in the FY 2000-2005 Strategic Plan, which also

presented our Management Integration Goal—the vehicle for ensuring that effective management systems

would be established and would be equal to the task of providing effective oversight for these diverse program

areas. This assurance demands that the Office of the Secretary, in performing its oversight and administrative

tasks—through a set of activities termed Departmental Management (DM)—develops and manages its activities

according to performance goals and measures that can be used by our internal and external customers to

determine our success. 

This section of the APPR/APP presents the performance goals and measures for that range of tasks, including

the activities we conduct in response to government-wide management challenges. The issues discussed here

are often different from the management challenges discussed in the bureau-specific sections of this document,

because they are broader in scope than many of the bureau-specific management challenges. DM issues often go

well beyond the responsibility of the Department of Commerce alone to address, and/or they may require far

greater resources to correct. For example, the General Accounting Office (GAO) publishes a list of High Risk

Areas, which are topics of unusual threat to program effectiveness in an agency. The Department of Commerce

is proud to say that none of our programs are on GAO’s current High Risk Areas list. However, some issues on

GAO’s list affect all Federal agencies, and we must address them here in this APPR/APP, within the scope of

our resources.

Establishing Departmental Management performance goals and measures involves special challenges. Some DM

activities are essential to fulfilling statutory requirements or government-wide directives effectively, such as

having sound financial management practices and ensuring progressive acquisition practices. Other activities

are so integral to the day-to-day functioning of an organization that they appear “invisible” to the public, but

they nevertheless consume significant resources, such as reducing energy consumption. Still others, such as

managing human capital effectively and ensuring a steady supply of talented new staff, are at the top of every

program manager’s list of priority responsibilities.

One of GPRA’s challenges for all agencies’ DM programs is to find ways of measuring the effectiveness of the

oversight and policy-setting activities that are important parts of their role. This challenge confronts the

Department of Commerce and every other Federal agency, especially at the start of a new Administration, when

it is formulating new policies. We are addressing this challenge in two ways. First, we are presenting an array of

performance measures in this APPR/APP, which is larger than any we have previously used for the DM

function, to illustrate the range of our functions. Second, in the coming year, Commerce plans to work closely
with other Federal agencies to both enunciate policy functions and develop approaches to measuring their

effectiveness. That will be our goal as we move through the process of managing our FY 2001 resources,

implementing our FY 2002 budget, and preparing for the FY 2003 GPRA planning process.

Organizational Structure 

Priorities

In the Department of Commerce – the cabinet agency with historically the smallest budget but with world-wide

responsibilities—the offices comprising the Department Management function are aware of the need to

enunciate clear policies and to provide effective oversight over the Department’s programs, and to manage the

Department’s affairs in an efficient and business-like manner. We must ensure that we provide effective balance

to this dual role – ensuring that our programs are effective and that Commerce works effectively as an

organization.

Management Challenges

The Department of Commerce faces a number of key challenges, and the full range of these challenges are

subject to oversight under the Departmental Management function. The offices comprising the Department

Management function seek to provide leadership in addressing these major challenges, and they cooperate with

other Commerce components, such as the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and our program bureaus, in doing

so. 

In the OIG’s September 2000 Semi-Annual Report to the Congress, and again in the OIG’s December 2000 report

to the Senate Government Affairs Committee, we identified a series of key challenges, many of which are cited

here. We view this group of challenges to be among the most significant, because of their importance to our

mission or to the nation’s well being, their complexity, their cost, or the urgency of their need for management

improvements: 

308 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Department Management

Secretary

Deputy Secretary

General Counsel Inspector General

Chief Financial Officer

and

Assistant Secretary for

Administration

Chief Information

Officer

Policy and 

Strategic Planning

Legislative and

Intergovernmental

Affairs

Public Affairs Business

Liaison
1. Increase the Accuracy and Control the Cost of the 2000 Decennial Census

The Decennial Census is an enormous and complex undertaking, one of the most difficult that the Federal

Government has to undertake. The accuracy of decennial census data is critical because it is the basis for

apportioning seats in the House of Representatives and is used to support a host of other activities, including

Federal and State redistricting and the distribution of billions of dollars of Federal and State funds. For these

reasons, oversight of the decennial census has remained one of our top priorities. Since 1997 the OIG has issued

nearly 30 audits and inspection reports on various aspects of the bureaus decennial efforts and has made

numerous recommendations aimed at helping to improve the accuracy of the decennial and control its cost,

some of which also have implications for improving other bureau operations. The OIG also plans to examine the

body of evaluative work produced on the 2000 decennial and identify and report on “lessons learned” that may

be helpful to the Census Bureau in planning for the 2010 decennial. 

2. Successfully Implement a Department-Wide Financial Management System

For more than 10 years, the lack of a single, integrated financial system has been reported as a material internal

control weakness in the Secretary’s annual reports to the President under the Federal Managers Financial

Integrity Act. In response, Commerce began planning for a new Department-wide financial system in 1992, but

implementation of the Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS) progressed slowly. In the past

two years, however, the Department has streamlined requirements and made considerable progress toward full

implementation, particularly at the Census Bureau, EDA, NIST, NOAA, and the Office of the Secretary. By 2004,

plans call for all 14 reporting entities to employ compliant financial management systems integrated with a

Commerce-wide financial database to produce the consolidated financial statements. 

3. Strengthen Department-wide Information Security

A large number of interconnected, widely distributed computer systems support vital Commerce operations and

provide essential services to the public. Effective computer security measures are critical for protecting the

secrecy and privacy of information, the integrity of computer systems and their networks, and the availability of

services to users. The OIG recently completed a review of the Department’s efforts to protect its information

systems under the Presidentially-directed critical infrastructure protection program. The OIG also reviewed the

security of Commerce financial management systems and their related networks as part of our audits of the

Department’s FY 1999 financial statements. These reviews found that information security needs additional

management attention and improvements. We plan to continue and expand our reviews in fulfilling our

oversight responsibilities under the Government Information Security Reform Act. 

4. Successfully Implement USPTO’s Transition to a Performance-Based Organization

The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 established the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a

Performance Based Organization (PBO) and provided increased authority and control of its budget, expenditures,

personnel processes, and procurement operations. USPTO must formulate policies governing these processes and

develop a performance-based process with standards for evaluating cost-effectiveness, while meeting its

performance goals under GPRA. USPTO management and others recognize the significant challenges associated

with USPTO’s transition to a PBO. First, the agency has experienced a substantial increase in patent and

trademark filings and appeals, leading to the hiring of hundreds of examiners and administrative judges.

USPTO’s new status should allow it to more efficiently manage its human capital and other resources and to

rapidly change filing and appeal processes as needed. Second, USPTO is engaged in a massive real estate venture,

the construction of a new five-building headquarters complex in northern Virginia, to be completed in 2004. This

project is expected to be one of the largest real estate ventures that the Federal Government will undertake in the

next decade. Third, USPTO, which has experienced problems in applying information technology to the

examination process, will see the demands on automated systems intensify as a result of the Act’s increased focus

on operational efficiency and its provisions requiring information technology solutions. Successful transition to a

PBO will enable USPTO to better address these challenges. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 309

Department Management
5. Increase the Effectiveness of Fishery Management 

Ensuring healthy stocks of fish and other marine animals in the coastal waters beyond each State’s jurisdiction is

a Federal responsibility led by NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and eight regional fishery

management councils under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as

amended. NMFS and the councils track the condition of fish and marine species, determine the levels of catch

that will provide the greatest benefit to the Nation, and measure the economic impacts of fishery regulations

and policies. 

The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently concluded that NMFS appears to be using the best available

science to determine the condition of these species, appropriately considers the economic impacts of

conservation and management measures on fishing communities, and has technically met the Act’s

requirements by identifying fish habitats and developing a consultative process for addressing potential adverse

impacts to those habitats. However, GAO recommended strengthening NMFS’s data collection efforts,

improving economic analysis and communications between the government and the fishing industry, and

identifying the costs of complying with the Act’s habitat provisions

6. Continue to Improve the Department’s Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement in Accordance

with GPRA

Despite the inherent difficulties encountered in determining how to best plan and measure its performance in

accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department has continued

to make progress in meeting this challenge. The Department submitted its third Annual Performance Plan, for

FY 2001, in February 2000 and its first Annual Program Performance Report, for FY 1999, in March 2000. The

submission of the Department’s first Annual Program Performance Report brought to a close the first full cycle

of GPRA activity that began in 1996. Also, the Department submitted its initial Accountability Report, which

reports both financial and performance results, for FY 1999, on March 1, 2000. Our second Strategic Plan,

covering FY 2000-2005, has also been submitted.

While the Congress, GAO, and the OIG all agreed that the Department’s FY 2000 Annual Performance Plan was

significantly better than its FY 1999 plan, it was also recognized that there was room for additional

improvement. Of particular concern was the need for the Department to ensure that the data to be used in

measuring performance is accurate, complete, and reliable. The FY 2001 plan and FY 1999 performance report

reflected the Department’s continued efforts to improve strategic planning. Areas where additional

improvements have been made in this FY 2000 APPR/ FY 2000 APP include continued efforts to ensure that

reported data is credible, modifying the system for scoring and communicating performance results, and more

fully discussing performance targets not met and efforts to improve performance. While the Department has

been responsive to past criticisms of the documents it has produced to meet GPRA requirements, continued

management attention is essential.

7. Strengthen Financial Management Controls in Order to Maintain a “Clean” Opinion on the Department’s

Consolidated Financial Statements

The Department received its first-ever unqualified (clean) opinion on its FY 1999 consolidated financial

statements despite many obstacles, including the absence of a single, integrated financial management system

and internal control deficiencies. Maintaining clean audit opinions on the consolidated statements, as well as all

reporting entity statements, is essential and, as such, remains a major challenge. 

Although substantial improvements have been made in financial management, the Department needs to create a

financial management environment that provides timely, accurate financial and performance information and

complies with Federal laws and regulations. The Department has undertaken three major financial management

initiatives: (1) improving financial accountability by strengthening the integrity of financial operations and

providing guidance to reporting entities; (2) improving financial management systems through the CAMS

310 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Department Management
development project; and (3) developing human resources by establishing financial leadership positions at all

bureaus and developing a professional education program.

8. Successfully Implement Acquisition Reform Initiatives

The Department spends more than $1 billion each year, about one-quarter of its annual appropriation, through

contracts. Several laws enacted during the 1990s sought to streamline the way in which the government

purchases goods and services by promoting efficiency and uniformity in the Federal acquisition process and by

relying on goods available in the competitive marketplace. Concerns about the effect of these new laws on the

Federal procurement process have been raised by various government oversight agencies, including GAO and

the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. The OIG has identified problems at Commerce with improper use of

task order contracts, inadequate documentation of market surveys insufficient planning for contract

administration and monitoring, and inadequate administration of the purchase card program. Given these

concerns, the OIG believes that the Department’s implementation of acquisition reform initiatives warrants extra

scrutiny.

9. De-layer management levels to streamline organizations

Consistent with OMB Memorandum 01-11, dated February 14, 2001, senior leaders within the Department of

Commerce have focused on de-layering their organizations. In essence, they have restructured their

organizations to reduce the number of supervisory positions, thereby realizing an improved supervisory ratio.

Within the Department, the number of supervisory positions has decreased from 5,325 in January 1994

(comprising 15.1% of the workforce) to 5,004 in January 2001 (comprising 12% of the workforce). With the

implementation of the new U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s General Schedule Leader Grade Evaluation

Guide in January 1999, many first-line supervisory positions over two-grade interval occupations were

restructured according to the guidelines of the new classification standard and reclassified as team leader

positions. Within the DOC, the number of team leader positions rose from 187 in 1994 to 565 in 2001. As a result

of reducing the number of its supervisory positions, the DOC’s supervisory ratio improved from 1:6.2 in 1994 to

1:9 in 2001. Individual attention continues to be focused on those bureaus with very small supervisory ratios, to

determine if office-restructuring efforts could eliminate unnecessary managerial levels and result in establishing

the most-efficient organizations.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 311

Department Management
Targets and Performance Summary

See individual Performance Goal section for further description of each measure.

312 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Department Management

Performance Goal 1: Acquire and Manage the Fiscal and Related Resources Necessary to Support Program

Goals

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Maintain 100 percent

funds covered by clean

audits

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual 

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target Measures

Implement

systems in 1

bureau

Systems

implemented in

1 bureau

Implement

systems in 5

bureaus

Systems

implemented in

5 bureaus

Implement

systems in 9

bureaus

Implement

systems in 11

bureaus

Meet milestones in

implementing the

Department-wide

financial system

(cumulative)

24% 33% 25% 34% 26% 27%

Reduce energy

consumption per square

foot

12 12 10 10 10 10

Protect information and

staff at field sites from

risk/disaster

New $13.6M $27.4M $33.2M $46.0M $46.0M

Increase grants and

cooperative agreements

to Minority Serving

Institutions

N/A 288,268

transactions

75% of actions

below $25K

88% of actions

below $25K

75% of actions

below $25K

75% of actions

below $25K

Increase transactions

using credit card

purchasing

SB: 35.0%

MB: 15.0%

WO: 5.0%

SB: 42.0%

MB: 14.1%

WO: 5.2%

SB: 40%

MB: 18%

WO: 5%

SB: 34.3%

MB: 20.4%

WO: 6.1%

SB: 40%

MB: 18%

WO: 5%

SB: 40%

MB: 18%

WO: 5%

Increase percent of total

obligations awarded as

contracts to small,

minority-owned, and

women-owned firms

Commercial

inventory due by

6/30/99

Inventory

submitted on

7/9/99

Complete

commercial

inventory by

6/30/00

Inventory

submitted on

6/30/00

Complete

commercial

inventory by

6/30/01

Expand

inventory to

include all FTEs,

complete

conversion

competitions on

5% of FTEs

Expand A-76

competitions and more

accurate FAIR Act

inventories

New New New New 10% 20%

Increase portion of

contract funds obligated

for performance-based

contracting

New New New New 50% 100% Expand the application

of on-line procurement
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 313

Department Management

Performance Goal 2: Acquire, Manage and Develop a Diverse, Skilled and Flexible Staff, Using Information

Technology as an Essential Tool

Monitor

vacancies

Vacancies

monitored

Develop

Workforce

Analysis Plan,

research

automated tools

Plan developed,

tools identified

Automated tools

used by 3 pilot

test offices

Automated tools

implemented in

3 bureaus

Develop process to

identify current/

projected missionrelated workforce needs

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual 

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target Measures

Review existing

balanced

scorecard

systems

Existing systems

reviewed

Develop

balanced

scorecard

methodology 

Methodology

developed, HR

Summit held

Complete 2

balanced

scorecard

systems

Achieve 50% of

balanced

scorecard

measures

Assess human

capital/value of HR

services

Create COOL

Phase I

COOL Phase I

created 

Create COOL

Phase II, identify

average fill time 

COOL Phase II

created, fill time

identified at 44

days 

Create COOL

Phase III, reduce

fill time to 34

days 

Create COOL

Phase IV, reduce

fill time to 29

days

Increase the efficiency

and effectiveness of

hiring systems

Determine

greatest diversity

voids

Greatest

diversity voids

determined;

workforce has

3% staff of

Hispanic origin 

Finalize MOUs

with 5 HSIs,

market student

resumes

Finalized MOUs

with 9 HSIs,

marketed 121

resumes with

DOC managers

Develop/

implement

resume tracking

system, sponsor

9 recruitment

activities, market

140 resumes

Refine tracking

system, sponsor

15 recruitment

activities, market

200 resumes

Increase recruitment

opportunities/ improve

diversity 

Enter

performance

ratings/

awards

into NFC

database with

95% accuracy

Information

entered with 95%

accuracy

Develop webbased combined

performance

management

and awards

handbook

Combined

performance

management and

awards

handbook

completed

Design tracking

system for

aligning ratings

with mission

accomplishment/overall

recognition

Achieve 75%

linkage in pilot

test between

individual

ratings and highperforming

organizations

Increase the alignment

of performance

management with

mission

accomplishment/

overall recognition

Make managers

aware of

telecom-muting

flexibilities

Managers made

aware 

Provide advice

to managers in

establishing pilot

programs

3 pilot programs

established

25% of eligible

workforce is

involved in

program

50% of eligible

workforce is

involved in

program

Implement a

telecommuting program

Performance Goal 3: Acquire and Manage the Technology Resources to Support Program Goals 

New New 15 15 25 43

Increase the goods and

services provided via

electronic means

FY 1999

Target

FY 1999

Actual 

FY 2000

Target

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Target

FY 2002

Target Measures

New New New 1 2

50% at 3 or

above

Increase IT Planning

and Investment Review

program maturity (on a

score of 0-5)

New New New 1 2 50% at 3 or

above

Increase IT architecture

program maturity (on a

score of 0-5)

New New New <1 50% at 1 or

above

75% at 2 or

above

Increase IT security

program maturity (on a

score of 0-5)
Resource Requirements Summary

(Dollars in Millions. Funding amounts reflect total obligations.)

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)

*IT funding included in Total Funding.

**Reimbursable funding included in Total Funding

***Funds for the Working Capital Fund and the Franchise Fund are appropriated to bureaus, and they do not

appear in these DM totals.

314 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Department Management

26.0

0

161

29.0

0

203

29.0

0

149

28.0

0

168

33.0

0

175

30.0

0

175

Performance Goal 1:

Total Funding 

IT Funding*

FTE

FY 1999

Actual

FY 2000

Request

FY 2000

Actual

FY 2001

Request

FY 2001

Enacted

FY 2002

Request Performance Goal

2.0

0

22

2.0

0

24

2.0

0

17

2.0

0

24

2.0

0

24

2.0

0

24

Performance Goal 2: 

Funding

IT Funding*

FTE 

2.0

2.0

24

2.0

2.0

21

2.0

2.0

19

2.0

2.0

21

6.0

6.0

21

6.0

6.0

21

Performance Goal 2: 

Funding

IT Funding*

FTE 

31.0

1.0

2.0

207

34.0

1.0

2.0

248

33.0

2.0

2.0

185

34.0

2.0

2.0

213

41.0

9.0

2.0

220

38.0

5.0

2.0

220

Grand Total

Total Funding

Reimbursable**

IT Funding*

FTE
FY 2002 Performance Goals

Performance Goal 1:

Acquire and Manage the Fiscal and Related Resources Necessary to 

Support Program Goals

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Management Integration Goal 1: Strengthen Management at All Levels

Objective: Promote Efficient and Effective Resources Management

Rationale for Performance Goal 

The Department of Commerce must have the capacity to do business as successfully as possible with the public

and with its partner agencies, both as a $5 billion, worldwide enterprise and as an integrated set of individual

programs. This requires us to establish and maintain the business practices of any successful organization, by

using our resources wisely and implementing the laws that affect us. As a result, the activities covered by this

Performance Goal are highly diverse, because the Goal must include the full range of operational tasks

associated with this range of responsibilities.

Measure 1a: Maintain 100 percent funds covered by clean audits 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 315

Department Management

Target 100% 100% 100% 100%

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual 100% 100%

Met/Not Met Met Met
Explanation of Measure

Target met. The Department has continued to make improving its financial management a top priority by

strengthening the integrity of financial operations to ensure the accuracy of financial data and receiving clean

(or unqualified) opinions on our Consolidated Financial Statements. Key laws such as the CFO Act, GMRA,

FFMIA, and GPRA established new standards for Federal agency financial operations. Timely and reliable

financial information is necessary to allow stakeholders and decision-makers to have confidence in the way

Commerce manages its resources. 

Measure 1b: Meet milestones in implementing the Department-wide financial system

(cumulative)

316 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Department Management

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Consolidated Financial Statements and OIG audits

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: Bureau or Departmental financial systems

Verification: OIG audits

Data Limitations: None

Actions to be taken: Continue to maintain clean audits

Implement systems

in 1 bureau

Implement systems

in 5 bureaus

Implement systems

in 9 bureaus

Implement systems

in 11 bureaus Target

Systems

implemented in 1

bureau

Systems

implemented in 5

bureaus

Actual

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Met/Not Met Met Met
Explanation of Measure

Target met. This measure tracks the Department’s long-term progress in implementing the requirements of the

CFO Act, the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program (JFMIP), and other standards for a central

agency integrated financial system. A modern, Department-wide financial management system is urgently

needed to enable us to improve dramatically our overall financial management performance. Through the

Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS) project, we will develop and implement a set of

standardized systems (including a Core Financial System, systems for small purchases, bankcard systems, and

time reporting/labor cost distribution) that will support the common financial activities of the Department and

its bureaus.

Measure 1c: Reduce energy consumption per square foot

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 317

Department Management

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Bureau reports

Frequency: Ongoing monitoring and quarterly reporting

Data storage: N/A

Verification: OIG audits

Data Limitations: N/A

Actions to be taken: Continuing aggressive implementation schedule

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Bureau reports

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: DM office tracking system

Verification: Reasonable use standard

Data Limitations: N/A

Actions to be taken: Improve recording and reporting methodology

Target 24% 25% 26% 27%

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual 33% 34%

Met/Not Met Met Met
Explanation of Measure

Target met. This measure is established for all Federal agencies in the National Energy Conservation Policy Act,

the Energy Policy Act, and Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy

Management. These mandates include reducing energy consumption by 30% by 2005 and 35% by 2010. Interim

goals of FY 2001 and FY 2002 are used to show progress in meeting those eventual targets.

Measure 1d: Protect information and staff at field sites from risk/disaster

Explanation of Measure

Target met. The Department of Commerce must ensure security for Department field site visitors, staff, facilities,

resources, and information, and this is done in different ways each year. In FY 1999, we completed physical

security reviews for Regional Census Centers. This reduced security–related risks and incidents, and helped

increase employee satisfaction and support higher productivity. In FY 2000, all security containers at 10 DOC

field facilities were inspected, and were found to be in compliance. In FY 2001 and FY 2002, the measure is to

ensure protection of critical, classified, and sensitive Commerce computer systems and information from

compromise or exploitation by adversaries. Computer systems will be inspected, accredited, and certified. 

318 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Department Management

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Bureau reports

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: DM office tracking system

Verification: Reasonable use standard

Data Limitations: N/A

Actions to be taken: Improve recording and reporting methodology

Target 12 10 10 10

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual 12 10

Met/Not Met Met Met
Measure 1e: Increase grants and cooperative agreements to Minority Serving Institutions

(MSIs)

Explanation of Measure

Target met. The new MSI Initiative for financial assistance is aimed at increasing opportunities for funding to

MSI organizations, and provides an opportunity for MSIs to build relationships with DOC program managers.

We will continue to encourage meaningful participation of MSIs in our financial assistance programs. During 

FY 2001, we will evaluate our FY 2002 target to ensure that it remains appropriate, on the basis of previous

activity.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 319

Department Management

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Federal Assistance Award Data System

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: Office of Executive Assistance Management

Verification: Office of Executive Assistance Management provides year-end summaries to bureaus, bureaus correct and revise as needed 

Data Limitations: Data system contains grant information but not accounting information, or information about sub-awards.

Actions to be taken: Continue outreach efforts.

Target New $27.4M $46.0M $46.0M

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual $13.6M $33.2M

Met/Not Met N/A Met
Measure 1f: Increase transactions using of credit card purchasing

Explanation of Measure

Target met. Starting with FY 2000, the Procurement Executive Council adopted a new Government-wide

Acquisition Performance Measurement Program, under which agencies first began tracking their small purchase

credit card usage against the government-wide target of 75%. Measures were pilot tested in FY 2000 and results

were collected in December 2000. Commerce exceeds the government-wide target. Full implementation began

with FY 2001 and results will be collected in December 2001. 

320 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Department Management

N/A 75% of actions 

below $25K

75% of actions 

below $25K

75% of actions 

below $25K Target

288,268

transactions

88% of actions 

below $25K Actual

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Met/Not Met N/A Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Commerce bank card center

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: Commerce bank card center

Verification: Procurement Executive Council process 

Data Limitations: None

Actions to be taken: Continue to gather and review data
Measure 1g: Increase percent of total obligations awarded as contracts to small, minorityowned, and women-owned firms

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 321

Department Management

Women-Owned Business: Minority Business:

Small Business:

SB: 35%

MB: 15%

WO: 5%

SB: 40%

MB: 18%

WO: 5%

SB: 40%

MB: 18%

WO: 5%

SB: 40%

MB: 18%

WO: 5%

Target

SB: 42.0%

MB: 14.1%

WO: 5.2%

SB: 34.3%

MB: 20.4%

WO: 6.1%

Actual

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

SB, WO Met

MB Not Met

MB, WO Met

SB Not Met Met/Not Met
Explanation of Measure

The targets for Minority Business (MB) and Woman Owned (WO ) Firms were met, but the target for Small

Business (SB) was not met. This measure was selected to ensure that the Department of Commerce does

business as successfully as possible with the public and with its partner agencies each year by increasing the

proportion of small, businesses owned by minorities, women, and people with disabilities in the Department’s

acquisitions. In FY 2000, the proportion of funds spent on these types of procurement opportunities was reduced

because there were more large procurements in several major programs, e.g., the Decennial Census and the

Advanced Measurement Laboratory. Consequently, there were greater opportunities for small businesses in

lower-revenue producing subcontracting, instead of prime contracting opportunities. The small business

percentage will increase to its traditional level as these major programs near completion.

Measure 1h: Expand A-76 competition and more accurate FAIR Act inventories

Explanation of Measure 

Target met. The Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act requires that the Federal Government not

compete with citizens and that it will rely on commercial sources to provide the products and services needed

for the government to function. The Act requires that agencies provide OMB with a timely inventory of their

activities that can be provided by commercial sources. After missing the initial deadline by 1 week in 1999, the

Department has developed an annual reporting process that is timely and complete. In FY 2002, DOC will

322 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Department Management

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Small Business Administration, and DOC’s Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: SBA and OSDBU

Verification: SBA and OSDBU 

Data Limitations: None

Actions to be taken: Continue outreach efforts

Commercial

inventory due by

6/30/99

Commercial

inventory due by

6/30/00

Commercial

inventory due by

6/30/01

Expand inventory to

include all FTEs,

complete conversion

competitions on 5%

of FTEs

Target

Inventory submitted

on 7/9/99

Inventory submitted

on 6/30/00 Actual

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Met/Not Met Not met Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Inventory transmittal letters

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: Office chronology files

Verification: Executive Secretariat

Data Limitations: None

Actions to be taken: Measure trends over time
complete public-private or direct conversion competitions on not less than 5 percent of the FTEs reported on our

FAIR inventory. These competitions may include updating cost comparisons for activities previously studied

and retained in-house, or cost comparisons of previously unstudied activities. Also in FY 2002, we will evaluate

each activity and accurately designate each FTE as “inherently governmental” or “commercial”.

Measure 1i: Increase portion of contract funds obligated for performance-based contracting 

Explanation of Measure

Performance-based contracting is a method of procurement where the Federal Government defines the results it

is seeking, rather than the process by which those results are to be attained. It also includes the standards

against which contractor performance will be measured, and positive/negative incentives. In preparation for

this change in procurement approaches, the Office of Acquisition Management is training bureau and

Departmental staff to include performance-based considerations in the planning stage of acquisitions, issuing

guidance to bureau offices, and establishing operational and performance goals for implementing this new

approach. The FY 2002 target represents an annual increment toward the goal of 50% of dollar obligations for

contracts by FY 2005.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 323

Department Management

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Commerce Procurement Data System (CPDS)

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: CPDS

Verification: Supervisory audit

Data Limitations: N/A

Target New New 10% 20%

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual New New

Met/Not Met
Measure 1j: Expand the application of on-line procurement

Explanation of Measure

Several Commerce procurement offices currently use FedBizOpps to post their commercial contract synopses.

By October 1, 2001, all Commerce offices will be able to post all of their synopses and the combined

synopsis/solicitation for commercial items on the government-wide point-of-entry website. Not all solicitations

are currently posted on the Internet. Instead, paper copies or copies on electronic media (e.g., CDs) are often

mailed out to interested vendors. Solicitations may include drawings, specifications and other attachments

which may not be in electronic form or may be too costly to convert. 

In FY 2001, the Office of Acquisition Management will issue policy guidance to the bureau procurement offices

to meet the above performance targets. The continued deployment of Commerce Standard Acquisition and

Reporting System (C-STARS) provides the capability for posting solicitations on-line, and ultimately to

FedBizOpps. For FY 2002, agencies will post (a) all synopses for acquisitions valued at over $25,000 for which

widespread notice is required and (b) all associated solicitations unless covered by an exemption in the Federal

Acquisition Regulation on the government-wide point-of-entry website (www.FedBizOpps.gov). The President’s

commitment is to shift procurement to the Internet at the same rate as the private sector and to increase

competition and accessibility.

324 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Department Management

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Commerce Business Daily Net (CBDNET)

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: CPDNET

Verification: Contracting Office Certification

Data Limitations: N/A

Target New New 50% 100%

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual New New

Met/Not Met
FY 2000 Program Evaluation for DM Performance Goal 1: Acquire and Manage the 

Fiscal and Related Resources Necessary to Support Program Goals

The Department of Commerce uses reviews and reports of the Office of Inspector General, the Office of

Management and Budget, the General Accounting Office and other Congressional organizations, governmentwide task force studies which produce (or rely on) objective review criteria, and other sources in conducting

evaluations of its Goal 1 activities. In addition, many of the laws cited in this section have specific requirements

which are used for comparison and corrective-action planning purposes.

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 1 

Action Plan 

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

Under the Departmental Management function, the Office of the Secretary works with all bureaus on a

regular basis, across the full range of policy development and program management topics.

Other Government Agencies

Under the Departmental Management function, the Office of the Secretary works with virtually all Federal

agencies on a regular basis, across the full range of policy development and program management topics.

Government / Private Sector

Under the Departmental Management function, the Office of the Secretary works with all segments of the

private sector bureaus on a regular basis, across the full range of policy development and program

management topics.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 325

Department Management

• Develop processes and systems for managing financial

resources, through automated systems and other means

• Develop standards for reducing energy consumption

• Conduct security and safety inspections

• Develop and implement methods of supporting Minority

Serving Institutions (MSIs), as well as assisting small,

minority, and women-owned firms

• Implement standards for credit card purchasing

• Develop inventories of activities which can be

commercialized

• Develop ways of increasing performance-based contracting

Devote priority attention and resources

to addressing statutory requirements for

resource management

Strategies Activities
External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

• Customers of the Department are diverse and often have a broad array of needs and expectations that cannot

be adequately addressed by a universal approach. 

• Commerce programs face continually increasing demands for greater productivity and more services, against

a backdrop of limited Federal funds. 

• Commerce programs must be managed from within an aging physical plant (including our headquarters

building and other facilities around the nation), which requires modernization in order to meet our technical

and scientific demands as well as to ensure the safety of our staff, information, and customers.

326 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Department Management
Performance Goal 2: 

Acquire, Manage, and Develop a Diverse, Skilled, and Flexible Staff, 

Using Information Technology as an Essential tool.

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Management Integration Goal 1: Strengthen Management at All Levels

Objective: Promote Efficient and Effective Resources Management

Rationale for Performance Goal 

It has been widely reported that in the near future – certainly, within the period covered by the FY 2000-2005

Strategic Plans— the Federal Government will face a very real and far-reaching change in the composition of its

workforce, as members of the post-World War II baby boomer generation begin to retire. Fully 67 percent of the

Commerce Department’s Senior Executive Service staff and 26 percent of its general workforce will be eligible

for retirement during this period. This will clearly produce an unprecedented drain on our institutional

memory, on our capacity to provide mature leadership to the next generation of Department employees, and

thus on our capacity to serve the public. We must also ensure that the Department continues to reflect the

diversity of the American population.

Measure 2a: Develop process to identify current/projected mission-related workforce needs

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 327

Department Management

Monitor vacancies

Develop Workforce

Analysis Plan,

research automated

tools

Automated tools

used by 3 pilot test

offices

Automated tools

implemented in 3

bureaus

Target

Vacancies monitored Plan developed, 

tools identified Actual

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Met/Not Met Met Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: National Finance Center/DOC Human Resources Data System

Frequency: Semi-Annual

Data storage: OHRM payroll/personnel system

Verification: Workforce needs assessment/turnover data

Data Limitations: HRDS does not provide historical data

Actions to be taken: Measure trends over time
Explanation of Measure

Target met. Previous downsizing efforts, hiring freezes, and the curtailed investment in human capital have

resulted in a workforce which is not “appropriately constituted to meet the current and emerging needs of

government and the nation’s citizens”, according to government-wide GAO report, entitled High-Risk Series:

An Update, January 2001. President Bush recently identified the issue of “delayering management levels to

streamline organizations” as one of his Government-wide reforms. This overall streamlining within Commerce

can best be accomplished through a planning effort, which examines the entire workforce. The requirement to

identify the data needed by managers at all levels to attract and retain the workforce of tomorrow is even more

critical considering that 25% of the Department’s workforce are now eligible to retire. In FY 2001, the

Department will initiate 3 workforce-planning pilots, and identify managers who will work with HR to develop,

test, and refine automated workforce planning tools and reports. Based on overall program successes, it is

expected that at least 3 bureaus will come to depend on the Department’s automated workforce planning tools

as their sole source for planning statistics, projections, and information in FY 2002.

Measure 2b: Assess human capital/value of HR services

Explanation of Measure

Target met. GAO’s report Major Management Challenges and Program Risks Report, January 2001, states that “the

lack of attention to strategic human capital management has created a government-wide risk - one that is

fundamental to the Federal Government’s ability to effectively serve the American people now and in the

future”. The report also contends that agencies must focus on human capital as a “strategic asset”, including an

examination of critical HR functions. The HR Summit, held in August 2000, involved senior managers

throughout the Department in generating ideas for changing Commerce’s human resources strategy, and for

examining a draft HR Strategic Plan for integrating HR management into all major Department management

systems. Use of balanced scorecards will identify those strategic HR functions most critical to management,

establish measurable standards, and ensure that there is linkage between the delivery of HR services to overall

departmental goals.

328 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Department Management

Review existing

balanced scorecard

systems

Develop balanced

scorecard

methodology

Complete 2 balanced

scorecard systems

Achieve 50% of

balanced scorecard

measures

Target

Existing systems

reviewed

Methodology

developed, HR

Summit held

Actual

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Met/Not Met Met Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Human Resources Balanced Scorecards

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: DOC-wide reports/databases

Verification: Utility of HTR Balanced Scorecard Systems

Data Limitations: Comparative statistics

Actions to be taken: Develop balanced scorecard methodology, create/refine measures
Measure 2c: Increase the efficiency and effectiveness of hiring systems 

Explanation of Measure

Target met. In DOC surveys, managers have expressed their displeasure with the timeliness of the hiring

process, as well as the number and quality of candidates referred for consideration. In 1999, the Department

designed and pilot tested a web-based recruitment and referral system, Commerce Opportunities On Line

(COOL) Phase I. In April 2000, the Phase I pilot was replaced with an enhanced version (COOL Phase II) and

deployed within a number of DOC bureaus; in October 2000, COOL Phase III was deployed, usable in filling

vacancies with non-status, external candidates. COOL user data/statistics are used to make further decisions

and refinements on the overall recruitment process. In FY 2002, the system (COOL Phase IV) will be used to

reduce the time needed to open vacancy announcements.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 329

Department Management

Create COOL 

Phase I

Create COOL Phase

II, identify average

fill time 

Create COOL Phase

III, reduce fill time to

34 days

Create COOL Phase

IV, reduce fill time to

29 days

Target

COOL Phase I

created

COOL Phase II

created, fill time

identified at 44 days

Actual

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Met/Not Met Met Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Staffing Timeliness Measure (STM) system

Frequency: Semi-Annual

Data storage: STM

Verification: Staffing timeliness studies

Data Limitations: Some manual sorting required

Actions to be taken: Refine system, provide training, oversee issuance of certificates to managers
Measure 2d: Increase recruitment opportunities/improve diversity 

Explanation of Measure

Target met. Commerce workforce is comprised of only 3% of those of Hispanic heritage, while the civilian labor

force has 11%. Considering the impending retirements of many of the Department’s workers and striving to

become an “Employer of First Choice”, we need to develop a steady supply of high quality, diverse candidates

to ensure appropriate recruitment pools. Currently, we have entered into formal Memoranda of Understanding

(MOU) with nine colleges and universities—Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs)—calling for informationsharing about education, training, employment, and research opportunities at the Department of Commerce and

university endeavors which meet the requirements of DOC-mission-related careers. In FY 2002, we will develop

a resume tracking system and expand our recruitment efforts.

330 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Department Management

Determine greatest

diversity voids

Finalize MOUs with

5 HSIs, market

student resumes

Develop/implement

resume tracking

system; sponsor 9

recruitment

activities; market 140

resumes

Refine tracking

system, sponsor 15

recruitment

activities, market 200

resumes

Target

Greatest diversity

voids determined;

workforce has 3%

staff of Hispanic

origin

Finalized MOUs with

9 HSIs, marketed 121

resumes with DOC

managers

Actual

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Met/Not Met Met Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Inventory transmittal letters

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: Office chronology files

Verification: Executive Secretariat

Data Limitations: None

Actions to be taken: Measure trends over time
Measure 2e - Increase the alignment of performance management with mission

accomplishment/overall recognition

Explanation of Measure

Target met. GAO’s High-Risk Series, An Update, January 2001, report stated that agencies should instill an

organizational climate that promotes high performance and accountability, and that the alignment of individual

performance standards with organizational performance measures is a critical aspect of sound human capital

management. President Bush reaffirmed this concept in a speech in which he stated his commitment to

improving the linkages between individual performance and organizational mission accomplishment. The

Department’s Office of Human Resource Management (OHRM) will serve as a pilot program in FY 2002 to

monitor the linkage between individual performance ratings and organizational accomplishments. To provide

guidance to the Department regarding these linkages, OHRM recently combined two related systems

(performance management and incentive awards) into one web-based document. With the receipt of the U.S.

Office of Personnel Management’s new SES performance rating regulations, we are designing a new SES

Performance Management System that will include mandatory tracking of SES performance ratings and

implementation of the SES balanced scorecard system. Together, these two performance management-related

documents will achieve what President Bush has espoused.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 331

Department Management

Enter performance

ratings/awards 

into NFC database

with 95% accuracy

Develop web-based

combined

performance

management and

awards handbook

Design tracking

system for aligning

ratings with mission

accomplishment/

overall recognition 

Achieve 75% linkage

in pilot test between

individual ratings

and high-performing

organizations

Target

Information 

entered with 95%

accuracy

Combined

performance

management and

awards handbook

completed

Actual

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Met/Not Met Met Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Human Resource Data System (HRDS)

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: HRDS database

Verification: Performance management completion rate

Data Limitations: Some manual record keeping

Actions to be taken: Implement new performance management policy, complete analyses
Measure 2f—Implement a telecommuting program 

Explanation of Measure

Target met. Implementation of telecommuting programs across the Federal Government is supported by Public

Law 106-346, requiring agencies to establish telecommuting policies, and requiring OPM to provide for the

application of the law to 25% of the eligible Federal workforce within six months (by April 23, 2001), and to an

additional 25% each year thereafter. Currently within DOC, three organizations — the Office of the Chief

Information Officer, the USPTO, and part of NOAA — have established pilot telecommuting programs. The

Department acknowledges that the telecommuting program has some practical benefits in addition to

complying with the law, and in FY 2002, we will support its expansion to 50% of the workforce.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for DM Performance Goal 2: Acquire, Manage, and Develop

a Diverse, Skilled, and Flexible Staff, Using Information Technology as an Essential tool 

The Department of Commerce uses reviews and reports of the Office of Inspector General, the Office of

Management and Budget, the Office of Personnel Management, the General Accounting Office and other

Congressional organizations, government-wide task force studies which produce (or rely on) objective review

criteria, and other sources in conducting evaluations of its Goal 2 activities. In addition, many of the laws cited

in this section have specific requirements which are used for comparison and corrective-action planning

purposes.

332 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Department Management

Make managers

aware of

telecommuting

flexibilities

Provide advice to

managers in

establishing pilot

programs

25% of eligible

workforce is

involved in program 

50% of eligible

workforce is

involved in program

Target

Managers made

aware 

3 pilot programs

established Actual

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Met/Not Met Met Met

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Management data on number of employees participating

Frequency: Quarterly

Data storage: OHRM database

Verification: Number of employees participating

Data Limitations: Manual information gathering

Actions to be taken: Develop Department-wide telecommuting plan, track number of participants, determine if it is supporting mission

accomplishment 
Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 2

Action Plan 

Cross-Cutting Issues 

Intra-DOC

Under the Departmental Management function, the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM)

provides the full range of human resource policy and program development leadership to all Commerce

bureaus.

Other Government Agencies

The Office of Human Resource Management represents the Department of Commerce on the full range of

human resource issues to other agencies.

Government / Private Sector

The Office of Human Resource Management represents the Department of Commerce on the full range of

human resource issues to the private sector, and State and local governmental entities, covering human

resource policy and program development oversight.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

• A large portion of the workforce is approaching retirement age, and will have to be replaced. 

• The growing technological orientation of our work means we are increasing our engagement in a highly

competitive marketplace for individuals with skills in science, technology, and related fields. 

• The increasing diversity in the American workforce requires us to recruit, train, and retain workers in new

ways. 

• We have a need to attract new workers to the public sector, which has been portrayed as unattractive and

lacking the flexibility sought by new professionals. 

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 333

Department Management

• Develop automated systems to gather/manage/utilize

information

• Develop forward-thinking HR policies based on contemporary

management approaches

• Conduct active outreach programs to seek new workers

• Adopt workforce management practices which will attract and

retain skilled workers

Focus priority attention on issues

concerning the aging of the

workforce and on ways of attracting

more and better job candidates to fill

Commerce jobs

Strategies Activities
FY 2002 Performance Goals

Performance Goal 3: 

Acquire and Manage the Technology Resources to Support Program Goals

Corresponding DOC Strategic Goal and Objective 

Management Integration Goal 1: Strengthen Management at All Levels

Objective: Promote Efficient and Effective Resources Management

Rationale for Performance Goal 

As the American society becomes increasingly oriented toward electronic means of communication and

information dissemination, Federal agencies must ensure that they continue to be as responsive as possible to

the needs of the private sector, to other levels of government, and other Federal agencies. This requires that we

develop and implement new approaches to electronic communication, and that our existing systems are able to

perform at the highest levels.

Measure 3a: Increase the goods and services provided via electronic means

334 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Department Management

Data Validation and Verification:

Data source: Bureau IT offices

Frequency: Annual

Data storage: Bureau files and DM CIO files

Verification: Departmental and outside reviews

Actions to be Taken: Review transactions to assess need for transition to electronic process and provide for electronic signature

Target New 15 25 43

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual New 15

Met/Not Met Met
Explanation of Measure

Through the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), Congress has set a goal that the Federal

Government will offer its services and transactions on line by October 2003, to the extent practicable. In its

October 2000 GPEA Plan, the Department identified 235 transaction types being carried out between DOC

offices, bureaus, and the public, including selected Census surveys. This performance measure provides a

cumulative count of paper-based transactions that we are targeting for conversion to electronic means.

Measure 3b - Increase the IT Planning and Investment Review program maturity 

(on a score of 0-5)

Explanation of Measure

NOTE: (This explanation also applies to the following two Performance Measures.) To assist the bureau CIOs

and to achieve a level of comparability across bureaus, the Office of the CIO is providing them with maturity

scales, which are coming into use across the Federal Government as objective ways to assess the progress of IT

and related initiatives in achieving program goals. The scoring for these scales is made on a basis of 0-5 (5 is the

highest), according to standard criteria developed by IT experts. The maturity scale for the IT Architecture

Program has been approved by Commerce’s CIO Council; Commerce will use the Federal CIO Council’s IT

Security Assessment Framework to measure the IT Security Program; the maturity scale for the IT Planning and

Investment Review Program is under development based on the General Accounting Office’s guidance for IT

investment management.

The Commerce IT planning process requires that each operating unit develop strategic and operational IT plans.

The purpose of the strategic IT plan is to focus attention on the high-level, strategic application of IT to

Departmental missions. Operational IT plans are then developed to show the detailed actions and resources

necessary to achieve strategic plan goals.

Measure 3c - Increase the IT architecture program maturity (on a score of 0-5)

Explanation of Measure

An IT Architecture Affinity Group, composed of members from across the Department, has established IT

architecture guidelines, evaluation criteria, and a maturity scale. A high-level Enterprise Architecture Plan

serves as the overarching driver for Commerce’s architecture efforts. Each Commerce operating unit is

developing its own IT Architecture, in line with the Departmental plan and following the guidelines and criteria

prepared by the IT Architecture Affinity Group.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 335

Department Management

Target New New 2 50% at 3 or above

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual New 1

Met/Not Met

Target New New 2 50% at 3 or above

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual New 1

Met/Not Met
Measure 3d - Increase the IT security program maturity (on a score of 0-5)

Explanation of Measure

The IT Security Program implements policies, standards, and procedures to ensure an adequate level of

protection for IT systems, whether maintained in-house or commercially. Commerce’s IT Security Program

includes the preparation of risk assessments, security plans, contingency plans, and certification and

accreditation of unclassified and classified IT system to ensure the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of

the Department’s IT resources.

FY 2000 Program Evaluation for DM Performance Goal 3: Acquire and Manage the 

Technology Resources to Support Program Goals

The Department of Commerce uses reviews and reports of the Office of Inspector General, the Office of

Management and Budget, the General Accounting Office and other Congressional organizations, governmentwide task force studies which produce (or rely on) objective review criteria, and other sources in conducting

evaluations of its Goal 3 activities. In addition, many of the laws cited in this section have specific requirements

which are used for comparison and corrective-action planning purposes.

Summary Actions Related to Performance Goal 3

Action Plan

Cross-Cutting Activities

Intra-DOC

Under the Departmental Management function, the Office of the Secretary works with all bureaus on a

regular basis, across the full range of IT policy development and program and management topics.

336 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Department Management

Target New New 50% at 1 or above 75% at 2 or above

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 

Actual New <1

Met/Not Met

• Use electronic means of providing Commerce goods and

services to the public

• Assess the maturity of Commerce IT systems and develop ways

to ensure their continued improvement

Bring IT and program activities into

closer alignment, and ensure that IT

systems support program activities 

Strategies Activities
Other Government Agencies

Under the Departmental Management function, the Office of the Secretary works with virtually all interagency organizations and numerous Federal agencies on a regular basis, across the full range of IT policy

development and program and management topics.

Government / Private Sector

Under the Departmental Management function, the Office of the Secretary works with all segments of the

private sector bureaus on a regular basis, across the full range of IT policy development and program and

management topics.

External Factors and Mitigation Strategies

The rapidly changing information technology environment, including changes in hardware, software,

applications, Internet use, and the user community all impact our IT functions.

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 337

Department Management
338 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Appendix A

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the Information and the Framework to Enable the Economy to Operate

New 5,651 by

FY 2003 12,056 - (1) Number of permanent jobs created orretained in distressed communities

FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target FY 2000

Performance Goal 1: Create jobs and

private enterprise in distressed

Economic Development Administration

New

$200M by 

FY 2003

$1.0B by 

FY 2006

$2.0B by 

FY 2009

$199M - (2) Private sector dollars invested in

distressed communities 

State and local dollars committed $383M $197M $347M -

36% 30% 45% -

Percent of grants to areas of highest

distress

Baseline

established Reduce application processing time 74.7 days 72.5 days - (3)

New 75% 95% -

Percent of sub-state jurisdiction members

actively participating in the Economic

Development District Program

Performance Goal 2: Build local capacity

to achieve and sustain economic growth

New 75% 46% -

Percent of Economic Development District

and Indian tribe planning grantees whose

Comprehensive Economic Development

Strategy (CEDS) is on time and acceptable

New 75% 84% -

Percent of University Center clients rating

technical assistance received as a 7 on a 1

to 10 scale. (10 is best)

New 75% 95% -

Percent of Trade Adjustment Assistance

Center clients rating assistance received as

a 7 on a 1 to 10 scale. (10 is best)

6 5 7 -

Number of research and national technical

assistance results published or presented

nationally each year

Appendix A: Comparison of FY 2000 Targets and Actual

1 Number of jobs created or retained represents a long-term measure. The FY 2000 actual is based on targets set in FY 1997. The FY 1997

target was 5,040 by FY 2000

2 The amount of private sector dollars invested represents a long-term measure. The FY 2000 actual is based on targets set in FY 1997.

The FY 1997 target was $166 million by FY 2000

3 A baseline was established for FY 1999 using an average of FY 1999 and FY 2000
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 339

Appendix A

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the Information and the Framework to Enable the Economy to Operate

FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target FY 2000

Performance Goal 1: Develop relevant,

accurate, and timely national and

community economic and household

statistics for decision-making 

Economics and Statistics Administration/Bureau of Economic Analysis

100% 100% 100% -

Reliability of delivery (% of scheduled

releases issued on time)

N/A >4.0 4.3 -

Customer satisfaction (mean rating on 5-

point scale)

Performance Goal 1: Develop relevant,

accurate, and timely national and

community economic and household

statistics for decision-making

Economics and Statistics Administration/Census

100% 100% 100% -

Percentage of household surveys attaining

specified reliability measurements

100% 100% 100% -

Percentage of household surveys with

initial response rates >90%

9% time

decrease

Maintain

FY 1999 actual

time achieved

Maintain 

FY 1999 actual

time achieved

-

Percentage reduction from time of data

collection to data release for selected

household surveys

Performance Goal 2: Conduct the

Decennial Census (FY 2000, FY 2001 and

Disseminate Census 2000 Products N/A N/A N/A (5)

Performance Goal 1: Improve American

Competitiveness and Access to Foreign

Markets by Enforcing Compliance with

U. S. Trade Laws and Agreements 

International Trade Administration

Dollar value of market openings $2.4B $2.0B $4.0B -

Number of AD/CVD Cases Processed 134 103 185 -

31% 25% 35% -

Percent of local technical assistance and

economic adjustment strategy grants

awarded in areas of highest distress

Baseline

established 49.4 days 48 days - (4) Reduce certification processing time fortrade impacted firms 

4 A baseline was established for FY 1999 using an average of FY 1998 and FY 1999

5 Dissemination dates for this measure are in FY 2001. Results for this measure will be reported in the FY 2001 Annual Program

Performance Report
340 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Appendix A

Performance Goal 3: Increase U.S. Exports

by Implementing the National Export

Strategy Through Government-Wide

Coordination of Trade Promotion and

New-to-Market Firms 67,835 47,437 54,307 -

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the Information and the Framework to Enable the Economy to Operate

FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target FY 2000

Performance Goal 1: By use of a dual-use

export control system that continuously is

refined to respond to changing

requirements, transactions that are

contrary to U.S. security interests are

deterred and transactions without

Bureau of Export Administration

Performance Goal 3: The U.S. defense

industrial base is healthy and competitive

352 295 397 -

Number of strategic industry analyses

completed

Number of high risk transactions deterred 1,160 508 398 -

Performance Goal 2: Promote Exports by

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

New-to-Export Firms 42,351 26,089 33,514 -

Number of licensing decisions 12,598 12,500 11,039 -

40 33 38.8 -

Average processing time for license

applications (days)

136 115 86 -

Number of export assistance

seminars/conferences

Performance Goal 4: Violations of dualuse export control laws are identified and

violators are sanctioned.

68 80 93 -

Number of investigations accepted for

criminal or administrative remedies

Number of enforcement outreach visits 1,199 900 1,025 -

Number of investigations completed 1,042 1,300 1,260 -

Number of end-use visits conducted 869 680 965 -

Performance Goal 4: Improve U.S.

competitive advantage through global

E-commerce

Dollar value of gross exports supported $9.8B $10.5B $8.9B -

Counseling sessions 296,769 292,822 277,080 -
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 341

Appendix A

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the Information and the Framework to Enable the Economy to Operate

FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target FY 2000

Performance Goal 3: Ensure allocation of

radio spectrum—a scarce resource

essential to all communications—

provides the greatest benefit to all people

80,181 80,000 90,615 -

Number of new agency requested

spectrum assignments actions

Performance Goal 1: Improve

opportunities for minority-owned

businesses to have access to the

marketplace

Minority Business Development Agency

Performance Goal 2: Improve the

opportunities for minority-owned

755 858 556 -

Number of financial packages received by

assisted minority-owned businesses

$616M $620M $1.152B -

Dollar value of contracts awarded to

assisted minority-owned businesses

$709M $900M $215M -

Dollar value of financial packages to

assisted minority-owned business 

Performance Goal 1: Promote competition

within the telecommunications sector and

promote universal access to

telecommunications services for all

Americans

National Telecommunication and Information Administration

New 30 32 -

Number of reports, filings, testimony and

speeches

Performance Goal 5: Export controls of

key nations are strong and effective

45 30 39 -

Number of nonproliferation and export

control international cooperative

exchanges 
342 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Appendix A

Strategic Goal 2: Provide Infrastructure for Innovation to Enhance American Competitiveness

99 102 106 -

Increase in technical assistance to

developing countries and countries

moving to market economy: Number of

technical assistance activities completed

FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target FY 2000

Performance Goal 1: Strengthen

intellectual property protection in the

United States and abroad, making it more

accessible, affordable and enforceable 

The United States Patent and Trademark Office

Percent of customers satisfied overall 57% 60% 64% -

Performance Goal 2: Enhance the quality

of patent products and services, transition

to E-Government and optimize patent

processing time

25.0 26.2 25.0 -

Average pendency to issue/abandonment

(months)

Percent of customers satisfied overall 69% 72% 65% -

Performance Goal 3: Enhance the quality

of trademark products and services,

transition to E-Government and minimize

trademark processing time 

4.6 4.5 5.7 -

Average time to examiner’s first action

(months)

18.9 18.0 17.3 -

Average time to disposal or registration

(months)

25 25 30 -

Number of roundtables, seminars, and

negotiations

Performance Goal 1: Promote technologybased growth through partnerships with

industry

Technology Administration (NIST-NTIS-OTP)

N/A N/A N/A (6) Quality assessment and performance

evaluation using peer review

Performance Goal 2: Provide technical

leadership for the nation’s measurement

and standards infrastructure and ensure

the availability of essential reference data

and measurement capabilities 

Economic impact studies N/A N/A N/A (6)

Standard reference materials available 1,288 1,300 1,292 -

Standard Reference Data titles available 60 63 63 -

Number of items calibrated 3,118 3,200 2,969 -

Technical publications produced 2,030 2,450 2,115 -

6 This measure is inherently qualitative and non-cumulative and therefore numerical targets and performance data are not applicable. See

TA section of this report for full explanation.
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 343

Appendix A

Strategic Goal 2: Provide Infrastructure for Innovation to Enhance American Competitiveness

FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target FY 2000

Economic impact studies N/A N/A N/A (6)

Performance Goal 3: Accelerate

technological innovation and

development of the new technologies that

will underpin future economic growth

120 170 N/A (7) Cumulative number of technologies under

commercialization

Cumulative number of publications 468 680 N/A (8)

Cumulative number of patents filed 616 770 N/A (8)

$447M $670M N/A (7) Increased sales attributed to MEP

assistance

Performance Goal 4: Improve the

technological capability, productivity and

competitiveness of small manufacturers 

$576M $864M N/A (7) Capital investment attributed to MEP

assistance

Cost savings attributed to MEP assistance $364M $545M N/A (9)

1,067 916 Partial data—

789 (10)

Number of applications per year to

MBNQA and Baldrige-based state and

local quality awards

Performance Goal 5: Assist U.S.

businesses and other organizations in

continuously improving their

productivity, efficiency, and customer

satisfaction by adopting quality and

211,028 197,600 Partial data—

169,783 (10)

Number of Baldrige Criteria mailed by the

BNQP and by Baldrige-based state and

local quality programs

Number of items in archive 2,874,416 2,924,416 2,916,204 -

Performance Goal 7: Collect, organize,

preserve, and disseminate government

scientific, technical, and business-related

721,295 750,000 805,332 -

Number of documents reproduced from

electronic media

6 This measure is inherently qualitative and non-cumulative and therefore numerical targets and performance data are not applicable. See

TA section of this report for full explanation.

7 Data for FY 2000 actual data will be available in mid-late 2001 due to data collection lag. FY 1999 target was met

8 Data for FY 2000 actual data will be available in mid-late 2001 due to data collection lag. FY 1999 target was not met

9 Data for FY 2000 actual data will be available in mid-late 2001 due to data collection lag. No target existed in FY 1999 since there was a

new measure

10 Partial data was collected in FY 2000 so an assessment as to whether target was met cannot be made at this time. Full data will be

available by June, 2001
344 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Appendix A

Strategic Goal 2: Provide Infrastructure for Innovation to Enhance American Competitiveness

FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target FY 2000

43 50 35 -

Number of models/grants available for

non-profit or public sector organizations

Performance Goal 4: Promote the

availability and support new sources of

advanced telecommunications and

National Telecommunication and Information Administration
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 345

Appendix A

Strategic Goal 3: Observe and Manage the Earth’s Environment to Promote Sustainable Growth

FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target FY 2000

Performance Goal 1: Build Sustainable

Fisheries

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Fewer overfished fisheries (25% by 2005) -4% -8% -7% -

N/A 10% 10% -

Stocks having sufficient essential fish

habitat (60% by 2005)

0 1% N/A (11)

Increase in employment in non-capture

fishing and other sectors in fishing

communities (9% by 2005)

0 2% N/A (11)

Increase in economic contribution of

aquaculture to Gross Domestic Product

(17% by 2005)

Performance Goal 2: Sustain Healthy

Coasts

43,000 55,000 45,000 -

Number of acres of coastal habitat restored

(cumulative)

0 1 1 -

Number of U.S. coastal regions with

reduced introductions and impacts on

non-indigenous species (total of 6 regions)

5% 14% 6% -

Percent of U.S. shoreline and inland areas

with improved ability to identify extent

and severity of coastal hazards

Performance Goal 3: Recover Protected

Species

N/A N/A N/A (12) Reduce the probability of extinction of 5

out of 23 threatened species

N/A N/A N/A (12)

Mortality of strategic marine mammal

stocks incidental to commercial fishing

operations in 6 fisheries will be at

insignificant levels

N/A N/A N/A (12) Reduce the probability of extinction of 8

endangered species (cumulative)

11 For FY 2000, the results will not be available until relevant data are released later in FY 2001

12 Baseline data are now being collected to be reported on in FY 2001

4% 5% 8% -

Percentage of U.S. coastline with threats to

habitat assessed and ranked

83% 86% 83% -

Percentage of state coastal nonpoint

pollution control programs approved

(percentage of 35 coastal states)

Number of recovery plans developed 24 27 27 -

15 20 20 -

Number of recovery plans’ priority

activities implemented (annual)

15 16 16 -

Number of species with status improved

(annual)
346 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Appendix A

Strategic Goal 3: Observe and Manage the Earth’s Environment to Promote Sustainable Growth

FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target FY 2000

Performance Goal 4: Advance Short-term

Warnings and Forecasts

Lead time—

12 min

Accuracy

70%

FAR—72%

Lead time—

12 min

Accuracy—

70%

FAR—65%

Lead time—

10 min

Accuracy—

63%

FAR—77%

-

Increase lead time (minutes), accuracy (%),

and decrease false alarm rate (FAR) (%) for

severe weather warnings for Tornadoes

41 min

83%

55 min

86%

43 min

86% - (13)

- (13)

Increase lead time (minutes) for severe

weather warnings for Flash Floods

Increase accuracy (%), for severe weather

warnings for Flash Floods

Lead time—

19 hours

Lead time—

20 hours N/A (14) Increase lead time (hours) of warnings forHurricanes

N/A* 20% 16% -

Increase accuracy (%) of 3-day forecast of

precipitation

11 hours

85%

12 hours

85%

9 hours

85% - (13)

- (13)

Increase lead time (hours) for warnings for

Winter Storms

Increase accuracy (%), for warnings for

Winter Storms

Accuracy—

19%

FAR—52%

Accuracy—

20%

FAR—53%

Accuracy—

15%

FAR—54%

-

Increase accuracy and decrease false alarm

rate (FAR) (%) of forecasts of ceiling and

visibility (Aviation Forecasts)

Accuracy—

50%

Accuracy—

51%

Accuracy—

50% -

Increase accuracy (%) of forecast for winds

and waves (Marine Forecasts)

Performance Goal 5: Implement Seasonal

to Interannual Climate Forecasts

.85 .85 .84 -

ENSO (El Niño/Southern Oscillation)

Forecasts—Accuracy (correlation)

U.S. temperature—skill score 23.3 20 25 -

13 This is one measure with two parts 

14 No hurricanes made landfall in FY 2000. Therefore there was no actual data 

10 10 10 -

Cooperative conservation programs

implemented (cumulative)

10 15 15 -

Number of investigations of humaninduced and other sources of mortality

(annual)

19 25 25 -

New and improved data sets developed

and produced (cumulative per year)

20 25 25 -

Global Ocean-Atmosphere-Land System

experiments implemented (percentage)
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 347

Appendix A

Strategic Goal 3: Observe and Manage the Earth’s Environment to Promote Sustainable Growth

FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target FY 2000

Performance Goal 7: Promote Safe

Navigation

20.7 24.3 24.3 -

Percent reduction in the backlog (square

nautical miles) of hydrographic surveys for

critical areas (cumulative)

59 64 71 -

Cumulative Percent of National Spatial

Reference System (NSRS) complete to

provide a common geographic framework

tied to the Global Position System

Performance Goal 6: Predict and Assess

Decadal to Centennial Change

1 N/A N/A (15)

Document the “turnover” of CFC source

gases in order to verify the effectiveness of

global policy actions

1 N/A N/A (16) Publish updated trend results of air quality

measurements

1 N/A N/A (17)

Lead development of a peer-reviewed

initial assessment of regional ozone in

North America, including summarizing

results for customers

N/A N/A N/A (17)

Results of 90% of the research activities

cited in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment of

Climate Change

7 7 9 -

Number of PORTS in place to provide

quality-assured data in real-time for safe

navigation

15 These publications are produced every 3-5 years

16 These measurements are produced every other year

17 It takes 5 years to collect and analyze sufficient data to create a report on these data
348 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Appendix A

Management Integration Goal: Strengthen Management at All Levels

FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target FY 2000

Performance Goal 1: Acquire and Manage

the Fiscal and Related Resources

Necessary to Support Program Goals

Departmental Management

Maintain 100 percent funds covered by 100% 100% 100% -

Systems

implemented

in 1 bureau

Implement

systems in 5

bureaus

Systems

implemented

in 5 bureaus 

-

Meet milestones in implementing the

Department-wide financial system

(cumulative)

33% 25% 34% -

Reduce energy consumption per square

foot

12 10 10 -

Protect information and staff at field sites

from risk/ disaster

$13.6M $27.4M $33.2M -

Increase grants and cooperative

agreements to Minority Serving

Institutions

288,268

transactions

75% of actions

below $25K

88% of actions

below $25K -

Increase transactions using credit card

purchasing

SB: 42.0% SB: 40% SB: 34.3% - (18) Increase percent of total obligations

awarded as contracts to small firms

MB: 14.1%

WO: 5.2%

MB: 18%

WO: 5%

MB: 20.4%

WO: 6.1% - (18)

Increase percent of total obligations

awarded as contracts to minority-owned,

and women-owned firms

Inventory

submitted on

7/9/99

Complete

commercial

inventory by

6/30/00

Inventory

submitted on

6/30/00

-

Expand A-76 competitions and more

accurate FAIR Act inventories

18 Small Business (SB), Minority Business (MB), and Women-owned Business (WO)
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 349

Appendix A

Management Integration Goal: Strengthen Management at All Levels

FY 1999 Actual FY 2000 Target FY 2000

Performance Goal 2: Acquire, Manage,

and Develop a Diverse, Skilled, and

Flexible Staff, Using Information

Technology as an Essential Tool

Vacancies

monitored

Develop

Workforce

Analysis Plan,

research

automated

tools

Plan

developed,

tools

identified

-

Develop process to identify current/

projected mission-related workforce needs

Existing

systems

reviewed

Develop

balanced

scorecard

methodology

Methodology

developed,

HR Summit

held

-

Assess human capital/value of HR

services

COOL Phase I

created

Create COOL

Phase II,

identify

average fill

time

COOL Phase

II created, fill

time

identified at

44 days

-

Increase the efficiency and effectiveness of

hiring systems

Greatest

diversity

voids

determined;

workforce has

3% staff of

Hispanic

origin

Finalize

MOUs with 5

HSIs, market

student

resumes

Finalized

MOUs with 9

HSIs,

marketed 121

resumes with

DOC

managers

-

Increase recruitment opportunities/

improve diversity 

Information

entered with

95% accuracy

Develop webbased

combined

performance

management

and awards

handbook

Combined

performance

management

and awards

handbook

completed

-

Increase the alignment of performance

management with mission

accomplishment/ overall recognition

Managers

made aware

Provide

advice to

managers in

establishing

pilot

programs

3 pilot

programs

established

Implement a telecommuting program -

Performance Goal 3: Acquire and Manage

the Technology Resources to Support

Program Goals

New 15 15 -

Increase the goods and services provided

via electronic means
350 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Appendix B

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the Information and the Framework to Enable the Economy to Operate

Efficiently and Equitably

Performance Goal 1: Create jobs and private enterprise in distressed

communities

Economic Development Administration

7,201 by FY 2004

36,003 by FY 2007

72,006 by FY 2010

5,790 by FY 2005

28,948 by FY 2008

57,895 by FY 2011

Number of permanent jobs created or retained in distressed communities

$0.24B by FY 2004

$1.20B by FY 2007

$2.41B by FY 2010

$0.19B by FY 2005

$0.97B by FY 2008

$1.94B by FY 2011

Private sector dollars invested in distressed communities 

State and local dollars committed $344M $277M

Percent of grants to areas of highest distress 40% 40%

68.1 Median Days

(6% decrease)

64.0 Median Days

(6% decrease) Reduce application processing time

Dollars invested in technology-related projects in distressed areas Baseline TBD (1)

Performance Goal 2: Build local capacity to achieve and sustain economic

growth

85% 85% Percent of sub-state jurisdiction members actively participating in the

Economic Development District Program

60% 65%

Percent of Economic Development District and Indian tribe planning

grantees whose Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) is

on time and acceptable

75% 75% Percent of University Center clients rating technical assistance received as a

7 on a 1 to 10 scale. (10 is best)

85% 85% Percent of Trade Adjustment Assistance Center clients rating assistance

received as a 7 on a 1 to 10 scale. (10 is best)

8 8

Number of research and national technical assistance results published or

presented nationally each year

30% 30% Percent of local technical assistance and economic adjustment strategy

grants awarded in areas of highest distress

8% decrease 

(47.4 days)

12% decrease

(45.3 days) Reduce certification processing time for trade impacted firms 

Performance Goal 1: Develop relevant, accurate, and timely national and

community economic and household statistics for decision-making 

Economics and Statistics Administration/Bureau of Economic Analysis

1

st 1st Timeliness of GDP (international ranking)

Reliability of delivery (% of scheduled releases issued on time) 100% 100%

Customer satisfaction (mean rating on 5-point scale) 4.3 4.3

Appendix B: Comparison of FY 2001 and FY 2002 Targets 

1 EDA will establish targets upon completion of the baseline analysis for this new measure in September 2001
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 351

Appendix B

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the Information and the Framework to Enable the Economy to Operate

Efficiently and Equitably

Performance Goal 1: Develop relevant, accurate, and timely, national and

community economic and household statistics for decision-making

100% 100% Percentage of household surveys attaining specified reliability

measurements

Percentage of household surveys with initial response rates >90% 100% 100%

Maintain

FY 1999 actual time

achieved

Maintain

FY 1999 actual time

achieved

Percentage reduction from time of data collection to data release for

selected household surveys

Economics and Statistics Administration/Census

Performance Goal 2: Conduct the Decennial Census (FY 2000, FY 2001

and FY 2002)

100% of scheduled

releases

100% of scheduled

releases Disseminate Census 2000 Products

Performance Goal 3: Define—through consultations, policy assessment,

planning , research, experiments, and evaluations—the plan for the 2010

Census

New

Prepare plan and

systems by end of

FY 2002 to measure

housing unit coverage

of the address list. List

is at least as complete

as it was for Census

2000, as measured by

the Accuracy and

Coverage Evaluation

Percentage completion of housing unit and address list

New

Complete all field

activities supporting

the release of 2001

data from LFTDB in

July 2002

Release 2001 data from Long-form Transitional Database (LFTDB)

Percentage of principal economic indicators released as scheduled New 100% on time

Performance Goal 1: Improve American Competitiveness and Access to

Foreign Markets by Enforcing Compliance with U. S. Trade Laws and

Agreements 

Number of AD/CVD Cases Processed 185 185

International Trade Administration

Performance Goal 2: Promote Exports by Small and Medium-Sized

Enterprises (SMEs)

New-to-Export Firms 30,336 30,005

Performance Goal 3: Increase U.S. Exports by Implementing the National

Export Strategy Through Government-Wide Coordination of Trade

Promotion and Trade Finance Programs

New-to-Market Firms 54,779 53,958
352 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Appendix B

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the Information and the Framework to Enable the Economy to Operate

Efficiently and Equitably

Performance Goal 1: By use of a dual-use export control system that

continuously is refined to respond to changing requirements,

transactions that are contrary to U.S. security interests are deterred and

transactions without proliferation potential are facilitated

Number of high risk transactions deterred 512 512

Bureau of Export Administration

Performance Goal 2: The United States is in full compliance with the

Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and all confidential business

information of U.S. companies subject to inspection under the CWC is

effectively protected

Number of U.S. facilities in compliance with the CWC regulations New 754

Performance Goal 3: The U.S defense industrial base is healthy and

competitive

New $2B The dollar value of contracts won in international competitions by U.S.

defense firms

Performance Goal 4: Violations of dual-use export control laws are

identified and violators are sanctioned

Number of investigations accepted for criminal or administrative remedies 70 75

Performance Goal 5: Export controls of key nations are strong and

effective

New 20 Number of targeted deficiencies remedied in the export control systems of

cooperating transit or exporting nations

Performance Goal 6: The nation’s various independent and

interdependent infrastructure components are secured in accordance

with an integrated plan

New 4

Number of agency plans implemented within the framework of the

National Critical Infrastructure Protection Plan

Performance Goal 1: Improve opportunities for minority-owned

businesses to have access to the marketplace

Dollar value of contracts awarded to assisted minority-owned businesses $.7B $.7B

Minority Business Development Agency

Performance Goal 2: Improve the opportunities for minority-owned

businesses to pursue financing

925 925 Number of financial packages received by assisted minority-owned

businesses

Dollar value of financial packages to assisted minority-owned business $1.0B $1.0B

Performance Goal 1: Promote competition within the

telecommunications sector and promote universal access to

telecommunications services for all Americans

Number of reports, filings, testimony and speeches 30 30

National Telecommunication and Information Administration
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 353

Appendix B

Strategic Goal 1: Provide the Information and the Framework to Enable the Economy to Operate

Efficiently and Equitably

Performance Goal 2: Minimize the effects of crisis by preparing the U.S.

telecommunications and information infrastructure protection programs

New 1

Increase the number of State, city, and county governments actively

engaged in critical infrastructure protection programs

Performance Goal 3: Ensure allocation of radio spectrum—a scarce

resource essential to all communications—provides the greatest benefit

to all people

Number of new agency requested spectrum assignments actions 91,000 91,000
354 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Appendix B

Strategic Goal 2: Provide Infrastructure for Innovation to Enhance American Competitiveness

Performance Goal 4: Improve U.S. Competitive Advantage through

Global E-Commerce

Number of new subscribers using BuyUSA.com e-services 5,000 5,400

International Trade Administration

Performance Goal 1: Strengthen intellectual property protection in the

United States and abroad, making it more accessible, affordable and

enforceable 

105 125

Increase in technical assistance to developing countries and countries

moving to market economy: Number of technical assistance activities

completed

The United States Patent and Trademark Office

Performance Goal 2: Enhance the quality of patent products and services,

transition to E-Government and optimize patent processing time

Percent of customers satisfied overall 67% 64%

86% 78% Percent of patents granted that do not qualify for term extension for

exceeding 36 months

Average pendency to issue/abandonment (months) 26.2 26.7

Performance Goal 3: Enhance the quality of trademark products and

services, transition to E-Government and minimize trademark processing

time

Percent of customers satisfied overall 65% 60%

Average time to examiner’s first action (months) 6.6 8.0

Average time to disposal or registration (months) 19.0 20.0

Performance Goal 1: Promote technology-based growth through

partnerships with industry

Number of roundtables, seminars, and negotiations 25 30

Technology Administration (NIST-NTIS-OTP)

Performance Goal 2: Provide technical leadership for the nation’s

measurement and standards infrastructure and ensure the availability of

essential reference data and measurement capabilities 

Quality assessment and performance evaluation using peer review (2)

Economic impact studies (2)

Standard reference materials available 1,315 1,350

Standard Reference Data titles available 66 68

Number of items calibrated 3,100 2,900

Technical publications produced 2,200 2,050

2 Peer review and economic impact studies are not cumulative; therefore, numerical targets and performance data are not applicable and

are not provided here.
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 355

Appendix B

Strategic Goal 2: Provide Infrastructure for Innovation to Enhance American Competitiveness

Performance Goal 3: Accelerate technological innovation and

development of the new technologies that will underpin future economic

growth

Economic impact studies (2)

Cumulative number of technologies under commercialization 180 210

Cumulative number of publications 720 830

Cumulative number of patents filed 790 940

Performance Goal 4: Improve the technological capability, productivity

and competitiveness of small manufacturers 

Increased sales attributed to MEP assistance $708M $736M

Capital investment attributed to MEP assistance $913M $949M

Cost savings attributed to MEP assistance $576M $599M

Performance Goal 5: Assist U.S. businesses and other organizations in

continuously improving their productivity, efficiency, and customer

satisfaction by adopting quality and performance improvement practices 

935 954 Number of applications per year to MBNQA and Baldrige-based state and

local quality awards

193,600 191,700 Number of Baldrige Criteria mailed by the BNQP and by Baldrige-based

state and local quality programs

Performance Goal 6: Protect the national information infrastructure

Successful

establishment

Measures to be

established (3) Activity milestones related to program establishment

Performance Goal 7: Collect, organize, preserve, and disseminate

government scientific, technical, and business-related information

Number of items in archive 2,966,200 3,016,200

Number of documents reproduced from electronic media 580,000 850,000

Performance Goal 4: Promote the availability and support new sources of

advanced telecommunications and information services

80 30 Number of models/grants available for non-profit or public sector

organizations

National Telecommunication and Information Administration

3 Milestones for program establishment have been established and are explained in the performance measurements section of this

APPR/APP.
356 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Appendix B

Strategic Goal 3: Observe and Manage the Earth’s Environment to Promote Sustainable Growth

Performance Goal 1: Build Sustainable Fisheries

Fewer overfished fisheries (25% by 2005) 1% 6%

Stocks having sufficient essential fish habitat (60% by 2005) 40% 40%

2% TBD (4) Increase in employment in non-capture fishing and other sectors in fishing

communities (9% by 2005)

4% 7% Increase in economic contribution of aquaculture to Gross Domestic

Product (17% by 2005)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Performance Goal 2: Sustain Healthy Coasts

Number of acres of coastal habitat restored (cumulative) 70,000 TBD (5)

2 2

Number of U.S. coastal regions with reduced introductions and impacts on

non-indigenous species (total of 6 regions)

6% TBD (5) Percent of U.S. shoreline and inland areas with improved ability to identify

extent and severity of coastal hazards

Performance Goal 3: Recover Protected Species

Reduce the probability of extinction of 5 out of 23 threatened species (annual) 2 2

2 6

Mortality of strategic marine mammal stocks incidental to commercial

fishing operations in 6 fisheries will be at insignificant levels (cumulative)

Reduce the probability of extinction of 8 endangered species (cumulative) 3 6

Performance Goal 4: Advance Short-term Warnings and Forecasts

Lead time –

13 min

Accuracy—

72% 

FAR—68%

Lead time 

13 min

Accuracy 

74% 

FAR—64%

Increase lead time (minutes), accuracy (%), and decrease false alarm rate

(FAR) (%) for severe weather warnings for Tornadoes

Lead time—

45 min

Accuracy—

86%

Lead time 

48 min

Accuracy 

87%

Increase lead time (minutes) and accuracy (%) for severe weather warnings

for Flash Floods

Increase lead time (hours) of warnings for Hurricanes 21 hours 22 hours 

Increase accuracy (%) of 3-day forecast of precipitation 22% 24%

Lead Time 

13 hours

Accuracy—

86%

Lead Time 

14 hours

Accuracy 

87%

Increase lead time (hours) and accuracy (%) for warnings for Winter Storms

Accuracy—

21%

FAR—51%

Accuracy 

23%

FAR—41%

Increase accuracy and decrease false alarm rate (FAR) (%) of forecasts of

ceiling and visibility (Aviation Forecasts)

Increase accuracy (%) of forecast for winds and waves (Marine Forecasts) 53% 55%

4 For FY 2002, the targets will be determined based on FY 2000 actual available in July 2001.

5 The target for FY 2002 is currently under review pending the recalibration of this performance measure
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 357

Appendix B

Strategic Goal 3: Observe and Manage the Earth’s Environment to Promote Sustainable Growth

Performance Goal 5: Implement Seasonal to Interannual Climate

Forecasts

ENSO (El Niño/Southern Oscillation) Forecasts—Accuracy (correlation) .85 .85

U.S. temperature—skill score 20 26

4 4

Number of new monitoring or forecast products that become

operational/year

New climate observations introduced 120 150

Performance Goal 6: Predict and Assess Decadal to Centennial Change

N/A (6) TBD (7) Document the “turnover” of CFC source gases in order to verify the

effectiveness of global policy actions

Publish updated trend results of air quality measurements 1 N/A (8)

N/A (9) N/A (9) Lead development of a peer-reviewed initial assessment of regional ozone

in North America, including summarizing results for customers

90% cited N/A (9) Results of 90% of the research activities cited in the 2001 IPCC Third

Assessment of Climate Change

Performance Goal 7: Promote Safe Navigation

27.8 31.3 Percent reduction in the backlog (square nautical miles) of hydrographic

surveys for critical areas (cumulative)

74.8 78

Cumulative Percent of National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) complete

to provide a common geographic framework tied to the Global Position

System

6 Data collected and measured only every three years

7 Whether or not a report is issued in 2002 depends on the significance of the detected trends

8 Data collected and measured only every two years

9 Data collected and measured only every five years
358 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Appendix B

Management Integration Goal: Strengthen Management at All Levels

Performance Goal 1: Acquire and Manage the Fiscal and Related

Resources Necessary to Support Program Goals

Maintain 100 percent funds covered by clean audits 100% 100%

Implement systems in

9 bureaus

Implement systems in

11 bureaus

Meet milestones in implementing the Department-wide financial system

(cumulative)

Reduce energy consumption per square foot 26% 27%

Protect information and staff from risk/ disaster 10 10

Departmental Management

$46.0M $46.0M Increase grants and cooperative agreements to Minority Serving

Institutions

75% of actions below

$25K

75% of actions below

$25K Increase transactions using credit card purchasing

Increase percent of total obligations awarded as contracts to small firms SB: 40% SB: 40%

MB: 18%

WO: 5%

MB: 18%

WO: 5%

Increase percent of total obligations awarded as contracts to minorityowned, and women-owned firms

Complete Commercial

Inventory by 6/30/01

Expand inventory to

include all FTEs,

complete conversion

competitions on 5% of

FTEs

Expand A-76 competitions and more accurate FAIR Act inventories

10% 20% Increase portion of contract funds obligated for performance-based

contracting

Expand the application of on-line procurement 50% 100%

Performance Goal 2: Acquire, Manage, and Develop a Diverse, Skilled,

and Flexible Staff, Using Information Technology as an Essential tool.

Automated tools used

by 3 pilot test offices

Automated tools

implemented in 3

bureaus

Develop process to identify current/ projected mission-related workforce

needs

Complete 2 balanced

scorecard systems

Achieve 50% of

balanced scorecard

measures

Assess human capital/value of HR services

Create COOL Phase

III, reduce fill time to

34 days

Create COOL Phase

IV, reduce fill time to

29 days

Increase the efficiency and effectiveness of hiring systems

Develop/implement

resume tracking

system, sponsor 9

recruitment activities,

market 140 resumes

Refine tracking

system, sponsor 15

recruitment activities,

market 200 resumes

Increase recruitment opportunities/ improve diversity 

Design tracking

system for aligning

ratings with mission

accomplishment/over

all recognition

Achieve 75% linkage

in pilot test between

individual ratings and

high-performing

organizations

Increase the alignment of performance management with mission

accomplishment/ overall recognition

25% of eligible

workforce is involved

in program

50% of eligible

workforce is involved

in program

Implement a telecommuting program
FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 359

Appendix B

Management Integration Goal: Strengthen Management at All Levels

Performance Goal 3: Acquire and Manage the Technology Resources to

Support Program Goals

Increase the goods and services provided via electronic means 25 43

2 50% at 3 or above Increase IT Planning and Investment Review program maturity

(on a score of 0-5)

Increase IT architecture program maturity (on a score of 0-5) 2 50% at 3 or above

Increase IT Security program maturity (on a score of 0-5) 50% at 1 or above 75% at 2 or above
Appendix C: Alphabetical List of Acronyms

ACE Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation

ACES Annual Capital Expenditure Survey

ACS American Community Survey

AD Antidumping

AIPA American Inventors Protection Act

ANCS II Automated Nautical Chart System II

APP Annual Performance Plan

APPR Annual Program Performance Report

ARC Appalachian Regional Commission

ASOS Automated Surface Observing System

ATP Advanced Technology Program

AWIPS Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BEMs Big Emerging Markets

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

B2B Business to Business

BIDC Business and Industry Data Center

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

BWC Biological Weapons Convention

BXA Bureau of Export Administration

CAMS Commerce Administrative Management System

CCL Commerce Control List

CFIUS Committee on Foreign Investment in the US

CFO/ASA Chief Financial Officer/Assistant Secretary of Administration

CIAO Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office

CIO Chief Information Officer

CIP Critical Infrastructure Protection program

CMS Client Management System

CQR Court Question Resolution

CVD Countervailing Duties

CWC Chemical Weapons Convention

DM Departmental Management

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DoEd Department of Education

DOL Department of Labor

DOT Department of Transportation

EAA Export Administration Act

EACs Export Assistance Centers

EAR Export Administration Regulations

EAS Electronic Application System

ECASS Export Control Automated Support System

EDA Economic Development Administration

EDD Economic Development District

ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Economics and Statistics Administration

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAIR Federal Activities Inventory Reform

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

360 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Appendix C
FCC Federal Communication Commission

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHA Federal Highways Administration

FMFIA Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act 

FTE Full-time Equivalent

GAO General Accounting Office

GBIS Geographics Business Information System

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GMF Government Master File

GMRA Government Management Reform Act

GOALS Global Ocean Atmosphere Land System

GOES Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

GPS Global Positioning Satellite System

HCHB Herbert C. Hoover Building

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HPC Hydrometeorological Prediction Center

I&C Information and Communications

ICM Integrated Coverage Measurement

ICSP Interagency Council on Statistical Policy

IMF International Monetary Fund

IP Intellectual Property

IPC International Programs Center

IRAC Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee

IT Information Technology

ITA International Trade Administration

ITAA Information Technology Association of America

ITS Institute of Telecommunication Sciences

ITU International Telecommunication Union

JFMIP Joint Financial Management Improvement Project

LFTB Long Form Transitional Data Base

MBDA Minority Business Development Agency

MBEs Minority-Owned Business Enterprises

MBDC Minority Business Development Center

MBIP Minority Business Internet Portal

MBNQP Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program

MEDWeek Minority Enterprise Development Week

MEP Manufacturing Extension Partnership

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NAPA National Academy of Public Administration

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NCISSE National Colloquium for Information Systems Security Education

NESDIS National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service

NEXRAD Next-Generation Weather Radar

NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health

NIPC National Infrastructure Protection Center

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOS National Ocean Service

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 361

Appendix C
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRC National Research Council

NSTC National Science and Technology Council

NTDB National Trade Data Bank

NTEs New-to-Export Firms

NTMs New-to-Market Firms

NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration

NTIS National Technical Information Service

NWS National Weather Service (NOAA)

OAR Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (NOAA)

OEA Office of Economic Adjustment

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OIG Office of Inspector General

OLIA Office of Legislative and International Affairs

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPCW Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons

OPM Office of Personnel Management

ORF Operations, Research, and Facilities (NOAA)

OSM Office of Spectrum Management

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

OTEM Office of Trade Event Management

OTP Office of Technology Policy

PAC Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction

PALM Patent Application Locator and Monitoring 

PBO Performance-based Organization

PCT Patent Cooperation Treaty

PDD Presidential Decision Directive

PECSE President’s Export Council Subcommittee on Encryption

PECSEA President’s Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration

PLCs Pre-License Checks

PNGV Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles

PORTS Physical Oceanographic Real-time Telemetry Systems

PTDL Patent and Trademark Depository Library

PTFP Public Telecommunications Technology Program

QFP Quarterly Financial Report

QPF Quantitative Precipitation Forecast

RLF Revolving Loan Fund

RWA Returned Without Action

SAIPEP Small-Area Income and Poverty Estimates Program

SBA Small Business Administration

SDC State Data Center

SED Shippers Export Declaration

SHC Sustain Healthy Coasts

SMEs Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

SMOBE Survey of Minority-Owned Business Enterprises

SPS Spectrum Planning Subcommittee

SRD Standard Reference Data

SRMs Standard Reference Materials

TA Technology Administration

TAACS Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers

TAC Technical Advisory Committees

TCC Trade Compliance Center

TD Trade Development

362 FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP

Appendix C
TDA Trade and Development Agency

TECS Treasury Enforcement Computer System

TIA Telecommunication Industry Association

TIC Trade Information Center

TIIAP Telecommunications Information Infrastructure Assistance Program

TOP Technology Opportunities Program

TPCC Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee

TRAM Trademark Reporting and Monitoring System 

TRIPs Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Properties

UNEP United Nations Environment Program

URAA Uruguay Round Agreements Act

USFCS U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USAF U.S. Air Force

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USEAC U.S. Export Assistance Centers

USG U.S. Government

USPTO U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

USTA U.S. Telecommunication Industry Association

USTR U.S. Trade Representative

WFO Weather Forecast Office

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization

WTO World Trade Organization

FY 2000 APPR and FY 2002 APP 363

Appendix C