PERFORMANCE

AND

MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENTS

BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Fiscal Year 2004
THE BUDGET DOCUMENTS 

Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2004

contains the Budget Message of the President and information on 

the President’s budget and management priorities, including assessments of agencies’ performance.

Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2004 contains analyses that are designed to highlight specified subject areas or provide other significant presentations 

of budget data that place the budget in perspective.

The Analytical Perspectives volume includes economic and accounting analyses; information on Federal receipts and collections; analyses 

of Federal spending; detailed information on Federal borrowing and 

debt; baseline or current services estimates; and other technical presentations. It also includes information on the budget system and 

concepts and a list of Federal programs by agency and account, as 

well as by budget function.

Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, 

Fiscal Year 2004 provides data on budget receipts, outlays, surpluses or deficits, Federal debt, and Federal employment over an 

extended time period, generally from 1940 or earlier to 2008. To 

the extent feasible, the data have been adjusted to provide consistency with the 2004 Budget and to provide comparability over time.

Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2004—

Appendix contains detailed information on the various appropriations and funds that constitute the budget and is designed primarily 

for the use of the Appropriations Committee. The Appendix contains 

more detailed financial information on individual programs and appropriation accounts than any of the other budget documents. It 

includes for each agency: the proposed text of appropriations language, budget schedules for each account, new legislative proposals, 

explanations of the work to be performed and the funds needed, 

and proposed general provisions applicable to the appropriations of 

entire agencies or group of agencies. Information is also provided 

on certain activities whose outlays are not part of the budget totals.

Performance and Management Assessments, Budget of the 

United States Government, Fiscal Year 2004 contains evaluations 

and analyses of programs and management at federal departments 

and agencies.

AUTOMATED SOURCES OF BUDGET INFORMATION

The information contained in these documents is available in 

electronic format from the following sources:

CD-ROM. The CD-ROM contains all of the budget documents and 

software to support reading, printing, and searching the documents. 

The CD-ROM also has many of the tables in the budget in spreadsheet format.

Internet. All budget documents, including documents that are 

released at a future date, will be available for downloading in several 

formats from the Internet. To access documents through the World 

Wide Web, use the following address:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

For more information on access to electronic versions of the budget 

documents (except CD–ROMs), call (202) 512–1530 in the D.C. area 

or toll-free (888) 293–6498. To purchase a CD–ROM or printed documents call (202) 512-1800.

GENERAL NOTES 

1. All years referred to are fiscal years, unless otherwise noted.

2. Detail in this document may not add to the totals due to rounding.

3. At the time of this writing, 11 of the 13 appropriations bills for 2003 were not enacted, and the programs covered by them were operating under a continuing resolution. For these programs, references to 2003 spending, 

excluding current services or baseline estimates, in the text and tables reflect the Administration’s 2003 policy 

proposals. The baseline estimates for the programs covered by the unenacted bills reflect the levels provided by 

the continuing resolution. 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON 2003

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Progress on the President’s Management Agenda............................... 1 

A Tool to Evaluate Federal Programs ................................................. 9 

Performance and Management Assessments 

Department of Agriculture.................................................................... 17 

Department of Commerce...................................................................... 31 

Department of Defense.......................................................................... 43 

Department of Education ...................................................................... 57 

Department of Energy ........................................................................... 77 

Department of Health and Human Services........................................ 109 

Department of Homeland Security ....................................................... 141 

Department of Housing and Urban Development ............................... 151 

Department of the Interior.................................................................... 159 

Department of Justice ........................................................................... 175 

Department of Labor ............................................................................. 187 

Department of State and International Assistance Programs............ 199 

Department of Transportation.............................................................. 219 

Department of Treasury........................................................................ 225 

Department of Veterans Affairs............................................................ 235 

Army Corps of Engineers ...................................................................... 241 

Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................ 247 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration ................................ 259 

National Science Foundation ................................................................ 263 

Small Business Administration ............................................................ 267 

Social Security Administration ............................................................. 273 

Other Agencies ...................................................................................... 277 

Index....................................................................................................... 293 

1 

Explanation of Status Scores 

Green – Agency meets all the 

Standards for Success 

Yellow – Agency has achieved some, 

but not all, of the criteria 

Red – Agency has any one of the a 

number of serious flaws 

Arrows indicate change in status since 

the baseline evaluation. 

PROGRESS ON THE PRESIDENT’S MANAGEMENT AGENDA 

In August 2001, the President announced an ambitious agenda for reforming the management 

of the government and improving the performance of federal programs. Like several of his 

predecessors, the President found that various aspects of government operations were inefficient 

or just did not work. Unlike his predecessors, he saw establishing a strict system of 

accountability, both to him and to the public, as critical to this effort’s success. 

The President’s Management Agenda focuses on areas where the need and opportunity to 

improve are greatest. The agenda aims not only to correct long-standing problems, but to improve 

the government’s performance. The agenda includes five government-wide initiatives and nine 

program-specific initiatives. 

The five government-wide initiatives represent 

longstanding management challenges for the federal 

government. The Strategic Management of Human 

Capital initiative makes agencies prepare for massive 

impending retirements and remedy deficiencies in the 

skills of their employees. The Competitive Sourcing 

initiative requires agencies to make sure the most 

efficient sources perform their commercial activities. The 

Improved Financial Performance initiative improves the 

quality of financial information so that agencies can 

ensure the integrity and efficiency of their operations. 

The Expanded Electronic Government initiative improves 

the management of information technology. It also 

streamlines and simplifies the delivery of government services through the use of the Internet. 

The Budget and Performance Integration initiative enhances the quality of information on 

program results so that government can make better decisions about its allocation of resources. 

The Administration announced in the 2003 Budget a simple grading system — red, yellow, and 

green -- would report the work of federal agencies in implementing the President’s Management 

Agenda. Each quarter agencies receive assessments of their status in achieving the “standards of 

success,” specific good-government goals articulated for each of the initiatives. Agencies also are 

graded on their progress in achieving the standards, given that many will take sustained work. 

This volume includes updates on each agency’s work to advance the President’s Management 

Agenda, as well as status and progress scores for the quarter ending December 31, 2002. 

The 2003 Budget also included baseline evaluations of agencies’ status against those 

standards. The Standards for Success for each of the five government-wide initiatives follow this 

chapter. 

Through the stoplight system and precise action plans on what agencies must deliver, the 

Administration has made strides in making the government answerable to the public for results. 

However, accountability requires real outcomes. While progress is generally strong, overall 

improvement, as reflected in changes in status, has been uneven. As we continue to implement 
2 

the President’s Management Agenda, the emphasis must continue to be on actions, demonstrating 

real change. 

When we designed the agenda, it was in the shadow of consistent criticism that the Executive 

Branch’s chief management agency, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), did not give 

sufficient attention to its responsibility to oversee the 

management of Executive Branch agencies. To 

address this concern, the job of assessing agency 

status and progress against the Standards for 

Success was given to OMB. 

Each quarter, OMB assesses agencies’ progress, 

as well as their status against the Standards for 

Success. For Human Capital, OPM and OMB jointly 

develop the rating. These quarterly assessments also 

generate a detailed set of comments on the actions 

the agency has recently taken to accomplish the 

agenda’s goals as well as what actions it needs to take to improve. 

The scorecard is a powerful incentive for agencies to improve their internal management. 

Agencies receive regular, timely feedback through the scorecard so that problems are identified 

and remedied promptly. Take, for example, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). On 

September 30, 2002, VA’s score in competitive sourcing was red for status and red for progress. Its 

early poor score was the result of VA’s unwillingness to subject the commercial activities it 

performs to public-private competition. To improve its score, VA not only demonstrated a 

commitment to open up existing positions for competition, but it hired experts to jump start its 

competitive sourcing work. It now has a central office that coordinates and conducts training for 

field staff. In just one example, VA plans to open up competitions for over 3,000 “Canteen” 

employees who operate food services and gift shops. The competition for these positions will result 

in savings to taxpayers and, most likely, improved service to veterans. Although VA has not yet 

subjected a sufficient portion of its activities to competition to warrant an improved status score, 

its recent progress warrants a green. 

Some agencies have demonstrated exceptionally strong commitment to the agenda and are 

using the scorecard internally to make progress, and it shows in their scores. The Department of 

Energy, for instance, has established a management council with the charge to improve the 

agency’s performance through implementation of the President’s Management Agenda. The 

council meets every month and acts as a forum for monitoring progress on PMA initiatives, 

sharing information on best practices, and making critical management decisions. Readers can 

find more about how the Department has improved its status in the Human Capital, Financial 

Performance, and E-Government initiatives in the Department of Energy chapter that follows. 

Other agencies are leaders in particular initiatives. NASA is a government-wide leader in the 

Human Capital and Budget and Performance Integration initiatives. NASA can track any 

deficiencies in its workforce and take quick, corrective action to address them. It also budgets for 

the full cost of its programs, including workforce, facilities, and overhead, and has integrated its 

budget and performance reports. 

Explanation of Progress Scores 

Green – Implementation is proceeding 

according to plans agreed upon with 

agencies. 

Yellow – Slippage in implementation 

schedule, quality of deliverables, or other 

issues requiring adjustment by agency in 

order to achieve initiative on a timely basis. 

Red – Initiative in serious jeopardy. It is 

unlikely to realize objectives absent significant 

management intervention.
3 

NSF is a government-wide leader in Financial Performance and Electronic Government. NSF 

can monitor the status and performance of its grants at any time in their cycle and it receives over 

99 percent of its annual grant proposals electronically through its FASTLANE system. 

These examples open a window to how the scorecard is working. There are others. There are 

laggards, as well. In the past, agencies might have promised – and intended – to make real 

management improvement. But no disciplined method existed with which to monitor progress and 

hold managers accountable for results. The Executive Branch Management Scorecard, with strict 

Standards for Success, provides that discipline. More detail on each agency’s status and progress 

is included in the chapters that follow. The Budget volume includes a chapter titled Governing 

with Accountability, which includes a discussion of government-wide implementation of the 

President’s Management Agenda and the most recent Executive Branch Management Scorecard. 

It also includes brief discussions of each agency’s status and progress scores for the quarter ending 

December 31, 2002. 

The President’s Management Agenda also includes nine program initiatives where 

management improvements are directed to specific program areas with the goals of improving 

service delivery, reducing waste, and improving efficiency. These initiatives require the dedicated 

efforts of a particular agency or group of agencies and, like the five government-wide initiatives 

depend on sustained, concrete actions to realize their intended benefits. An update on the 

program initiatives is included in the lead agency’s chapter: 

• Faith-Based and Community Initiative (Department of Health and Human Services) 

• Privatization of Military Housing (Department of Defense) 

• Better Research and Development Criteria (Department of Energy) 

• Eliminating Fraud and Error in Student Aid Programs and Deficiencies in Financial 

Management (Department of Education) 

• Housing and Urban Development Management and Performance (Department of Housing and 

Urban Development) 

• Broadened Health Insurance Coverage through State Initiatives (Department of Health and 

Human Services) 

• A “Right-Sized” Overseas Presence (Department of State and International Assistance 

Programs) 

• Reform of Food Aid Programs (Department of State and International Assistance Programs) 

• Coordination of Veterans Affairs and Defense Programs and Systems (Department of Veterans 

Affairs) 

Work on the program initiatives has already begun to produce tangible results. Most notably, 

the Administration completed its major food aid reform goal of providing more resources thorough 

predictable discretionary funding rather than relying on unpredictable surplus commodities. In 

addition, this initiative targeted food aid to the genuinely hungry while avoiding the waste and 

adverse impacts from past approaches. For instance, the General Accounting Office found that the 

federal government spent nearly $250 million in 1999 to deliver $64 million in actual aid to 

Russia. This reform has proven to be timely, since the drought in many crop-producing regions of 

the United States in 2002 left major commodities in tight supply. Most commodities would have 

been unavailable for food aid under the previous process. The food aid reforms have strengthened 

the United States' leadership role in international food aid and thus, the Reform of Food Aid 

Programs initiative will be removed from the President's Management Agenda. 
4 

SCORECARD STANDARDS FOR SUCCESS 

Strategic Management of Human Capital 

 

Must Meet All Core Criteria: 

• Agency human capital strategy is aligned 

with mission, goals, and organizational 

objectives and integrated into its 

strategic plans, performance plans, and 

budgets.

• Agency is citizen-centered, delayered 

and mission-focused, and leverages eGovernment and competitive sourcing.

• Agency leaders and managers effectively 

manage people, ensure continuity of 

leadership, and sustain a learning 

environment that drives continuous 

improvement in performance.

• Agency has a diverse, results-oriented, 

high performance workforce, and has a 

performance management system that 

effectively differentiates between high 

and low performance, and links 

individual/team/unit performance to 

organizational goals and desired results.

• Agency has closed most mission-critical 

skills, knowledge, and competency 

gaps/deficiencies, and has made 

meaningful progress toward closing all.

• Agency human capital decisions are 

guided by a data-driven results-oriented 

planning and accountability system.

Achievement of 

Some but not 

All Core 

Criteria; No 

Red Conditions 

Has Any One of the Following 

Conditions: 

• Agency lacks a human capital strategy 

that demonstrates how human capital 

activities and investments support 

accomplishment of mission, goals, and 

organizational objectives.

• Agency has too many management 

layers and does not leverage eGovernment and competitive sourcing as 

key components of its human capital 

planning efforts.

• Agency has not developed succession 

plans in mission-critical areas. 

• Underrepresentation is not being 

addressed and the agency’s 

performance management system does 

not effectively differentiate between high 

and low performance nor link 

individual/team/unit performance to 

organizational goals and desired results. 

• Agency is not addressing gaps / 

deficiencies in mission-critical skills, 

knowledge, and competencies.

• Agency does not have adequate 

performance and workforce data to make 

and evaluate human capital decisions. 

• No commercial reimbursable support 

service arrangements between agencies 

are competed.

G Y R
5 

Competitive Sourcing 

 

Must Meet All Core Criteria: 

• Completed public-private or direct 

conversion competition on not less than 

50 percent of the full-time equivalent 

employees listed on the approved FAIR 

Act inventories.

• Competitions and direct conversions 

conducted pursuant to approved 

competition plan. 

• Commercial reimbursable support 

service arrangements between agencies 

are competed with the private sector on 

a recurring basis.

Achievement of 

Some but not 

All Core 

Criteria; No Red 

Conditions 

Has Any One of the Following 

Conditions: 

• Completed public-private or direct 

conversion competition on less than 15 

percent of the full-time equivalent 

employees listed on the approved FAIR 

Act inventories

• Competitions and direct conversions are 

not conducted in accordance with 

approved competition plan.

• No commercial reimbursable support 

service arrangements between agencies 

are competed.

Improved Financial Performance 

 

Must Meet All Core Criteria: 

• Financial management systems meet 

Federal financial management system 

requirements and applicable Federal 

accounting and transaction standards as 

reported by the agency head. 

• Accurate and timely financial information. 

• Integrated financial and performance 

management systems supporting day-today operations. 

• Unqualified and timely audit opinion on 

the annual financial statements; no 

material internal control weaknesses 

reported by the auditors.

Achievement of 

Some but not 

All Core 

Criteria; No 

Red Conditions 

Has Any One of the Following 

Conditions:

• Financial management systems fail to 

meet Federal financial management 

systems requirements and applicable 

Federal accounting standards as 

reported by the agency head. 

• Chronic or significant Anti-deficiency Act 

violations. 

• Agency head unable to provide 

unqualified assurance statement as to 

systems of management, accounting, 

and administrative controls. 

• Auditors cite material non-compliance 

with laws and regulations, or repeat 

material internal control weaknesses; or 

are unable to express an opinion on the 

annual financial statements.

G Y R

G Y R
6 

Expanded E-Government 

 

Must Meet All Core Criteria: 

• Strategic Value: all major systems 

investments have a business case 

submitted that meets the requirements of 

OMB Circular A-11 (Exhibit 53, Form 

300). 

• IT Program Performance: On average, 

all major IT projects operating within 90% 

of Form 300 cost, schedule, and 

performance targets.

• E-Government and GPEA 

implementation: (must show 

department-wide progress or 

participation in multi-agency initiative in 3 

areas). 

• Citizen one-stop service delivery 

integrated through Firstgov.gov, crossagency call centers, and offices or 

service centers.

• Minimize burden on business by re-using 

data previously collected or using ebXML 

or other open standards to receive 

information.

• Intergovernmental: Deploying e-Grants 

or Geospatial Information one-stop. 

• Obtaining productivity improvements by 

implementing customer relationship 

management, supply chain 

management, enterprise resource 

management, or knowledge 

management best practices.

Achievement of 

Some but not 

All Core 

Criteria; No 

Red Conditions 

Has Any One of the Following 

Conditions:

• Less than 50% of major IT investments 

have a business case per OMB Circular 

A-11 (Exhibit 53, Form 300). 

• On average, all major IT projects 

operating at less than 70% of Form 300 

cost, schedule and performance targets. 

Fulfills not more than one of the following: 

• Citizen one-stop service delivery 

integrated through Firstgov.gov, crossagency call centers, and offices or 

service centers. 

• Minimize burden on business by re-using 

data previously collected or using ebXML 

or other open standards to receive 

information. 

• Intergovernmental: Deploying e-Grants 

or Geospatial Information one-stop.

• Obtaining productivity improvements by 

implementing customer relationship 

management, supply chain 

management, enterprise resource 

management, or knowledge 

management best practices.

G Y R
7 

Budget and Performance Integration 

 

Must Meet All Core Criteria: 

• Integrated planning/evaluation and 

budget staff work with program 

managers to create an integrated 

plan/budget and to monitor and evaluate 

its implementation. 

• Streamlined, clear, integrated agency 

plan/budget sets forth outcome goals, 

output targets, and resources requested 

in context of past results. 

• Budget accounts, staff, and specifically 

program/activities are aligned to support 

achieving program targets. 

• Full budgetary cost is charged to mission 

accounts and activities. Cost of outputs 

and programs is integrated with 

performance in budget requests and 

execution. 

• Agency has documented program 

effectiveness. Analyses show how 

program outputs and policies affect 

desired outcomes. Agency 

systematically applies performance to 

budget and can demonstrate how 

program results inform budget decisions.

Achievement of 

Some but not 

All Core 

Criteria; No 

Red Conditions 

Has Any One of the Following 

Conditions:

• Planning and budgeting separate with 

little collaboration. Levels of organization 

have little and formal communication. 

Focus on getting funds for independent 

use. 

• Traditional budget request with little 

attempt to tie resources to results or 

communicate with other than budget 

technicians. 

• Excessive numbers of accounts, 

historical anomalies, accounts that fund 

illogical parts of programs. Centralized 

accounts that fund program resources; 

accounts that fund multiple programs 

with little in common. 

• No attention to charging cost to the right 

bureau, let alone the activity. Substantial 

costs “mixed up” at the agency or bureau 

level. Program managers lack authority 

over resources. 

• Focus on getting money for a good 

cause. Justification by anecdote. Little 

focus on outcomes, or how program 

influences them. 

G Y R

9 

A TOOL TO EVALUATE FEDERAL PROGRAMS 

The Administration’s efforts to link budget and performance began with last year’s budget. The 

fifth element of the President’s Management Agenda -- budget and performance integration -- 

stresses making budget decisions based on results. This year, that link was formalized. A new 

instrument for assessing government programs in an objective and transparent manner, called the 

Program Assessment Rating Tool, was introduced. The PART evaluates a program’s purpose and 

design, planning, management, and results and accountability to determine its overall 

effectiveness. 

For years, advocates of good government have been trying to find ways to improve 

accountability, focus on results, and integrate the performance of programs with decisions about 

budgets. As the Budget volume details, Presidents throughout the latter half of the 20th Century 

sought by various means to make performance matter. 

Early efforts date to the Truman Administration’s 1951 budget. With the 1993 passage of the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Congress directed the Executive Branch to 

seek improvements in the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of federal programs by 

having agencies focus on program results. Former Congressman and then-Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Director Leon Panetta called it, “a major step toward making the government 

accountable to the American people by making it clear what the taxpayers are getting for their 

money and removing some of the red tape that bedevils all of us. As every other enterprise has 

learned, government officials must manage for results, not just rules and regulations.” While wellintentioned, GPRA did not meet its objectives. Through the President’s Budget and Performance 

Integration initiative, augmented by the PART, the Administration will strive to implement the 

objectives of GPRA. 

 

What Is the PART? 

The PART is an accountability tool that attempts to determine the strengths and weaknesses 

of federal programs with a particular focus on the results individual programs produce. Its overall 

purpose is to lay the groundwork for evidence-based funding decisions aimed at achieving positive 

results. The PART consists of approximately 30 questions, depending on the type of program. The 

PART’s first three sections, focusing on program purpose, strategic planning, and management, 

follow a yes/no format. The fourth hones in on results. It uses a four-point scale to note partial 

achievement of goals. Answers must be substantiated by a brief narrative explanation and 

evidence. Each individual “yes” answer points to a potential high level of performance overall. A 

“no” answer indicates no evidence is available, or the program has failed to perform. 

The accompanying table provides a brief description of the four sections along with examples of 

programs that scored high and low in 2004. For more detailed information regarding PART 

guidance and PART worksheets, visit the OMB website at www.omb.gov. 
10 

THE PART, IN SECTIONS 

Each section includes a series of questions designed to elicit specific information about a 

program’s performance. The questions also are weighted. Their weighting can be altered to 

emphasize key factors that may be more or less relevant for a specific program. A “not applicable” 

response is used for questions not relevant to the program, with an appropriate explanation. While 

these two flexibilities were provided in recognition that one size does not fill all, they were used in 

only limited cases. 

As the nearby table shows, each section is assigned a weight as well, in order to generate an 

overall assessment. This year many agencies furnished incomplete information. A number of 

programs were not able to demonstrate results, but will need to in the future. Examples can be 

found throughout this volume. 

The next table illustrates the key questions from each section of the PART. 

Section Description Low Score Example High Score Example 

Program Purpose and 

Design 

Weight = 20% 

To assess whether the 

program design makes 

sense and the 

purpose is clear 

Dept. of Energy Advanced 

Technology Program – no 

clear need for the program; 

private sector does similar 

research 

Dept. of Health and 

Human Services Health 

Centers – clear program; 

purpose commonly held by 

interested parties 

Strategic Planning 

Weight = 10% 

To assess whether the 

agency sets valid 

annual and long-term 

goals for the program 

Dept. of Justice 

Cybercrime – no long-term, 

outcome-oriented goals or 

annual performance goals 

Dept. of Energy National 

Nuclear Security Adm. 

Facilities and 

Infrastructure – 10-year 

Comprehensive Site Plan 

integrates and prioritizes 

projects 

Program Management 

Weight = 20% 

To rate agency 

management of the 

program, including 

financial oversight and 

program improvement 

efforts 

Dept. of Energy Gas 

Exploration and Production 

– could not document a 

comprehensive system for 

tracking cost, schedule, 

and performance 

Social Security Adm. 

Supplemental Security 

Income for the Aged – 

strong financial 

management and 

accountability practices, 

allowing tracking of full 

actual costs 

Program Results/ 

Accountability 

Weight = 50% 

To rate program 

performance on goals 

reviewed in the 

strategic planning 

section and through 

other evaluations 

Office of National Drug 

Control Policy Youth AntiDrug Media Campaign – 

no evidence that paid 

media messages have a 

direct effect on youth drugrelated behavior 

Dept. of Commerce 

National Weather Service 

– improved accuracy and 

timeliness of forecasts and 

warnings 
11 

THE PART QUESTIONNAIRE 

Key Questions For Every Program Description 

PROGRAM PURPOSE & DESIGN 

• Is the program purpose clear? 

• Does the program address a specific interest, 

problem or need? 

• Is the program designed to have a significant 

impact in addressing the interest, problem or 

need? 

• Is the program designed to make a unique 

contribution in addressing the interest, problem or 

need (i.e., is not needlessly redundant of any 

other Federal, state or, local or private effort)? 

• Is the program optimally designed to address the 

national interest, problem or need? 

This section examines the clarity of program purpose 

and how the program is designed. In answering 

questions, all factors including those the program may 

not control, such as legislative mandates and 

constraints, are considered. Potential source 

documents and evidence for answering questions in 

this section include authorizing legislation, agency 

strategic plans, annual performance plans, and other 

agency reports. Options for answers are Yes, No or 

Not Applicable. 

STRATEGIC PLANNING 

• Does the program have a limited number of 

specific, ambitious long-term performance goals 

that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect 

the purpose of the program? 

• Does the program have a limited number of 

annual performance goals that demonstrate 

progress toward achieving the long-term goals? 

• Do all partners (grantees, sub-grantees, 

contractors, etc.) support program planning efforts 

by committing to the annual and/or long-term 

goals of the program? 

• Does the program collaborate and coordinate 

effectively with related programs that share similar 

goals and objectives? 

• Are independent and quality evaluations of 

sufficient scope conducted on a regular basis or 

as needed to fill gaps in performance information 

to support program improvements and evaluate 

effectiveness?

• Is the program budget aligned with the program 

goals in such a way that the impact of funding, 

policy, and legislative changes on performance is 

readily known? 

• Has the program taken meaningful steps to 

address its strategic planning deficiencies? 

This section focuses on program planning, priority 

setting, and allocation of resources. It assesses 

whether the program has adopted adequate 

performance measures and a limited number of 

ambitious, but achievable, goals. Without adequate 

measures, a program is unlikely to be able to 

demonstrate it is getting results. This section 

assesses whether the program incorporates flexibility 

in the planning process to address problems identified 

through performance data and periodic monitoring. 

Potential source documents and evidence for 

answering questions include strategic planning 

documents, agency performance plans and reports, 

reports and submissions from program partners, 

evaluation plans, budget submissions and other 

documents. Options for answers are Yes, No or Not 

Applicable. 
12 

The PART filters the variety of mandatory and discretionary programs the federal government 

operates through seven categories. In addition to questions which apply to all programs, each 

section includes those that have been tailored for a particular type of program. A complete list of 

these questions can be found at the OMB website. The accompanying table describes the program 

categories: 

THE PART, BY CATEGORY 

Program Type Description Examples 

Competitive Grant 

Programs 

Programs that distribute funds to state, local and tribal 

governments, organizations, individuals and other entities 

through a competitive process. 

• Head Start 

• Weed and Seed 

Block/Formula Grant 

Programs 

Programs that distribute funds to state, local and tribal 

governments and other entities by formula or block grant 

• Vocational Ed State 

Grants 

• Native American 

Housing Block Grants 

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 

• Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible 

performance information, including information from 

key program partners, and use it to manage the 

program and improve performance? 

• Are Federal managers and program partners 

(grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, etc.) held 

accountable for cost, schedule and performance 

results? 

• Are all funds (Federal and partners’) obligated in a 

timely manner and spent for the intended purpose? 

• Does the program have incentives and procedures 

(e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT 

improvements) to measure and achieve efficiencies 

and cost effectiveness in program execution? 

This section tests whether agencies can show that 

the program is effectively managed to meet 

program goals and objectives. Key areas include 

financial oversight, evaluation of program 

improvements, performance data collection, and 

program manager accountability. There are a 

wide range of potential source documents and 

evidence for answering questions in this section 

including financial statements, GAO reports, IG 

reports, performance plans, budget execution 

data, IT plans, and independent program 

evaluations. Options for answers are Yes, No or 

Not Applicable. 

PROGRAM RESULTS 

• Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in 

achieving its long-term outcome goal(s)? 

• Does the program (including program partners) 

achieve its annual performance goals? 

• Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies 

and cost effectiveness in achieving program goals 

each year? 

• Does the performance of this program compare 

favorably to other programs with similar purpose and 

goals? 

• Do independent and quality evaluations of this 

program indicate that the program is effective and 

achieving results? 

This important section considers whether the 

program can show it is meeting its long-term and 

annual goals. In general, a program cannot show 

this if it has not already established adequate 

measures and goals. It also assesses how well 

the program compares to similar programs and its 

effectiveness based on independent evaluations. 

Potential source documents and evidence for 

answers include annual performance reports, 

evaluations, GAO reports, IG reports and other 

agency documents. Assessments of program 

results are based on the most recent reporting 

cycle or other relevant data. Answers in this 

section are rated as Yes, Large Extent, Small 

Extent, and No. 
13 

Regulatory-Based 

Programs 

Programs that employ regulatory action to achieve 

program and agency goals through rulemaking that 

implements, interprets or prescribes law or policy, or 

describes procedure or practice requirements. These 

programs issue significant regulations, which are subject 

to OMB review. 

• Occupational Safety 

and Health Admin. 

• Food and Safety 

Inspection Service 

Capital Assets and 

Service Acquisition 

Programs 

Programs where the primary means to achieve goals is the 

development and acquisition of capital assets (such as 

land, structures, equipment, and intellectual property) or 

the purchase of services (such as maintenance and 

information technology) from a commercial source. 

• Youth Anti-Drug 

Media Campaign 

• DoD - Shipbuilding 

Credit Programs Programs that provide support through loans, loan 

guarantees and direct credit. 

• Rural Electric Utility 

Loans and 

Guarantees 

Direct Federal 

Programs 

Programs in which support and services are provided 

primarily by federal employees. 

• Coin Production 

• National Weather 

Service 

Research and 

Development 

Programs 

Programs that focus on creating knowledge or the applying 

it toward the creation of systems, devices, methods, 

materials, or technologies. 

• Solar Energy 

Program 

• Mars Exploration 

Problems and Revisions

Soon after release of the 2003 Budget, work began on the PART and involved collaboration 

among a number of parties inside the government and out. 

An original, draft version of the PART developed last spring was tested on 67 programs and 

revised based on the results as well as feedback from agencies and other groups. For example, 

those commenting were concerned that the “yes-no” format for responses did not distinguish 

adequately between the performance of various programs, especially in the results section. 

Another issue was that “yes” and “no” were not objective, and would not be applied consistently 

when evaluating outcomes. In response, the PART was revised to include four choices in the 

results section. 

Many believed certain questions in the PART were too subjective. For example, responses to a 

question that asked, “Is the federal role critical?” could vary depending on philosophical or political 

viewpoints. As a result, this question was eliminated. Additional steps, including clarifying 

guidance and providing additional training for evaluators were aimed at increasing the 

consistency of reviews and increasing evaluators’ discipline with respect to the evaluation process. 

Possible Areas of Improvement 

This first-year experience has provided many lessons and extensive feedback, which will be 

considered as the PART is fine-tuned for use in the 2005 Budget. Although not perfect, the PART 

has proved useful to the 2004 Budget process by adding a performance accountability tool to the 

budget policymaker’s toolkit. In addition to economic conditions, national needs, and policy 
14 

interests, the PART analysis provides important information to be considered during the course of 

budget debates. 

Still, the PART has several shortcomings that OMB will be working to remedy in the coming 

months. For instance, because PART answers reflect the judgment of individuals, there was some 

inconsistency in the standards applied by different evaluators. If current performance goals were 

found inadequate, most evaluators gave little credit to the program for achieving results. Other 

evaluators, however, did give some credit when faced with the same situation. Consistency will 

need to be improved through modifications to the PART, clarifying guidance and training of 

evaluators. 

Many programs evaluated are, at present, unable to demonstrate any results because they do 

not have adequate data or measures to gauge their performance. Fifty percent of programs 

evaluated were rated “Results Not Demonstrated,” because they did not have adequate 

performance goals or had not yet collected data to provide evidence of results. With the new 

measures developed during the PART analysis, this situation should be remedied in the years 

ahead. 

The public is encouraged to provide suggestions for improving the PART. Comments can be emailed to performance@omb.eop.gov or mailed to the Office of Management and Budget/PART 

Comments, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Room 350, Washington, D.C. 20503. 

PART Summaries and Management Write-ups 

The PART summaries, by department or agency, for the programs rated this year are 

presented in this volume. The summary sheet displays a description of the program, the findings 

from the PART, and the resulting recommendations. It also displays a graph illustrating the score 

results for each PART section. Key performance measures are 

presented, along with program funding levels. Check boxes for 

results and measures are also included. Programs are rated on a 

four point scale from Effective to Moderately Effective to 

Adequate to Ineffective. A fifth rating possibility comes into play 

with Results Not Demonstrated if adequate measures or data to 

gauge the program’s performance were not available. 

Many summaries highlight the agencies’ inability to explain 

the link between a program’s performance and its level of 

funding. This is referred to as lack of “alignment” or 

“integration” of budget and performance. Additionally, there are 

frequent references to inadequate “performance measures,” 

which are essentially gauges or milestones that indicate how well 

a program is doing. 

An index of PART-assessed programs broken down by department or agency concludes this 

reference. 

Criteria for Check Boxes

Results Achieved – 

Results Section score is 80+ 

Results Not Demonstrated – 

No progress in achieving long-term 

or annual performance goals. 

Measures Adequate – 

Ambitious long-term goals and 

limited number of annual 

performance goals. 

New Measures Needed – 

No ambitious long-term goals or 

too many annual performance 

goals. 
PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT 

ASSESSMENTS 

17 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

While USDA has faced significant management challenges, the Department has improved 

since the third quarter of 2002, when it had three red progress scores. However, USDA still lags 

behind other Cabinet Departments on the management agenda. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

USDA’s status will remain red until significant progress is made in implementing its new 

human capital strategic plan. USDA completed a skills gap analysis for its top 21 missioncritical positions, initiated an executive development program and a mentoring program, and 

established an accountability program to asses human capital progress. 

Competitive Sourcing 

USDA’s status is red because it has not met the 15 percent competitive sourcing goal. USDA 

has converted some positions to the private sector. However, USDA has not subjected a 

significant share of conservation technical assistance to competition. 

Financial Performance 

USDA’s status is red since USDA has persistent material weaknesses, and compliance with 

government-wide spending restrictions remains a challenge. USDA is using a federally 

compliant financial management system, and it received a clean consolidated audit opinion for 

the first time, a significant step forward. USDA is working to reduce erroneous payments, 

especially in Food Stamp and Child Nutrition Programs. 

Expanding E-Government 

USDA’s status is yellow for E-Gov because it lacks an Enterprise Architecture. It is developing 

one and has made sound business cases for IT investments. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

USDA’s status is red as little actual integration has occurred. USDA developed a strategic plan 

reflecting its purposes but needs to expand the number of outcome based performance measures. 

USDA must complete common performance evaluations and implement an expanded budget and 

performance integration plan adequately linking performance with budgetary decisions. 

Program Assessments 

Fourteen USDA programs received uneven PART reviews. Considerable time was devoted to 

developing useful performance measures to improve accountability. USDA must still improve the 

quality of its goals. For instance, the Rural Electric Utility Loans and Guarantees program has no 

suitable measures. 

R G

R R

R G

Y G

R Y
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure: Percentage of facilities that are in compliance with animal welfare regulationsOther measures under development

Program Summary:The animal welfare program, which is operated by Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible and treatment of many warm blooded animals thaexhibition, sold as pets, or transported in commersold by certain types of dealers, as well as circusesfacilities. Facilities are periodicially inspected, ancompliance, are referred for follow-up action. Remfines and the loss of licenses, can also be institutedguidance and regulations on the humane care of aSpecific PART assessment findings include:1. The program has a clearly defined purpose.2. There was a need for more independent evaluat

as needed evaluations of its program components Inspector General has conducted evaluations of ththe PART found no evidence of recent reviews out3. There was no differentiation between measures annual goals - the same performance measure was of compliance among facilities inspected is not an impact of the program on the humane treatment oThe Administration recommends:1. APHIS seek additional input from sources outsipeer evaluations when appropriate.2. APHIS develop additional goals (including long program's impact on the humane treatment of anithe percentage of facilities cited for violations that which compliants are resolved and remedial action number of reports of mistreatment, and the percencompliance faciltiies that are reinspected within a 

Year Target Actual

1998199920002001

58%60%61%

58%59%58%58%

2002 Actual

16

2003 Estimate

14

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Agriculture

Program: Animal Welfare

Program Type: RegulatoryRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

80

50

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

47 Results / Accountability

0 100

18
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measure under developmentAnnual Measure:Percent Participation (percent of planted acres of principal crops as reported by NASS that are insured)Efficiency Measure:Measure under development

Program Summary:This program provides crop insurance for farmers other farm commodities. Farmers can purchase inand be reimbursed for losses due to bad weather adeclines are also covered for some crops. The amopurchased ranges from 50% to 75% of crop value a85%. Farmers pay premiums for loss coverage to and the companies, in turn, pay the claims filed by the farmers’ premiums to USDA, and USDA uses portion of the claims that they are responsible for, insurance companies.The PART found that:1. The program's purpose is clear.2. Additional planning and performance measuremcannot yet demonstrate the extent of its impact on dependence on other government support program3. The management of this program is relatively gpartnership with the crop insurance companies. Pas policies sold, liability, acres, and premiums are producer level by the companies. The data is crucstrategic plan. 4. There are still commodities that do not have polrisk management. The Administration will:1. Establish adequate long-term and short-term m2. Identify improvements in the program that will complete risk management tool for the agriculture successful livestock crop insurance plan.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)[Funding changes from year to year are a result of insurance policies due to crop losses and below maThe Government does not set a limit on this fundi

Year Target Actual

200020012002

71.5%69.9%77.7%

76.5%

77%80%

2002 Actual

3,020

2003 Estimate

3,315

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Agriculture

Program: Crop Insurance

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Risk Management Agency

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

86

67

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

58 Results / Accountability

0 100

19
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Reduce producer dependence on government support payments by reducing assistance provided (in billions of dollars)Annual Measure:Percentage of fraudulent paymentsOther measures under development

Program Summary:This program provides direct payments (cash) to epercent of farms receive direct payments. Of farmaverage farm receives about $17,319 per year. Faregardless of the type of crop or the amount of crop based on historical production. This program does supports which also support farmer income. The following conclusions and suggestions are basreview:1. The purpose of the programs is clear, however tDirect payments are designed as part of a safety-ngoing to about 41 percent of all farmers, 85 percenat least $50,000. 2. The program management has devised performimprove the delivery of the program. 3. The program is generally well managed. 4. Outside sources have reviewed the program and provided support in maintaining farm income but reducing the need for additional Government subsIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Devise better performance measures to address Agricultural income support should be better targmost need assistance. While this assessment was measures, these measures do not adequately demowill be developed as a result.2. Reduce trade barriers through trade negotiationU.S. agricultural exports so that farmers will be leincome support.Note: Funding increases in 2004 due to policy chafarm bill.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

1998199920002001

Target

5.7065.5135.0484.065

Actual

5.6728.487

16.104

9.560

2002 0% 0.3%

2002 Actual

3,962

2003 Estimate

3,820

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Agriculture

Program: Direct Crop Payments

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Commodity Credit Corporation

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

8383

40

PlanningManagementPurpose

53 Results / Accountability

0 100

20
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measure under developmentAnnual Measure:1.2 million acres of conservation easements on agricultural land by 2007Efficiency Measure: Measure under development

Program Summary:The Farmland Protection Program (FPP) protects development by providing matching funds to stategovernmental organizations to purchase conservatbe used to purchase easements to protect historicaThe 2002 farm bill provided FPP annual mandatomillion in 2002 to $112 million in 2004.Overall, the program is administered in an effectivprioritizes applications at the state level and selecprotecting important agricultural lands from devehowever, have outcome-based annual or long-term the program cannot demonstrate it is delivering reand quality reviews of FPP had not yet been conduThe review supports a number of recommendationConservation Service (NRCS) promulgated revised summer and, based upon the findings of the PARTlanguage to the rule to strengthen the program's d

will now require an analysis of a particular projectowards conservation of agricultural land and infla geographic area. In the past, USDA did not specproject worked with other land protection efforts owithin a conservation strategic plan. Other recommendations based on the assessment 1. The Department has contracted with outside reAmerican Farmland Trust and several universitieperformance measures that are outcome based. Thdue in early 2003. 2. The Administration recommends increasing NRappropriation in 2004 to design and implement an provide outcome performance indicators for farm c

FPP.

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

34,000

100,503201,005251,256

34,900

2002 Actual

50

2003 Estimate

85

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Agriculture

Program: Farmland Protection Program

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Natural Resources Conservation Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

86

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

42 Results / Accountability

0 100

21
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The United States continues to be the largest donoorganizations worldwide. USDA food assistance pmillion people in 50-80 countries each year in an efood deficiencies. These programs include: P.L. 48Progress (FFP), and the Bill Emerson HumanitarEducation was not covered in this PART.The assessment found that USDA needs to develolink to the long-term outcome goals of food securitbased largely on existing measures, these measuredemonstrate results. New measures will be develo1. USDA is unique in administering food aid on crgovernment to government donations. 2. USDA has made investments and implemented practices and food aid delivery systems. USDA hamanagement process improvements that will imprtraining, monitoring and prescreening processes.3. Performance measures need to be developed thalinked to the budget. Current performance measuaid agreements signed annually, and the level of fmeasure progress towards achieving strategic goa4. Coordination is lacking with the U.S. Agency fo(USAID) for common performance measures since goals. To address these findings, USDA will administer tmanner that will: 1. Limit duplication and inconsistent program impand USAID and make more efficient use of US fooimplementation of the President's Management Aneed for USDA and USAID to coordinate on progrprogram evaluation and monitoring, and eligibility 2. Fund the programs at a level that is consistent the Administration’s management reform goals. Tneed to develop a strategy to replenish the Bill Emensure the long-term availability of commodities f

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

124

2003 Estimate

160

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Agriculture

Program: Food Aid Programs

Program Type: MixedRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Foreign Agricultural Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

79

57

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

42 Results / Accountability

0 100

22
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Reduction in the prevalence of foodborne illness from meat, poultry and egg productsIn 1997 there were 76 million illnesses related to foodborne hazards.Annual Measure: The prevalence of Salmonella on raw meat and poultry products as illustrated by: Prevalence of Salmonella on ground beef (%)Annual Measure: Percentage of ready-to-eat meat and poultry products testing positive for Listeria monocytogenes(Listeria is a common bacteria that when ingested can cause flu-like symptoms. The bacteria can result in miscarriages and stillbirths.)

Program Summary:The mission of the Food Safety and Inspection SerNation's commercial supply of meat, poultry, and and accurately labeled and packaged. The assessment found that FSIS' purpose and plaa clear and significant role in protecting the Natioprogram's outcome goals meaningfully reflect the 

However, FSIS received lower scores in managemthough, over the last few years, FSIS has undertaimprove resource management efficiencies and cosnot have tangible incentives or procedures in placFSIS has experienced financial management probunderway to resolve. In addition, the assessment f1. The program has been effective in reducing inciHowever, the program is not optimally designed to in lower program result scores.2. Implementation of a new risk-based inspection evaluated to determine whether it would help FSIperformance goals and should improve efficiencies To address these findings, FSIS will evaluate the based inspection system beyond the current pilot p(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

200020012005

Target

25%

Actual

21%23%

200120022003

3.53.53.5

2.6

200120022003

1.43

1.4

1.34

1.26

2002 Actual

716

2003 Estimate

755

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Agriculture

Program: Food Safety and Inspection Service

Program Type: RegulatoryRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Food Safety and Inspection Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

65

78

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

60 Results / Accountability

0 100

23
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Number of new and rehabilitated units providedAnnual Measure:Number of households able to continue receiving rental assistance because of a renewed contract agreement

Program Summary:USDA's multifamily housing programs provide: (1facilities, and (2) rental assistance. USDA generafinancing both the construction and rehabilitation low-income, elderly, and handicapped rural residedown to 1% to ensure that the overall operating coproperty will be affordable to low-income rural resassistance grants are provided in 5-year contracts rural multifamily housing projects. The funding athe rent of very low-income tenants, so that the tetheir income for housing. The assessment found that the multifamily housinrun. Other PART findings include:1. Although the program achieves what it was desthat funds needed to show an effect on the problem would be prohibitively expensive.2. USDA collects data and uses this data in its maeffectively. 3. The annual performance measures adequately g4. The long-term goal needs to be more strategic aThe Administration will:1. Improve and develop better annual goals. Even program is currently achieving its annual goals, it measurements that directly tie to its decisions on receive. 2. Develop adequate long-term goals that measure 

Year Target Actual

2000200120022003

5,1814,8307,2005,800

6,6167,0897,284

2000200120022003

41,80042,80042,33042,330

38,48939,15939,454

2002 Actual

749

2003 Estimate

740

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Agriculture

Program: Multifamily Housing Direct Loans and 

Rental Assistance Program Type: Mixed

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Rural Housing Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

78

71

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

60 Results / Accountability

0 100

24
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Percent of identified safety concerns with roads and trails posing immediate threat to users (Improvements to targets are currently under development.)Annual Measure:Facility Condition Index (FCI): a measure commonly used by private firms to monitor the condition of facilities(While the Forest Service has used FCI since 2002, improvements are being made in developing new targets.)Annual Measure:Number of passenger road miles maintained to a minimum quality standard(Improvements to targets are currently under development.)

Program Summary:This program improves, maintains, and operates fNational Forest System. The program serves a clear and important purposaccommodate millions of visitors annually. Howevhighlighted a number of obstacles the program facgoals. Specific findings include:1. The program scored well on the management semade significant strides in collecting performance reporting protocols that distinguish between criticsafety deficiencies. However, financial managementhe Forest Service has had difficulty collecting timfinancial data on its physical assets.2. The program scored low on the results section. Tdeferred maintenance backlog (estimated at $13 bhas been unable to demonstrate that it can maintaneeds.3. Annual performance measures inadequately lininitiatives aimed at addressing the maintenance bimproving/maintaining infrastructure where it is In response to these findings, the Administration:1. Provides no funding specifically for the deferred backlog projects will be funded out of roads, facilitrecreation fee receipts, thus forcing greater priorit2. Will work to establish a more coherent prioritizperformance measures, and increase incentives aiobsolete and underutilized infrastructure.

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

546

2003 Estimate

552

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Agriculture

Program: National Forest Improvement and 

Maintenance Program Type: Capital Assets

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Forest Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

80

60

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

25 Results / Accountability

0 100

25
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Percentage of calories from fat and saturated fatAnnual Measure: Percentage of schools in compliance with meal claiming rulesAnnual Measure: Other annual measures under development

Program Summary:The National School Lunch Program provides funchildren in schools. Meals are reimbursed at rateincome. Children below 130% of poverty receive frassessment was based largely on existing measureadequately demonstrate results. New measures wThe assessment found: 1. The program is generally well designed and has large proportion of children certified for free and rfrom households with incomes above the programs2. While the principal long term goal of the progradietary guidelines, is ambitious, the annual perforlinked to the long term goal; participating schools towards goals and program funding does not rewagoals.3. There is a high rate of erroneous payments-- pe4. The program achieves long-term goals to a large with other programs with similar purposes and gonot directly support long-term goals. Based on these findings, the Department will: 1. Create a system to improve the accuracy of incohouseholds at the time of application to address thpayments in the program. 2. Create a performance-based reimbursement sysincentives for meals meeting the dietary guideline3. Develop performance measures that meet the lo(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

1993199920032005

Target

<=30% 

<=10%

Actual

38% 15%32% 12%

2000200120022003

878787

86.8

2000200120022003

2002 Actual

9,857

2003 Estimate

10,915

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Agriculture

Program: National School Lunch

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Food and Nutrition Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

56

57

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

60 Results / Accountability

0 100

26
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Measures under developmentAnnual Measure: Measures under developmentEffifiency Measure: Measures under development

Program Summary:The US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Ruraprovides direct and guaranteed loans to rural elecutilities in rural areas for generating, transmittinOriginally the intent of the program was to providcitizens have service, the goal has shifted to providservice. In addition, since many communities havgiving electric loans and RUS does not recertify thservice areas, some RUS electric loan funds suppoRUS's electric program is well designed with a clehigh purpose rating. In addition, RUS received a because the program is effectively managed Howdisconnect between USDA's strategic goals and RUmeasures. The Department's plan and RUS's goalother. The PART analysis also highlighted the nemeasures. Specifically, we found: 1. One of USDA's goals is to provide support to rurExcept for the hardship program, RUS electric loa

way that would focus the support to areas of greatrural areas. RUS goals and measures supposedly sdevelopment goals, but the link between the goals apparent. 2. RUS strategic goals are very broad, and it is difof program funding on rural economies. Due to thithe Strategic Planning and Program Results sectioTo address these findings, RUS will:1. Target RUS electric loans to areas with high po2. Increase funding for hardship loans that can onseverely depressed (applicants must meet rate disconsumers must fall below average per capita and (For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

4

2003 Estimate

11

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Agriculture

Program: Rural Electric Utility Loans and 

Guarantees Program Type: Credit

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Rural Utilities Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

90

17

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

25 Results / Accountability

0 100

27
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Measure under developmentAnnual Measure: Measures under developmentEfficiency Measure: Measures under development

Program Summary:The water and wastewater program provides loancommunities of 10,000 or less people. The program sewer, and solid waste disposal facilities. Priority communities that have greater financial need, basincome, poverty levels, and size of service populatireceives a combination of loans and grants dependafford. The grant is usually for 35%-45% of the prLoans are for 40 years with interest rates based on depending on community income. Results from the PARTs showed the program to be managed. In addition it found:1. The program is successful in targeting assistancinfrastructure to poor rural areas. 2. USDA does an effective job of collecting program effectively. Accordingly, over the life of the prograare experiencing access problems to safe, affordabwastewater disposal. 3. While this assessment was based largely on exido not adequately demonstrate results. Improvemmeasures need to be made. USDA cannot show thdirectly related to their program. The long-term gand focused in order to allow for better analysis. Cmeasure is the same as the annual measure.The Administration will: 1. Develop better annual goals; and 2. Create reasonable long-term goals that measure (For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)[Funding below represents the discretionary progrlevel combined) for this program.]

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

1,479

2003 Estimate

1,479

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Agriculture

Program: Rural Water and Wastewater Grants and 

Loans Program Type: Mixed

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Rural Utilities Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

53 Results / Accountability

0 100

28
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Number of high priority acres moved to a better condition classMeasures the extent to which excessive fuel loads (small trees and brush that exacerbate risks of catastrophic fire) are reduced and forest health is improved (New measure, targets under development)Annual Measure: Number of high priority acres treated in (1) the wildland urban interface (WUI) or (2) in condition classes 2 or 3 outside the WUI Measures acres treated to reduce fire risk in areas adjacent to communities and in other high-priority areas. (New measure, targets under development)Efficiency Measure: Number of high priority acres treated in (1) the wildland urban interface (WUI) or (2) in condition classes 2 or 3 outside the WUI per million dollars of gross investment (New measure, targets under development)

Program Summary:The Forest Service is responsible for managing anfires on the lands it owns and on other lands throu

consists of five major activities: (1) fire preparednehazardous fuels reduction, (4) burned area rehabilcommunity fire assistance. The assessment found that the program faces signlong-term goals, most of which appear to be manamanagement changes are currently underway at tthese issues. Specific findings include:1. The purpose and design of the program is clear 2. The cost of responding to fires is rapidly rising acontainment strategy is in place to track and contr3. Although the Forest Service has taken substanhazardous fuels program (the removal of excess wcatastrophic fire), more effort is needed to demonsactivities are adequately targeted and efficiently m4. The long-term goals developed as part of the 10baseline data, annual and long-term targets, and cfour goals and 18 measures.Based on the identified problems in the program, timplement management improvements in the fire 1. Developing a real-time obligations system to imfirefighting costs and accuracy of wildland fire obl2. Improving accountability for firefighting costs apaying their fair share of such costs.3. Developing a new fire preparedness model that available resources.4. Establishing project criteria that is consistent wStrategy to ensure that hazardous fuels reduction as possible to reduce risks to communities in the w(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

1,560

2003 Estimate

1,369

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Agriculture

Program: USDA Wildland Fire Management

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Forest Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

43

57

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

27 Results / Accountability

0 100

29
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Number of acres where wildlife habitat management measures were appliedAnnual Measure:Number of acres of wetland habitat created, restored, or enhanced

Program Summary:The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) up to 75 percent to landowners to enhance wildlife made to both upland and wetland habitats, and arthreatened and endangered species. The 2002 farm mandatory funding, and the program's funding into $48 million in 2004.Overall, the results of the PART indicated that theffective manner. WHIP prioritizes funding for rarfish and wildlife. In addition, WHIP leverages signconservation partners and often acts as a seed souprojects. Other findings include:1. WHIP could be more effective if its program purnarrowly focused. 2. Possible overlap exists between WHIP and otheadministered by the Department of Agriculture, suQuality Incentives Program and the Wetlands Res3. The program does not have a limited number of performance goals that focus on outcomes. 4. The PART identified no independent and qualit5. The low results section score is primarily due to performance indicators and independent, quality eBased upon the PART review, the agency will:1. Work to develop outcome-based performance me2. Conduct an internal, in-depth review of WHIP dOversight & Evaluation team. 3. The Administration requests an increase in the appropriation in 2004 to design and implement an provide outcome performance indicators for farm bas WHIP.

Year Target Actual

2002 384,432 325,6852002 6,880 6,767

2002 Actual

15

2003 Estimate

26

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Agriculture

Program: Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Natural Resources Conservation Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

71

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

30
31 

 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

DOC is making good progress on all management agenda items. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

DOC has a strong foundation for improved human capital management. For example, it has a 

restructuring plan for the Economic Development Administration that moves people from 

headquarters to regional offices, to provide more direct service. DOC has reduced its lost-time 

accident rate by 21 percent since 2000, and proposes strengthening its safety program in 2004. 

Competitive Sourcing 

DOC has studied one percent of its commercial positions, but has committed to study 20 percent 

during 2003. Census is conducting a major public-private cost comparison and competition of 

225 positions. The study covers a variety of clerical and administrative support jobs. Once at 

least 15 percent of DOC’s positions have been studied, its status will improve to yellow. 

Financial Performance 

DOC has received three years of unqualified opinions on its consolidated financial statements. 

DOC expects to resolve its material weaknesses – information security and system integration -- 

through its new financial system and security enhancements. As of January 2003, 85 percent of 

DOC was already using a compliant system, and the Department will complete implementation 

this year. 

Expanding E-Government 

DOC has provided business cases for all major IT investments and 60 percent of all IT 

investments. DOC provides quarterly updates on IT security, and is working to address 

remaining deficiencies. DOC is managing partner for the International Trade Process 

Streamlining E-Government initiative to help expand exports from U.S. firms, and provides 

assistance to several other initiatives. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

DOC’s Budget in Brief will provide a clear presentation of the Department-wide performance 

budget for 2004. 

Program Assessments 

Ten Commerce programs were reviewed for performance effectiveness. The Administration 

proposes a variety of measures to address performance issues identified in the review, such as 

increasing funding where needed for core activities, reducing funds for low-priority programs, and 

instituting management reforms. The evaluations of, and recommendations for these programs, 

are highlighted in the accompanying summaries. 

R G

R G

R G

Y Y

Y G
Key Performance Measures

Annual Measure:Cumulative number of publications generated by ATPfunded researchAnnual Measure:Cumulative number of patents generated by ATP-funded researchAnnual Measure:Cumulative number of technologies under commercialization

Program Summary:The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) is intenand dissemination of high-risk technologies througcompanies.1. The program scored well in management and plprogram is not evident.2. The program is well-managed. The grant appliccompetitive. Once grants are awarded, projects arproject managers.3. The program has adequate strategic planning gconducted to assess performance.4. Annual performance measures suggest some prdifficult to identify the extent to which ATP fundinPast studies have demonstrated that similar reseaprivate sector without federal assistance.5. Given the magnitude of funding available from capital firms, and universities, it is not evident thsignificant impact on the advancement of high-risIn response to these findings and lack of CongressAdministration's proposed reforms for the programtermination. Funding available in 2003-04 will be commitments and administrative support to ensurprojects.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

1999200020012002

Target

480680720770

Actual

468565747

1999200020012002

640770790930

607693800

1999200020012002

120170180190

120166195

2002 Actual

184

2003 Estimate

107

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Commerce

Program: Advanced Technology Program

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: National Institute of Standards and Technology

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

86

20

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

32
Key Performance Measures

Annual Measure: Reliability and timeliness of delivery This measure reports BEA’s success at releasing its data on schedule and on time. BEA has between 48 and 50 scheduled releases each year that affect financial markets and are anticipated by users and the media.Annual Measure: Customer satisfactionAn annual survey of users is used to track customer satisfaction with BEA’s performance on a 0 to 5 scale.Annual Measure: Percent of GDP estimates correctThis measure tracks BEA’s performance in estimating GDP levels and growth rates. It is a rolling average of six measures of accuracy over three years.

Program Summary:The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) produces the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), personal incomand state personal income for use by public and prBEA performs well in most areas. BEA has consisperformance goals, including timeliness and reliab1. BEA has developed new annual performance goGDP and other economic statistics by improving athese figures.2. BEA has adequate program management and srequests, however, are based on BEA program arewith all of BEA's products and long-term performa3. BEA regularly collaborates with other federal stquality source data and has an independent advisstatistical programs. However, the Census Bureau products and this important linkage into BEA’s peIn response to these findings the Budget provides the quality and timeliness of BEA’s economic stati(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2000200120022003

Target

48 of 4848 of 4850 of 5048 of 48

Actual

48 of 4848 of 48

2000200120022003

> 4.0> 4.0

4.34.3

4.3

2000200120022003

>80%>80%>82%>84%

93%91%

2002 Actual

62

2003 Estimate

73

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Commerce

Program: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Economic and Statistical Analysis

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

87 Results / Accountability

0 100

33
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Private sector dollars invested in distressed communities as a result of EDA investments (3-6-9 year increments, e.g., 1997 targets are measured in 2000)Long-term Measure:Jobs created or retained in distressed communities as a result of EDA investments (3-6-9 year increments, e.g., 1997 targets are measured in 2000)Annual Measure:Percentage of investments to areas of highest distress

Program Summary:The Economic Development Administration (EDAdistressed communities to generate new employmstimulate industrial and commercial growth.The program scored well for program managemen

primarily because the agency has a longitudinal meconomic development and has met or exceeded ithas a track record, EDA can set targets that bette1. EDA’s primary long-term outcome goals are projob creation in economically distressed communitieffect of specific economic development projects; hnew or retained jobs are indicators of economic imdemonstrated adequate progress in achieving thesexceeded long-term performance targets for 1997 a2. Targeting has improved in recent years, but twofor EDA assistance and less than half of EDA fundhighest distress.3. EDA is pursuing a workforce restructuring that field offices and consolidate headquarters functioncriteria to its evaluation of potential investments t4. EDA utilizes a unit cost to calculate key targets Program performance data for key measures are cCapacity-building measures have been revised and 5. EDA's purpose is to create wealth and minimize favorable business environment to attract private-jobs. EDA works in concert with states, counties, aaddress local economic development needs. The agits role in the context of overall economic developmconditions.In response to these findings, the Budget provides In addition, the Administration will work to:1. Adjust the targets to better reflect achievable pe2. Develop unit-cost measures for private sector leinvestments; and3. Better target EDA resources to areas of greatessteps and reauthorization.

Year

1997199819992000

Target

$116M$130M$420M$400M

Actual

$199M$971M

1997199819992000

5,0405,400

11,30011,300

12,05612,898

1999200020012002

20%30%40%40%

36%45%43%

2002 Actual

366

2003 Estimate

348

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Commerce

Program: Economic Development Administration

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Economic Development Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100100

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

34
Key Performance Measures

Annual Measure:Increased sales attributed to MEP assistance ($ in millions)Annual Measure:Capital investment attributed to MEP assistance ($ in millions)Annual Measure:Cost savings attributed to MEP assistance ($ in millions)

Program Summary:The purpose of the Manufacturing Extension Partimprove the competitiveness of small and mediumnationwide network of approximately 400 centers and business support services.1. The program scored well in planning. However, design, it is not evident that similar services could entities. 2. The program is well-managed. New MEP centercompetitions, and center activities are closely monperformance.3. The program has adequate strategic planning gconducted to assess performance.4. MEP's annual performance measures represent and demonstrate benefits to MEP firms, but it is dMEP on the small manufacturing community as a be willing to pay for the full cost of services that codetermine the services are worth it. Taxpayer supbenefit firms (e.g., increased sales, capital investmunnecessary.In response to these findings the Budget maintainfederal funding for mature MEP centers. The props original authorized funding plan, which called foto each center after six years of funding, with the sufficient. In assessing the purpose of this prograa need for a Federal response in this area. (For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

1999200020012002

Target

443670708726

Actual

425698

1999200020012002

359864913910

576873

1999200020012002

New

545576497

364482

2002 Actual

107

2003 Estimate

13

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Commerce

Program: Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: National Institute of Standards and Technology

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

91

86

40

PlanningManagementPurpose

80 Results / Accountability

0 100

35
Key Performance Measures

Annual Measure:Dollar value of contracts (public and private) awarded toassisted minority-owned businessesAnnual Measure:Dollar value of financial packages (e.g., loans) awarded to assisted minority-owned businessesAnnual Measure:Number of financial packages (e.g., loans) awarded to assisted minority-owned businesses

Program Summary:The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDassistance to minority owned businesses.The assessment indicates that program managemimprovement in planning and subsequently, resul1. Current measures do not adequately reflect all MBDA provides web-based business assistance acnecessarily linked back to its actual performance. 2. Although MBDA has consistently met or exceedcontracts awarded to assisted businesses, the remuneven results compared to the targets.3. The program scored well on management as a rstructure to become a more effective organization. location opportunities to reduce administrative co4. The agency’s current measures are not long-term not connect to long-term achievable outcomes. ThOwned Business Enterprises reports minority ownto be smaller than the minority representation of tbe better able to assess its impact by incorporating approach (e.g., by including measures of business In response to these findings, the Budget maintaininflationary increases. In addition, MBDA will:1. Redefine its performance measures and examin2. Continue to engage in strategic partnerships wientities to leverage resources and enhance busines3. Study the viability of obtaining an independent evaluation within current resources to ensure MB

Year

1999200020012002

Target

$0.6B$0.6B$0.7B

$1B

Actual

$0.6B$1.2B$1.6B

1999200020012002

$0.7B$0.9B

$1B

$0.4B

$0.7B$0.2B$0.6B

1999200020012002

858858925

1,000

755556

1,155

2002 Actual

28

2003 Estimate

29

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Commerce

Program: Minority Business Development Agency

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Minority Business Development Agency

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

57

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

13 Results / Accountability

0 100

36
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Reduce the number of overfished stocks out of 287 major stocksLong-term Measure: Reduce the number of major stocks with an unknown stock statusLong-term Measure: Increase the number of major stocks with known sustainable stock levels

Program Summary:The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is and conservation of marine animals (fish, marine their habitats off the coast of the United States an1. Less than half of major fish stocks are known to levels are unknown for 40 percent, and 17 percent NMFS has rebuilding plans in place for most overbiological limits, some plans will take a number of 2. NMFS’s long-term goals are to significantly redstocks, reduce the likelihood of extinction of endaimportant habitats are protected. There is some bmore ambitious if Congress fully supported the PrNMFS is implementing a number of management and legislative changes based on prior program asreaffirmed the need for such changes. 3. Several independent and outside reviews of NMsomewhat effective -- within its existing authoritiesignificant congressional earmarking that is often performance goals. In addition, the Administration funding increases for fish stock inventories and subeen provided by Congress. In response, the 2004 Budget sustains the Presidereallocating funds away from earmarks and towarwill continue work implementing its proposed manchanges. 

Year

2001200220032004

Target

46454543

Actual

46

2001200220032004

120120118115

120

2001200220032004

121122124129

121

2002 Actual

603

2003 Estimate

602

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Commerce

Program: National Marine Fisheries Service

Program Type: RegulatoryRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

46

100

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

39 Results / Accountability

0 100

37
Key Performance Measures

Annual Measure: Improve tornado warning lead time (minutes) Lead time is the difference between the time the warning was issued and the time the tornado affected the warned area. This measure reflects the average lead time for all tornado occurrences throughout the year.Annual Measure: Improve flash flood warning accuracy (percent)Accuracy is measured by the percentage of times a flash flood actually occurred in an area that was covered by a warning.Annual Measure: Reduce hurricane track forecast error (nautical miles) This measure is the difference between the actual location of hurricane landfall and the location projected 48 hours in advance.

Program Summary:The purpose of the National Weather Service (NWforecasts in order to protect lives and property.1. NWS is well-managed and results-oriented. Passignificant performance improvements in many arhelped to inform decisions on system improvemen2. The strategic plan sets forth clear long-term goaperformance measures. NWS develops annual opetargets and milestone objectives and conducts strayear to track progress and make appropriate adju3. NWS has been recognized for its strong manage"Government Executive Magazine" Federal Perfor4. NWS has made progress in achieving long-term accuracy and timeliness of forecasts and warningsthirteen annual performance goals. However, perfslower in some areas, such as precipitation and av5. NWS works with emergency management groupfor lead time and accuracy.In response to these findings the Budget provides improvement in key performance areas, such as tohurricane track accuracy.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

1999200020012002

Target

11121311

Actual

12101012

1999200020012002

85868686

85868689

1999200020012002

newnewnew

142

newnewnew

121

2002 Actual

743

2003 Estimate

772

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Commerce

Program: National Weather Service

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

8585

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

87 Results / Accountability

0 100

38
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The purpose of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recoverestore stocks of Pacific salmon through improvemhabitat. The program provides grants to the states Washington, and Alaska for this purpose.1. Program-wide performance metrics have not yestate is developing performance measures related some 600 projects have been approved, their effectnot yet known.2. The program has not been able to allocate funds specific salmon populations. Alaska, which has no salmon species, uses some of the funds for marketstates, there are competitive processes to select prestablished priorities. Because NOAA has had to nwith each state, fund distributions have taken lon3. The long-term performance goal of the program conservation of Pacific salmon. The program, whicfinalized annual measures yet. The Administratioallocated based on protecting those salmon populafirst priority. Congress has not supported this chaIn response to these findings: 1. The Budget continues the program and again pron listed salmon recovery goals. 2. The program is directed to complete the developterm performance measures by June, 2003.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

110

2003 Estimate

90

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Commerce

Program: Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

67

57

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

20 Results / Accountability

0 100

39
Key Performance Measures

Annual Measure:Average total pendency (Pendency is the estimated time in months for a complete review of a patent application, from the filing date to issue or abandonment of the application.)Annual Measure:Error rate (Based on a quality review, this is the percent of allowed patent applications containing at least one claim that would be held invalid in a court of law.)Annual Measure:Average first-action pendency(First-action pendency is the estimated time in months from filing to an initial review of a patent application by a patent examiner.)

Program Summary:The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issues paPatents provide protection to inventors and businePTO’s patent operation did not meet all of its perfoincreasing unit costs per patent disposed.1. The time required for initial review (first-action (average total pendency) by patent examiners remgoals for these activities also remain high. Furthe13.9 months was not met in 2001. The patent opecustomer satisfaction performance goal in 2001.2. Patent examiners spend a very small amount of application compared to the average time for comppatent applications. For example, in 2001 average years, including time spent awaiting replies from examiners spent an average of only 18 cumulative disposed. 3. Planning for e-government initiatives to electroapplications has been adequate, although progress slow. 4. The patent operation has adequate program mabased costing to allocate the costs of patent and sucontractors for administrative activities that supp5. Performance measures are generally adequate, measure of unit cost.6. PTO's new strategic plan contains major reformproblems identified in the analysis.In response to these findings and the development the Budget proposes funding increases for pendeninitiatives. Modifications of PTO's fees are proposeapplications' costs.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2000200120022003

Target

26.2 mo.26.2 mo.26.1 mo.27.7 mo.

Actual

25.0 mo.24.7 mo.

2000200120022003

New

5.5%5.0%4.5%

6.6%5.4%

2000200120022003

14.2 mo.13.9 mo.16.0 mo.16.4 mo.

13.6 mo.14.4 mo.

2002 Actual

985

2003 Estimate

1,190

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Commerce

Program: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - 

Patents Program Type: Direct Federal

Rating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

86

83

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

27 Results / Accountability

0 100

40
Key Performance Measures

Annual Measure:Average total pendency (Pendency is defined as the estimated time in months for a complete review of a trademark application, from the filing date to issue or abandonment of an application.)Annual Measure:Error rate(Based on a quality review, the percent of pending, registered, or abandoned applications containing an error that could affect the validity of trademark registration.)Annual Measure:Average first-action pendency(First-action pendency is the estimated time in months from filing to an initial review of a trademark application by a trademark examiner.)

Program Summary:The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) registers patents). Trademarks protect corporate and produPTO’s trademark operation has improved its operae-government initiatives, and met most of its perfo1. In 2001, the trademark operation met its perfortime required for a complete review of trademark pendency). PTO also exceeded the 2001 performantrademark applications (average first-action pendperformance goals for these activities were relaxed quality review process and large increases in the napplications. 2. In general, the trademark operation has demonmanagement. PTO uses activity-based costing to and supporting operations. It uses contractors for support examination of trademarks and holds manperformance. 3. Performance measures are generally adequate, adopt a measure of unit cost.4. PTO's new strategic plan contains modest revispractices and procedures to further improve qualitimplementation of e-government.In response to these findings, development of PTOprogress the Trademark program has made in imptrademark examination system, the Budget providtrademark pendency and quality and to complete (For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2000200120022003

Target

18.0 mo.18.0 mo.15.5 mo.13.5 mo.

Actual

17.3 mo.17.8 mo.

2000200120022003

3.6%6.0%5.0%4.0%

3.4%3.1%

2000200120022003

4.5 mo.6.6 mo.3.0 mo.2.5 mo.

5.7 mo.2.7 mo.

2002 Actual

141

2003 Estimate

144

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Commerce

Program: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - 

Trademarks Program Type: Direct Federal

Rating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

83

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

41

43 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

The Department of Defense (DoD) is not only the largest federal agency, it is also one of the 

nation’s largest organizations, employing nearly 3 million people and spending over $350 billion on 

defending the United States. Management of any organization this size is challenging, yet DoD 

continues to progress in achieving reforms. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

DoD’s Workforce Restructuring Matrix shows significant progress in reorganizations, 

delayering, outsourcing efforts, and reengineered/streamlined processes. Agency strategic plans 

and human resources planning strategies are matched up with mission, goals, and 

organizational objectives. DoD reduced headquarters staffing by more than 11 percent. 

Competitive Sourcing 

The Department is making progress in subjecting functions that are commercial in nature to 

competition. For example, DoD is competing base support functions at several installations 

across the country. DoD is announcing competions for almost 10,000 positions in 2003 and plans 

to announce competitions for an additional 10,000 positions in 2004. DoD is also seeking to 

return military members performing commercial functions to the war-fighting ranks. 

Financial Performance 

In 2002, the Department began to implement aggressively its plan to completely overhaul its 

financial management systems. DoD awarded a contract to a group of contractors headed by 

IBM. Also, the Department began efforts to speed-up the production of its Financial Statements 

and to improve its management of real property. 

Expanding E-Government 

DoD has submitted complete business cases justifying 180 major projects, totaling nearly $14 

billion, or 49 percent of a total IT investment of $28 billion. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

The Department has developed benchmarks in a number of areas. For example, DoD has 

developed measures for its goal of maintaining a quality force, improving the quality of facilities, 

and developing transformational capabilities. DoD is well underway in having a Departmentwide system that combines performance measures with budget resources for many activities. 

Privatization of Military Housing 

DoD has a goal of eliminating 163,000 inadequate housing units (out of a total of 273,000) by 

2007. The 2004 Budget includes plans to achieve this goal for all but 7,000 Air Force homes. To 

date, DoD has privatized 26,166 family homes, about 10 percent of its current inventory. 

Y G

R Y

R G

R G

Y G

Y G
44 

Program Assessments 

The twelve DoD programs reviewed are, on average, moderately effective. Most of the PARTs 

revealed that the program purposes are clear and that DoD plans well. The PARTs also reveal 

that DoD does exhibit strong management practices except in financial management, a problem 

DoD's leadership is attempting to address. In addition, the assessment shows that DoD needs 

more specific short and long-term goals and performance measures for some programs, also an 

area that DoD leadership is addressing. 
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Number of performance objectives for individual weapons systems unmetAnnual Measure: Percent change in acquisition costs for individual aircraft programs from estimated cost of program. For example, actuals show deviation for the F/A-18E/F fighter program. Data from DoD's annual Selected Acquisition Reports. The Dec 2001 report represents a 2-year reporting period (1999-2001) due to the absence of a Dec 2000 report.

Program Summary:The air combat program consists of a number of inresearch, development and procurement programDoD's investment in air combat capabilities. Indivinclude fighter aircraft such as the Air Force F/A-2attack fighter and the multiservice Joint Strike Fihelicopters such as the Apache Longbow and Comperformance of individual programs since DoD doesingle program. Findings include:1. The PART analysis showed that the program puunique military requirement of these systems. 2. The Air Combat program scored well in planninplanning, programming and budgeting system, whwith budgets and ensures that analyses of capabilprograms begin. 3. DoD's management of the overall air combat prextensive system of regulations governing how indare managed. Through these regulations DoD traprograms and can hold managers accountable for been shown by changes in management personnel 4. DoD's individual programs within the overall ai

aircraft at targeted rates, but in several cases, sucincreases. 5. DoD is moving towards a "capabilities based" asrather than the traditional assessment of individuthe air combat program is managed as a single prosystems) with clear long-term goals, it will be diffiexample, DoD has not yet defined several annual measures for the air combat program as a whole. In response to these findings, the Administration:1. Proposes that DoD refine methods for assessing (or otherwise) of the overall air combat program in QDR defense strategy and the global war on terro

Year

1999200020022003

Target

0000

Actual

000

1999200020022003

<10%<10%<10%<10%

4.7%5.3%4.1%

2002 Actual

11,454

2003 Estimate

15,573

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Defense--Military

Program: Air Combat Program

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Procurement

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

72

100100

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

45
Key Performance Measures

Annual Measure:Percent change in acquisition costs for individual programs from the total cost estimate. For example, actuals show changes for the C-17 program. Data taken from DoD's annual Selected Acquisition Reports. The December 2001 report represents a two-year reporting period (1999-2001) due to the absence of a December 2000 report.Long-term Measure:Provide 100 percent of strategic airlift capacity (54.5 million ton miles/day), a requirement established by DoD in its Mobility Requirements Study 2005

Program Summary:The airlift program consists of a number of individstrategic airlift aircraft research, development and taken together, comprise DoD's investment in airlcapabilities allow DoD to move large amounts of pwithin, remote locations in short periods of time. the Air Force's C-130J tactical airlift aircraft progaircraft program and the C-5 strategic airlift aircrFindings include:1. The PART analysis showed that this is a coherebasic long-term goal, namely, to be able to move mequipment from the US to anywhere in the world 2. Because the individual components of the overabecause of DoD's extensive planning, programminmatches program plans with budgets, the program planning and management analysis. 3. The major airlift acquisition program, the C-17 on, or ahead of, schedule, albeit with some cost inc4. DoD must aggressively examine possible trade-that could lower the cost of meeting the airlift reqmilitary readiness or combat capabilities. To addrto move towards a "capabilities based" assessment traditional assessment of individual acquisition prshowed that DoD still has more to do in this area. develop annual goals and other performance measwhole.In response to these findings, the Administration:1. Proposes that DoD continue to develop methods effectiveness (or otherwise) of the overall airlift prthe 2001 QDR defense strategy and the global war (For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

1999200020022003

Target

<10%<10%<10%<10%

Actual

-1.7%-1.5%

1.1%

20032005

90%

100%

90%

2002 Actual

4,917

2003 Estimate

4,798

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Defense--Military

Program: Airlift Program

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Procurement

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

71

95

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

46
Key Performance Measures

Certification in biennial reviews by technically competent independent reviewers that the supported work, as a portfolio, is of high quality, serves to advance the national security and is efficiently managed and carried out.Long-term Measure: Portion of funded research that is chosen on the basis of merit reviewReduce non-merit-reviewed and -determined projects by one half in two years (from 6.0% to 3.0%)

Program Summary:The Basic Research program includes scientific stuincrease fundamental knowledge in the physical, elife sciences and consists of a wide portfolio of projprimarily through grants to universities and non-presearch are expected to improve the country's defactual results of any specific project are unpredictpast have led to advances in satellite communicatinavigation, stealth, night vision and technologies battlefield awareness. Due to the long-term naturPART emphasizes assessment of the process of chindependent assessments of how well the research The assessment indicates that the basic research pproviding options for new weapons systems, helpinsurprise by adversaries, and developing new scienDoD mission in the future. DoD can document--thmanagement regulations, public announcements oresults from independent review panels--the methprogram. Additional findings include:1. The grants/contract solicitation, review and awa2. The program is reviewed regularly by technicalwhich recommend improvements they would like tindicate that the work is of overall high quality.3. The program has competent planning and mana4. Earmarking of projects in the program has incrcontribute less than the typical research project to In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Continue to emphasize the use of independent rperformance of the program.2. Work with the research community and Congreclaims on research grant funds to proposals that instandards of a strict merit-review process.

Year

2003 and 

later

Target

100%

Actual

2005 -50%

2002 Actual

1,334

2003 Estimate

1,417

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Defense--Military

Program: Basic Research

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

84

89

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

80 Results / Accountability

0 100

47
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Destruction and dipsosal of 100 percent of the chemical weapons stockpileAnnual Measure:Disposal of 45% of the stockpile by 2004

Program Summary:The Chemical Demilitarization Program destroys weapons. The United States has an obligation to dtreaty (the Chemical Weapons Convention) ratifie1. The assessment revealed that the purpose of th2. The program has faced a number of challenges thas had difficulty gaining support from some local disposal sites, which has caused delays. Further, delayed the start of some destruction. The delays difficult for the program to meet required deadlineConvention. The program underwent a major restapproximately $9 billion to the cost of the program3. The delays and cost increases are reflected in a section score. The score is low because the prograactivities at two out of nine sites, (Johnston Atoll aDoD has not yet determined the process it will use stored at Bluegrass, Kentucky, and therefore lacksite. In Anniston, Alabama, community safety condelays to the start of disposal. In addition, a delay Utah when heavy metals were found in some weapremediation. Thus, while DoD has destroyed a postockpile it still faces great challenges in destroyintimely and efficient way.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Manage the program according to milestones Dsite;2. Focus on maintaining the schedule and efficienc3. Approve a destruction process and proceed with Grass, KY site and work with the community grousafety concerns are met.

Year

2012

Target

100%

Actual

20022004

25%45%

25%

2002 Actual

1,098

2003 Estimate

1,490

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Defense--Military

Program: Chemical Demilitarization

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Ineffective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Procurement

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

66

78

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

17 Results / Accountability

0 100

48
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:DoD is preparing long-term performance metrics, to include system capacity, performance, and user satisfaction. (New measure, target under development)Annual Measure:Percent of time that the Non-Secure Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNET) access circuit is available.NIPRNET is the unclassified IT system.Annual Measure:Number of bases upgraded by the Army Installation Information Infrastructure Modernization Program (I3MP)

Program Summary:The communications infrastructure program inclufor transmission of voice, data, and video informatDefense, with a total investment of about $5.4 billincludes base level communications activities of thdistance communications, and the Defense Informmanaged by the Defense Information Systems Ageworld wide communications capabilities to militarthe Global Infrastructure Grid (GIG) Bandwidth Eincrease bandwidth connections to over 90 militarprogram, which will improve satellite communicatOverall, the PART reveals that DoD does not maninfrastructure on an enterprise or department-widsuggests a communications infrastructure should approach rather than in a piecemeal fashion by coassessment also suggests that DoD should develop measures to be used across the entire department findings include:1. The program's purpose is clear, owing to the unthese systems. 2. The program performs well on planning because term goals and has taken meaningful steps to adddeficiencies. It has not, however, established long3. While the program does collect performance infaddress management deficiencies, it lacks clearly objectives and does not measure program efficienc4. The program results section also shows some wPART highlighted the lack of long-term outcome gIn response to these findings, DoD will develop comperformance across the department. 

Year Target Actual

2000200120022003

> 98.5%> 98.5%> 98.5%> 98.5%

99.63%99.50%

200120022003

585

58

2002 Actual

4,426

2003 Estimate

5,397

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Defense--Military

Program: Communications Infrastructure

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Department of Defense--Military

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

40

78

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

44 Results / Accountability

0 100

49
Key Performance Measures

Annual Measure: To achieve a higher average score for military hospitals than the average score received by non-military hospitals, as rated by the Joint Accreditation of Health Care Organizations which examines the way hospitals provide safe health careLong-term Measure: The program will develop a new measure to identify the cost of medical readiness.Long-term Measure: The program will develop two new measures to evaluate the medical readiness of the Active, Reserve, and Guard forces. One measure is on adequate individual readiness and the other on optimal individual readiness.

Program Summary:The Defense Health Programs (DHP) does two thipersonnel and 2) provides health care in peace and members, retirees, and their families around the gFindings from the PART assessment include:1. The program has a unique and clear mission of training for war time.2. DoD patients are generally satisfied with the avcare.3. In 2002, DoD made good progress in completing plan and implementation has begun. 4. The program scored relatively low on the Prograbecause it has not yet fully developed measures angoals. While these results are still unknown, DoD ensuring quality medical care in combat zones and "Adequate." 5. DoD continues to improve its collaboration with Affairs (VA), while DoD and VA do not yet have a In response to these findings:1. DoD leadership is taking significant steps towarperformance measures. DoD is working to finalize the goals as well as to link annual measures with 2. The Budget supports increased coordination betsharing of enrollment and patient records data as implementation of several joint medical sites.3. DoD and VA will develop a coordinated perform(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

199920002001

Target

90.791.091.6

Actual

95.294.492.6

2002 Actual

18,386

2003 Estimate

14,801

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Defense--Military

Program: Defense Health

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Operation and Maintenance

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

75

60

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

27 Results / Accountability

0 100

50
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Ratio of savings to investmentAverage annual energy savings exceeded average annual program costs by a 4/1 margin within five years of the program's expenditure for the 1997 to 2001 period.Annual Measure:Percentage of funding given to the program that DoD obligates The program has had problems spending money in a timely manner. DoD has improved its obligation rate to 97% of the resources made available from 1999 through 2001.Annual Measure:DoD staff are developing a measure of BTU energy savings per dollar of funding, and this metric should be ready in 2003 to assist in developing even more aggressive targets. This program assists in meeting larger energy conservation goals that cannot be achieved with just ECIP projects.

Program Summary:The Department of Defense (DoD) consumes more Federal government's energy use. DoD spent $6.including fuels. The Energy Conservation Improvdesigned to improve energy and water efficiency in reduce energy costs. 1. The ECIP program scored well in the purpose athe purpose is clear and DoD has established realimanages this program well. It closely tracks progmanages future budget allocations to the Military corrected past obligation rate problems. 2. The program achieves results. From 1985 throuhas been reduced in DoD’s buildings by 23% and ithan 20%. More importantly, this reduction was athe life of the program, ECIP projects have producdollars for every dollar invested. 3. Overall, the program scored well because it is a which assists the Military Services and Defense AIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Ensure that the program produces high returns 2. Support DoD's efforts to develop new metrics to about the program's results, and will allow DoD to targets.3. Propose that this program be funded at $70 mil

Year

2001200220032004

Target

4/14/14/14/1

Actual

4/14/1

2001200220032004

97%97%97%97%

97%

2002 Actual

27

2003 Estimate

35

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Defense--Military

Program: Energy Conservation Improvement

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Military Construction

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

80

78

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

89 Results / Accountability

0 100

51
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Percentage of existing facilities rated C-2 or betterThese facilities have no significant or major deficiencies that affect DoD’s ability to perform its missions.Long-term Measure: Rate, expressed in years, in which planned facilities are restored, modernized, or replaced, given planned investment spending (lower, but not below target, is better) (New measure)Annual Measure:Percentage of day-to-day maintenance funded (target level keeps facilities in good working order) (New measure)

Program Summary:The Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, Modernizfunds to keep the Department of Defense's (DoD'sworking order. In addition, the program provides damaged facilities and alter facilities to meet new provides funds to get rid of structures no longer neThe assessment found that while DoD has not ade(68% have significant or major deficiencies that afmissions), it is making a significant effort to addrefindings include:1. DoD recently developed a long-term strategic plpractices, such as using performance-assessment manalyses that emphasize capital rather than short2. The high planning section score is due to the nerecent development of new performance managemguidance issued to the military services. 3. The management section score is low because thmanaged to ensure that program execution matchservices can deviate from guidance since program Deviation from the plan can put achieving program day maintenance requirements fully and restoring 67 years on average (based on private sector standdefense requirements have caused managers to usmaintenance of facilities for other programs. Over has contributed to an accumulation of inadequate 4. A key performance measure, readiness of existinrequirements, uses subjective assessments and caTo address these findings, the agency will: 1. Improve program management. Performance sbegin managing more strictly to the new performaAccountability systems have been put in place to h2. Pursue a facilities readiness or condition reportobjective, consistent results. 3. Continue to work to eliminate excess facilities.

Year

2001200220032004

Target

100%100%100%100%

Actual

31%32%

20032004

67 yrs67 yrs

138 yrs128 yrs

20032004

100%100%

93%94%

2002 Actual

6,307

2003 Estimate

7,068

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Defense--Military

Program: Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, 

Modernization, and Demolition Program Type: Direct Federal

Rating:

Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Operation and Maintenance

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

14

100

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

60 Results / Accountability

0 100

52
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Reduce the number of inadequate houses to zero by 2007Annual Measure:Number of housing units privatizedAnnual Measure:Percent of service members out-of-pocket housing expenses as a fraction of the national median housing costs

Program Summary:DoD's housing program provides housing to militafamilies. DoD does this in two ways -- by providinservice members (who find housing in the private on-base) or by providing members DoD-owned hou1. The PART reveals that DoD received high scoresections because the housing program meets the shas long-term and short-term goals. 2. The PART shows that, even though DoD has an the number of inadequate houses by 2007 (a PresiDoD is lagging behind in meeting its targets as shmeasures table on the left. At the end of 2002, Dohousing units, higher than what was projected. 3. However, DoD met its goal for reducing service expenses to 11.3% by increasing housing allowanc4. DoD is making attempts to reduce the federal rallowances and privatization of government-owneBased on these findings, the Administration will: 1. Work toward meeting yearly targets so that DoD housing by 2007. 2. Eliminate all out-of-pocket housing expenses by housing allowance. 3. Privatize government-owned housing, where feamembers and their families can live in quality hou(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

200220032004

Target

153,249125,366

98,953

Actual

163,195

200220032004

13,90534,64941,258

10,284

2002200320042005

11.3%

7.5%3.5%

0%

11.3%

2002 Actual

11,946

2003 Estimate

13,086

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Defense--Military

Program: Housing

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Military Personnel

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

71

100100

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

53
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Number of major tests performed and number successful (Tests will result in increasingly capable and integrated BMDS.) Year Tests Cost Complexity 2002 5 tests $638M Low 2003 9 tests $534M Medium 2004 10 tests $808M MediumAnnual Measure:Percentage of key schedule milestones met each year to support development of the first increment ("Block 04") of layered missile defenses (Milestones must be met within plus or minus two months of the date planned at the start of the fiscal year. "Block 06" milestones would begin in 2005 and continue beyond.)Annual Measure:Cost of developing the first increment ("Block 04") of layered missile defenses (Targets will be the not-to-exceed annual development costs for "Block 04" as planned in the 2004 Budget. Cost estimates for "Block 06" are being developed.)

Program Summary:This program represents all the components makiMissile Defense System (BMDS).These component"blocks" with new capabilities fielded on a two-yeaThe core program is a research and development eDefense Agency (MDA), augmented by procuremeservices.The assessment indicates that MDA has significanand program management, but has not yet demontheir new goals and objectives. Specific additional 1. 2002 was a year of reorganization as MDA realithe Administration's withdrawal from the Anti-Baprogram receives a high score for "Planning" becaudocumenting detailed research and development gcapability, although documentation for future "Blo2. MDA has implemented a management approach development of multiple capabilities, with improvethe program. This is in contrast to the previous phNational Missile Defense program with a large po3. In terms of program results, MDA had a succesfive successful major intercept tests (seven-of-eighyears). However, deployment of an actual operatiU.S. is not expected until late 2004. Program "Resbegins to manage and assess results against its neprogram goals.In response to these findings, the Administration:1. Will complete missile defense research and devethrough "Block 08" next year.2. Will develop measurable military operational godefense capability. These goals should be linked tdevelopment goals.3. Will review the program transition mechanism services, which is not well understood and needs f

Year

2002200320042005

Target

59

10

TBD

Actual

4

2003200420052006

Final 

Design

Test Bed 

Ready

Block 

Certified

Block 06

2003200420052006

$4.4B$4.8B

Block 06Block 06

2002 Actual

7,772

2003 Estimate

7,725

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Defense--Military

Program: Missile Defense

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

90

88

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

56 Results / Accountability

0 100

54
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Number of personnel required to meet military needsIn addition to exceeding the required number of recruits, quality goals have been met over the past three years.Budget/Short-term Measure:Average cost of recruiting a new member into the Armed Forces (The numbers in this table represent the total cost of the program divided by the number of recruits. This measure is not currently used as a performance goal - it is only a measure of the expected cost of the program. The Administration recommends this performance measure.)Program efficiency metrics currently under development

Program Summary:The recruiting program of the Department of Defelarge numbers of high quality young men and womforces. The program is multifaceted, using militarbonuses to attract young men and women to militarecruiting is to ensure that sufficient numbers of qin the armed services.The assessment found that the program was highl

no measures of program efficiency, the overall ratiDoD has met its goals for both quality and quantityears. During this period, costs did increase, with 

recruiters, expanding and refining their enlistmenreenergizing advertising with performance incentiembracing high technology with laptop computers Internet with cyber-recruiting initiatives, and adoin recruiter selection and training. The Services crecruiting programs, with the Army and Navy actof recruiters as the investments in the recruiting pviewed in constant dollars, the cost-per-recruit hathe 2004 Budget Request. However, the program information systems in place to allow for better decurrently no way to gauge the effectiveness of specwhether the recruiters are more effective. In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Recommend the Department of Defense create ballow more management information flow to the psystem should support separating out and measurmeasures of management efficiency, and performaof particular inputs. Such a system would increasthe program mangers about the effectiveness of eaprogram, allowing them to take a broader look at tapply them more efficiently. 2. Create a quarterly execution report to track proefficiency.

Year

1999200020012002

Target

200,000205,000211,000210,000

Actual

193,000206,000212,000212,000

200220032004

$13,662$14,162

$13,252

2002 Actual

2,644

2003 Estimate

2,688

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Defense--Military

Program: Recruiting

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Operation and Maintenance

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

71

100

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

75 Results / Accountability

0 100

55
Key Performance Measures

Annual Measure:Percent change in acquisition costs for individual programs from established cost of the program. Results from Virginia Class attack submarine program shown as example; data from DoD's annual Selected Acquisition Reports. The Dec 2001 report represents a two-year period (1999-2001) due to the absence of a Dec 2000 report.Annual Measure:Percentage of ship construction completeEach ship under construction has a delivery date and construction schedule. At the end of each year, the Program Manager has a goal to have a percentage of the ship construction completed. The information provided is for the first Virginia Class submarine (SSN 774).Long-term Measure:Number of ships in the FleetThe Navy has a baseline level of ships that it should maintain. For example, the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review set 55 attack submarines as the baseline force that the Navy should maintain. The information shown shows planned levels for attack submarines.

Program Summary:The shipbuilding program buys new ships and oveThe assessment shows that the Navy's shipbuildinwhich directly relates to the Navy's mission to defshipbuilding program is designed around long-term fleet size and capability. For example, the Navy ucarriers as the minimum number needed to carry of this goal, aircraft carriers are purchased at levequantity. Additional findings include: 1. The Navy has specific cost, schedule, and perforshipbuilding program. 2. The Department of Defense conducts periodic remilestones of development and uses a structured rthe status of ship development and cost, and const3. The shipbuilding program is limited by industripressures that have prevented the Navy from builefficient rate to provide for the long term. 4. The Navy has experienced cost increases and scconstruction programs. 5. The unique attributes of each ship and the smathe shipbuilding program challenge the Navy from be achieved program-wide. Optimistic budget assproblem. In reponse to these findings the Administration w1. Improve the cost estimates for the shipbuilding budget to cost estimates.2. Work to ensure that shipbuilding decisions are and capability goals in mind. 3. Institute program-wide goals rather than the shcurrently used. 

Year

1999200120022003

Target

<10%<10%<10%<10%

Actual

12%12%

1999200120022003

22%57%

>85%

24%64%

2000200520092012

55555555

56546060

2002 Actual

9,798

2003 Estimate

9,457

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Defense--Military

Program: Shipbuilding

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Procurement

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

73

90

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

47 Results / Accountability

0 100

56
57 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

While much work remains, the Department has begun to put its management and financial 

house in order. It is showing good progress in all initiatives. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

Under its “One-ED” strategy, ED is assessing the efficiency of its human capital processes – like 

hiring -- and has begun reengineering efforts to improve them. ED must still assess skill gaps. 

Competitive Sourcing 

To raise its score, ED should compete at least 15 percent of its FAIR Act inventory. 

Financial Performance 

ED has deployed a new system for generating more accurate and timely financial reports. 

Expanding E-Government 

The Department leads all other agencies in converting inefficient paper processes to electronic 

ones, providing an electronic option for 86 percent of its citizen-to-government transactions. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

No Child Left Behind provides a framework for integrating budget and performance in many K12 programs. ED will implement a similar framework for other education programs. 

Elimination of Fraud and Error in Student Aid Programs 

The Department has reduced fraud and error in its student aid programs by improving methods 

used to identify ineligible students and risky and/or non-compliant institutions. 

Faith-Based and Community Initiative 

ED has reduced barriers to the participation of faith-based and community organizations by 

setting aside grant funds for novice applicants, conducting extensive outreach, and providing 

technical assistance in applying for and administering grants. 

Program Assessments 

PARTs were completed for 18 programs covering more than $27 billion (55 percent) of ED’s 

2003 discretionary budget. For many programs, the PART revealed a lack of strong performance 

measures and data. Several programs with low scores are proposed for reduction, elimination, or 

reforms based on weaknesses identified in the PART. The PART process also yielded improved 

performance measures in programs, like TRIO Student Support Services and Upward Bound. 

R G

R G

R G

Y G

R G

R G

Y G
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Annual Measure:Percentage of participants who entered employment in the 1st quarter after program exit(New measure: result of common measures exercise; targets to be determined beginning in 2003;2001 reports performance against a similar previous goal.)Long-term and Annual Measure:Percentage of participants who were employed in the 1st quarter after program exit who remain employed in 2nd and 3rd quarters after exit (New measure: result of common measures exercise; targets to be determined beginning in 2003;2001 reports performance against a similar previous goal.)Long-term and Annual Measure:Percentage change in earnings: Based on (1) preenrollment to program exit; (2) 1st quarter after exit to 3rd quarter after exit(New measure: result of common measures exercise; targets to be determined beginning in 2003)

Program Summary:The Adult Education State Grants program providteach adults how to read and learn other skills thaschool diploma, employment, and economic self-suThe assessment found:1. Grantees have clear guidance on the purpose an2. The program is managed well overall, but grantaccountable for results. 3. The impacts of the program are not clear. Gransignificant data quality problems, such as low respdemonstrates modest positive impacts (e.g., in 20with a job placement goal were successful in meetno national evaluation of this program. 4. The current program has adopted a new, commframework so that it can be compared to other Fedobjectives, such as job training programs within thHowever, the program must establish specific perfthat the necessary data is collected to institute the 5. The program received a zero on the results portof: (a) the lack of specific performance targets; (b) informing on the measures; and (c) available data positive impacts (e.g., in 2001, only 31% of particiwere successful in meeting that goal.) In response to these findings, the Budget proposes 1. Implement reforms to the program, including inimproved performance reporting, and a clear focus reading, math, literacy and numeracy skills so thecertificate and obtain employment that leads to ec2. Adopt common performance measures with sima new measure to gauge cost-effectiveness. Set shoon the common measures. Develop strategy for colinstitute common measures.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2001

Target Actual

31%

2001 62%

2002 Actual

575

2003 Estimate

575

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: Adult Education State Grants

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Vocational and Adult Education

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

67

29

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

0 Results / Accountability

0 100

58
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Percentage of schools that have received CSR funds that are failing to reach their academic goals(Target = percent of schools served annually that are in need of school improvement)Annual Measure:Percentage of elementary school students in schools have received CSR funds that meet or exceed State proficiency requirements in reading and math (reading%/math%)Annual Measure:Percentage of high school students in schools that have received CSR funding that meet or exceed State proficiency requirements in reading and math (reading%/math%)

Program Summary:Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) provides moimplement strategies that reform all aspects of a sin curriculum, teacher training, and instructional The PART assessment found:1. The purpose of the CSR program is redundant wand Secondary Education Act, which also provides reform. In 2004, the funds that states can set-asidschools will double to nearly $500 million under th2. The program has good performance measures a3. The program is well-managed, has had a comprand uses data to improve program management.4. Results are mixed and evaluation data are not yindicate improvements in elementary school readiimprovement in middle school math, and a decreaproficiency. The program evaluation is not yet comoutcome data.In response to these findings, the Administration I and close out this program in order to reduce proadministrative burden. Redirecting the CSR fundschools to carry out comprehensive reform withouburden of applying to a separate grant program. 

Year

2000200120072014

Target

15%

0%

Actual

33%30%

2000200120022003

77%/76%85%/88%87%/90%

75%/74%83%/86%

2000200120022003

67%/76%70%/89%73%/91%

64%/74%56%/87%

2002 Actual

235

2003 Estimate

235

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: Comprehensive School Reform

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

63

83

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

59
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:The percentage of Even Start children reading at grade level(Targets under development)Annual Measure:The percentage of Even Start children who enter school ready to learn to read(Targets under development)Annual Measure:The percentage of Even Start adults who receive a secondary school diploma or a GED(Targets under development)

Program Summary:Even Start is a family literacy program. It providecomprehensive educational services to low-income attainment for improving the educational outcomeage 7. Services include early childhood education, education. The program is based on research that more likely to learn to read well when their parenThe PART assessment found:1. National evaluations show the program to have parents served by Even Start. The Department of major evaluations of this program, two that includstudy. None of the studies show that either childreservices made greater school readiness gains or eddid not receive Even Start services. The strong evmuch of the basis for the ineffective rating.2. The program is well managed and has an extentracking information on grantees. However, State outputs such as hours of service provided rather thchildren read at grade level. 3. Performance measurement has been improved b

student reading or reading readiness. However, cuannual or long-term targets for the program.In response to these findings, the Administration continue awards to current grantees and redirects which supports model pre-school programs that usinstructional practices to teach pre-reading skills.

Year Target Actual

199920002001 25%

18.4%

17%17%

2002 Actual

250

2003 Estimate

200

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: Even Start

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Ineffective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

63

45

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

0 Results / Accountability

0 100

60
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Annual Measure:Percentage of Pell Grant funds that go to students below 150 percent of poverty levelLong-term and Annual Measure:College enrollment rates for all students after high schoolLong-term and Annual Measure:Enrollment gap between low income and high income high school graduates

Program Summary:Pell Grants are need-based financial aid to help steducation. Pell Grants are the single largest sourcstudent aid. The award is based on the cost of atteboard, etc.), the student's or family's "expected famincome, assets, etc.), and whether the student atteUnder the 2004 President's Budget request, the Pup to $4,000 in grant aid to nearly five million stuThe PART assessment found:1. The Federal Pell Grant program has a clear purof need-based aid for undergraduate students.2. While the program has always targeted funding and minority students continue to attend college aother students.3. The Department of Education needs to improve by ensuring that it has timely and reliable financican be used to support both day-to-day operations planning.4. Pell Grants, and other student aid programs, arstudents who under-report family income receive mThe Department estimates that net overawards in million annually.5. The Department of Education's strategic planniTo address these findings, the Administration will1. Maintain funding commitment to Pell Grants. Tincreases funding for the Pell program in order to award for the increasing number of eligible college 2. Propose to amend the Internal Revenue Code to aid data and tax data to prevent over-awards in Pprograms.3. Consider whether the upcoming reauthorization (HEA) should add degree completion and persistenstudent aid programs and increase the HEA's focupostsecondary education.(For more information, see Department of Educati

Year

2000200220032004

Target

>75%>75%>75%>75%

Actual

78%

2000200220032004

63.8%64.1%64.5%

63.3%

2000200220032004

25.4%23.5%20.6%

28.3%

2002 Actual

11,314

2003 Estimate

10,863

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: Federal Pell Grants

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Postsecondary Education

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

45

100100

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

61
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Annual Measure:Percentage of children participating in the Infants and Families program who demonstrate improved and sustained functional abilities, including progress in areas such as social, emotional, cognitive, communication and physical development (Proposed measure with no data available; targets under development)Long-term and Annual Measure:Percentage of participating families that report that early intervention services have increased their family's capacity to enhance their child’s development(Targets under development)Long-term and Annual Measure:Percentage of children ages birth through 2 who are served under the Infants and Families program as a proportion of the general population in this age range(Targets under development)

Program Summary:The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) Granprogram provides grants to states to identify disab(ages 0-2), and provide early intervention services The PART assessment found:1. The purpose of the IDEA Infants and Families punambiguous, and serves a national need. There iexclusively on the developmental needs of infants major purpose of this program is to coordinate res(public and private).2. The program has annual process performance mterm outcome-oriented performance targets or databilities outcomes. Thus, this program cannot dem

has on infants and toddlers. This is the primary r"Results." While annual data shows that this progsuch as the number of children served, there are nprogram performance -- the educational and develand toddlers served through this program. A longishould provide some information on the short and with disabilities served through this program.3. The Department has collaborated well with othmanages some other components of the program wof Education should continue to increase the progr

outcomes and holding states accountable for perfo4. In the case of some states, program funds are n(while this was a significant problem in the past, thard to reduce the number of states carrying forwTo address these findings, the Department will:1. Work with Congress on the upcoming IDEA reaincrease state accountability for child outcomes. Ethis program improves outcomes, the $10 million iBudget will help states meet their responsibilities 2. Establish long-term outcome-oriented objectivescollect annual performance data in a timely mann3. Work with Congress on the IDEA reauthorizatiresults, and reduce unnecessary regulatory and ad

Year Target Actual

19972001 80%

72%73%

19992000

1.6%1.8%

1.8%2.0%

2002 Actual

417

2003 Estimate

437

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: IDEA Grants for Infants and Families

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

44

29

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

0 Results / Accountability

0 100

62
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Annual Measure:Percentage of students with disabilities who meet or exceed basic levels in reading, math, and science in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)(Fourth grade reading data provided at right. Targets under development)Long-term and Annual Measure:Percentage of children with disabilities served by this program who earn a high school diploma(Targets under development)Long-term and Annual Measure:Other measures under development

Program Summary:The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Iprovides grants to states to provide special educatstudents with disabilities aged 3-21. In exchange fstates do, states must provide a "free appropriate meet each student's specific needs.The PART assessment found:1. The purpose of the IDEA Grants to States progr

and unambiguous. The IDEA statute’s requiremenhow states and schools educate students with disa2. While IDEA funding has more than tripled in rethat this funding has further improved educationadisabilities.3. The IDEA Grants to States program has annualong term performance targets. 4. Annual data shows marginal increases in the grdisabilities. However, Department of Education acwith disabilities (based on National Assessment of data) is not timely and needs improvement. Longcurrently underway may provide additional progr5. The program is not sufficiently focused on educaaccountability. 6. Services provided under special education are nfederal programs, such as Medicaid and VocationaTo address these findings, the Department will:1. Provide a $1 billion increase for this program. Wthis program improves outcomes, the Administratis necessary to help states and schools meet their while at the same time attempting to demonstrate results.2. Work with Congress on the IDEA reauthorizatiaccountability and results, and reduce unnecessarburdens.3. Collect timely NAEP data for students with disastandards as other NAEP data.4. Improve collaboration with other federal progra

Year

19982000

Target Actual

24.0%21.5%

199620002001

57%59%

52.6%56.2%57.0%

2002 Actual

7,529

2003 Estimate

8,529

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: IDEA Grants to States

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

56

43

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

11 Results / Accountability

0 100

63
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Annual Measure:Percentage of preschool children receiving special education and related services who have readiness skills when they reach kindergarten(Proposed measure with no data available; targets under development)Long-term and Annual Measure:Targets under developmentLong-term and Annual Measure:Targets under development

Program Summary:The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Iprovides grants to states to provide special educatchildren with disabilities aged 3-5.The PART assessment found:1. The Department of Education has no performanwith disabilities who are served under this progralongitudinal study should provide some informatioof this study are several years away, and will not peffectiveness or ongoing data on results.2. The program has no long term performance goaOnly about half of the states have established annIDEA preschool programs, or are in the process es3. The program only supplements existing funding Grants to States program (see related PART summwith disabilities aged 3-21. IDEA Preschool Grantprogrammatic requirements for preschool children distinct from IDEA Grants to States. While the inGrants program was to provide a financial incentichildren, this incentive is no longer necessary becapreschool children, and funding is provided throug4. The Department does not collaborate as well as programs, such as Head Start and Medicaid.To address these findings, the Department will:1. Maintain federal funding at last year's level untchance to work with Congress on the IDEA reauthstate and school accountability for having a real imreauthorization, the Administration will work witbest to serve preschool children with disabilities u2. Develop long term performance goals, and annupreschool children with disabilities.3. Improve collaboration with other federal progra

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

390

2003 Estimate

390

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: IDEA Preschool Grants

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

56

0

40

PlanningManagementPurpose

0 Results / Accountability

0 100

64
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Percentage of survey respondents that are "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" with comprehensiveness of NCES publications(Targets under development)Long-term Measure: Percentage of survey respondents that are "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" with timeliness of NCES publications(Targets under development)Long-term Measure: Percentage of survey respondents that are "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" with utility of NCES publications(Targets under development)

Program Summary:The statutory purpose of the National Assessment timely manner, a fair and accurate measurement reporting trends in such achievement in reading, mmatter." The program administers the National AProgress (NAEP), a series of assessments designed achievement in reading, mathematics, science, anThe assessment found that:1. Educational administrators, researchers, and pthe comprehensiveness, timeliness, and utility of pthe National Center for Educational Statistics (NCAssessment program is a part.2. The quality of the National Assessment system competitive bidding for Assessment contracts and national governing board composed of educators, r3. Despite overall good performance, the National demonstrate results due to the lack of long-term oIn response to these findings, the Department will1. Maintain its funding commitment to the Assessfunding at the 2003 request level, with a small incboard expenses.2. Establish long-term customer satisfaction targemeasures.

Year

2001

Target

90

Actual

90

2001 90 742001 90 90

2002 Actual

112

2003 Estimate

95

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: National Assessment

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Institute of Education Sciences

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

60

88

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

75 Results / Accountability

0 100

65
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Percentage of survey respondents that are "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" with comprehensiveness of NCES publications(Targets under development)Long-term Measure: Percentage of survey respondents that are "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" with timeliness of NCES publications(Targets under development)Long-term Measure: Percentage of survey respondents that are "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" with utility of NCES publications(Targets under development)

Program Summary:The National Center for Educational Statistics (Nreports statistics on the condition of education in tThe assessment revealed that:1. Educational administrators, researchers, and pwith the comprehensiveness, timeliness, and utilitservices. However, NCES has not articulated longhas it sought an external review to determine the program.2. NCES is well-managed, however the office needweb technology are compatible with overall Departhat information concerning contract managemenresources is presented in a clear, easy to interpret 3. Despite generally good performance, NCES doethe lack of long-term outcome measures.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Continue funding at the 2003 request level.2. Establish long-term targets for customer satisfa3. Seek an external review of NCES activities to dresources across project areas and the quality of e

Year

2001

Target

90

Actual

90

2001 90 742001 90 90

2002 Actual

85

2003 Estimate

95

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: National Center for Education Statistics

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Institute of Education Sciences

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

50

78

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

75 Results / Accountability

0 100

66
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: No measures under development, program recommended for eliminationAnnual Measure: No measures under development, program recommended for eliminationEfficiency Measure: No measures under development, program recommended for elimination

Program Summary:The Occupational and Employment Information pimprove career and school choices of high school aThe assessment found:1. The impacts of this program are not known. Cumeasure program outputs, such as number of careto parents and students. The program is currently impact this information has on student outcomes. of this program. 2. The program has adequate financial managemeare collected from grantees are not readily availabthe Internet, and do not reflect program impacts. 3. All activities under this program are redundant the Vocational Education State Grants program.In response to these findings, the 2004 Budget proso that Federal resources can be can be used to su

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

10

2003 Estimate

0

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: Occupational and Employment 

Information Program Type: Competitive Grants

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Vocational and Adult Education

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

50

14

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

0 Results / Accountability

0 100

67
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Measures under developmentAnnual Measure: Measures under development

Program Summary:Safe and Drug-Free Schools State Grants awards districts for programs to reduce youth crime and dThe PART assessment found that:1. The program has failed to demonstrate effectiveindicators use national surveys that don’t measurState and local levels. 2. A 2001 RAND study determined that the struct

Schools State Grants program is fundamentally flSafe and Drug Free grant funds are spread too thiinterventions.3. Program financial management is good, but the attain higher quality program performance informtechnical assistance through the State Grants aut4. The Department of Education has authored "Prattempt to influence how school districts run Safe Principles include guidelines for instituting measuresearch-based programs, and strong evaluation tAgency needs to provide performance measures thprogramming decisions and are of equal use to Staadministrators. In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Make a modest reduction in funding and tie futdemonstration of results. 2. Develop a new strategy for measuring program local programming decisions and is of equal use to administrators.3. Study ways to redesign the program in order to support high quality, research-based strategies at 

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

472

2003 Estimate

472

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: Safe and Drug Free Schools State Grants

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Ineffective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

38

57

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

0 Results / Accountability

0 100

68
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Annual Measure:Recovery rate on Department-held defaulted loansLong-term and Annual Measure:Pell Grant dollars erroneously paid to student aid applicants(Note: Enactment of the Administration's IRS Verificationproposal would enable ED to develop more aggressivetargets.)Long-term Measure:Consolidate 14 Federal Student Aid systems[Note: Of the 14 legacy systems, three have been retired,four have been reengineered, and three are currentlybeing reengineered.]

Program Summary:The Student Aid Administration provides funding Education's postsecondary school federal student athe right amount of money goes to the right recipiThe assessment found:1. The Department has made some progress in intreducing erroneous payments in the Pell Grant prloans. Despite this progress, however, student aid risk for fraud and error. For example, the Departstudents hundreds of million of dollars in aid each resolved ongoing accounting problems, and there aweaknesses in school monitoring and determining 2. The Department must address ongoing financiadevelop a comprehensive strategy for risk manage3. More focus is needed on improving strategic plaDepartment must develop a unit cost methodology targets can be established. The Department must based" contracts so that tasks are measured againprocess deliverables.To address these findings, the Department will:1. Develop a unit-cost framework and meaningful 2. Improve risk management strategies, such as exproblem institutions and IRS income verification t3. Implement financial system integration and im

Year

2001200220032007

Target

7.2%8.0%9.5%

Actual

7.8%

7.28%

2001200220042005

$336 M$235 M$202 M

$350 M

20022006 100%

21%

2002 Actual

886

2003 Estimate

932

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: Student Aid Administration

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Federal Student Aid

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

70

63

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

69
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Annual Measures for postsecondarystudents: Percentage of participants who entered employment in the 1st quarter after program exit(New measure: result of common measures exercise; targets to be determined beginning in 2003)Long-term and Annual Measure for secondary students:Attainment of a high school diploma, certificate, or GED(New measure: result of common measures exercise; targets to be determined beginning in 2003)Long-term and Annual Measure for secondary students:Entry into employment or enrollment in postsecondary education/advanced training(New measure: result of common measures exercise; targets to be determined beginning in 2003)

Program Summary:The Tech-Prep Education State Grants program pexpand 2 + 2 programs (i.e., 2 years of secondary eyears of postsecondary education) with the goal of students who receive degrees in technical fields. The assessment found:1. Grant recipients need clearer guidance on the pprogram. The Department has received various fecommunity that the broad scope and varied activitconfusion at the local level about the key objective2. The program is redundant with allowable activiVocational Education State Grant program.3. A series of national evaluations indicate that thmeasurable advantage for high school students in postsecondary enrollment, and academic achievempositive effect on earnings for some program partidata is not yet available for this program. In response to these findings, the 2004 Budget proso that Federal resources for this program can be proven track record for effectiveness, such as Pell 

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

108

2003 Estimate

108

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: Tech-Prep Education State Grants

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Vocational and Adult Education

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

56

43

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

0 Results / Accountability

0 100

70
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Annual Measure:Percentage of participants who entered employment in the 1st quarter after program exit(New measure: result of common measures exercise; targets to be determined beginning in 2003)Long-term and Annual Measure:Percentage of participants who were employed in the 1st quarter after program exit who remain employed in 2nd and 3rd quarters after exit(New measure: result of common measures exercise; targets to be determined beginning in 2003)Long-term and Annual Measure:Percentage change in earnings: Based on (1) preenrollment to program exit; (2) 1st quarter after exit to 3rd quarter after exit(New measure: result of common measures exercise; targets to be determined beginning in 2003)

Program Summary:The Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational program provides funding to two institutions that Indian students.The assessment found:1. This is a small program with the basic purpose providing vocational education and training to app"Vocational" education provides skill development fields and thus is more job focused than traditiona2. The extent to which this program improves outcknown. There is no data collected on current perfnational evaluation of this program. 3. The program has adopted a new reporting framperformance targets and the necessary data to supIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Seek legislative program reforms that include inimproved performance reporting, and a clear focus and technical skills of post-secondary Indian stude2. Explore whether efficiencies can be gained by coother programs serving similar objectives.3. Adopt common performance measures with simmeasure to gauge cost-effectiveness. Set short and 

common measures and develop strategy for collectthese common measures.

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

6

2003 Estimate

6

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: Tribally Controlled Postsecondary 

Vocational and Technical Institutions Program Type: Competitive Grants

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Vocational and Adult Education

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

30

0

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

0 Results / Accountability

0 100

71
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:College completion rate of low-income first-generation college students who are program participants (Baseline is 29%)Long-term Measure:College Persistence rate, as measured by the extent students remain in the same college from year to year, of low-income, first-generation college students who are program participantsAnnual Measure:College Persistence rate of low-income, first-generation college students who are program participants (Baseline is 67%)

Program Summary:The purpose of TRIO Student Support Services (Sand retention rates among low-income, first-generproviding counseling and tutoring. ED provides geducation to provide these services.The PART assessment found:1. A program evaluation demonstrated some positpercentage point positive effect on bachelor's degrstudents against a comparison group not receiving noted other less impressive but similarly positive their college studies until graduation.2. While evaluation findings are generally positiverecently established specific goals and targets for program has only collected baseline data for the pmeasure progress on the SSS goals until next yearperformance relative to these measures is not yet 3. The program has acquired useful performance inot yet using it to improve program-wide performaused for project monitoring. 4. SSS does not attract a significant amount of firsand regulatory constraints.In response to these findings, the Department will1. Closely monitor new SSS annual program goals performance report data to improve the program.2. Explore policies that would reduce statutory anqualified first-time grantees in order to encourage program. 3. Collect and establish second-year data for perfo

Year

2000200320052007

Target

29%

29.5%30.5%

31%

Actual

29%

2000200320052007

67%68%69%70%

67%

2000200120022003

67%67%

67.5%

68%

67%

2002 Actual

259

2003 Estimate

259

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: TRIO Student Support Services

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Postsecondary Education

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

55

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

50 Results / Accountability

0 100

72
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Annual Measure:College Enrollment rate of higher-risk low-income, firstgeneration college students who are program participantsLong-term Measure:College Enrollment rate of all program participants

Program Summary:The purpose of TRIO Upward Bound (UB) is to incrate of low-income high school students through inimprove their academic performance and college pgrants to postsecondary institutions and other orgsuch services as residential summer school, visits The PART assessment found:1. A recent evaluation of UB determined this progincreasing college preparation and enrollment of iHowever, there is evidence that UB has significanenrollment and program persistence for "high riskrisk" students include those with no expectation odegree). Unfortunately, the study's findings reveatargeted to these students. The Department of Edfor this program include a measure of college enroprogram participants. The strong evaluation evide

"ineffective" rating.2. The Department has only recently established sprogram. As a result, the program has only collect

and will not be able to measure progress on the UB Therefore, program performance is not yet known3. The program has implemented a plan to addresinadequate grantee monitoring and unclear reportTRIO Student Support Services program, UB does amount of first-time grantees due to statutory and 4. The program purpose is clear, but the program target the most high-need students.In response to these findings, the Department will1. Complete an anticipated rulemaking process in the proportion of high-risk students served by UB 2. Provide technical assistance to new applicants arisk participants.3. Explore policies that would encourage more quaparticipate in the program.4. Closely monitor new UB annual program goals performance report data to improve the program.

Year

2000200320052007

Target

34%35%36%37%

Actual

34%

2000200320052007

65%65%65%65%

65%

2002 Actual

264

2003 Estimate

268

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: TRIO Upward Bound

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Ineffective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Postsecondary Education

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

55

71

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

17 Results / Accountability

0 100

73
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Annual Measures for postsecondarystudents: Percentage of participants who entered employment in the 1st quarter after program exit(New measure: result of common measures exercise; targets to be determined beginning in 2003)Long-term and Annual Measure for secondary students:Attainment of a high school diploma, certificate, or GED(New measure: result of common measures exercise; targets to be determined beginning in 2003)Long-term and Annual Measure for secondary students:Entry into employment or enrollment in postsecondary education/advanced training(New measure: result of common measures exercise; targets to be determined beginning in 2003)

Program Summary:The Vocational Education State Grants provides fvocational education programs. These programs, wschools and postsecondary schools, provide studenand occupational training.The assessment found:1. A series of national evaluations indicate that thmeasurable advantage for high school students in postsecondary enrollment, and academic achievem2. Annual performance data show that many stateprogress in achieving positive student outcomes. Fpostsecondary "Voc. Ed." students obtain a degree 3. There are significant problems with how the prograntees, making it difficult to know how the monbeing achieved. For example, many states have a "Voc. Ed." student, making it difficult to compare develop national performance statistics. In response to these findings, the Budget proposes program reforms. Specifically:1. Grantee funding will be contingent on a rigorououtcomes are being achieved.2. Grantees will have the flexibility to focus prograserve students in a given locality.3. States will have the option to redirect high schotheir Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Edumaximize flexibility.4. The program will correct all outstanding data conew "common" performance measures that will allprogram is achieving student outcomes and enable programs serving similar objectives. The Departmtargets based on the common measures and develonecessary data to institute common measures.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

1,180

2003 Estimate

1,180

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: Vocational Education State Grants

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Ineffective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Vocational and Adult Education

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

67

43

20

PlanningManagementPurpose

0 Results / Accountability

0 100

74
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Annual Measure:Percent of participants placed in employment(Targets beyond 2004 under development)Long-term and Annual Measure:Of individuals placed in employment, the percent who obtain employment in an integrated setting at or above the minimum wage(Targets beyond 2004 under development)Long-term and Annual Measure:Among individuals exiting the program in competitive employment, the median ratio of their average hourly wage to the state’s average hourly wage for all employed individuals(Targets beyond 2004 under development)

Program Summary:The purpose of Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Stawith disabilities obtain employment. The program with the most significant disabilities. Program seneeds of the individual, and include education, vocrehabilitation technology, and supported employmrequired one-stop partners under the Workforce InNetworks under the Ticket to Work and Work IncThe PART assessment found:1. The program's purpose is clear. While the federother job training programs, most of them are not needs of individuals with disabilities as this one is2. Annual data and longitudinal evaluations show is, in general, successful in meeting its program gowide variation in performance across states. 3. The program has adopted a new, common measthat it can be compared to other Federal programs However, the program must establish specific perfnecessary data to support the measures.4. The Department of Education could do a much bprogram by using existing data, making these dattimely manner, and improving collaboration with problems persist even though the administrative cprogram are high compared to other formula granTo address these findings, the Department will:1. In the upcoming reauthorization, work with the funding with performance, and hold all states accoIn this reauthorization, the Administration will reprogram should be reclassified as discretionary.2. Establish specific performance targets in the oudata to support new common measures. Also, consmeasures are appropriate for this program.3. Take significant steps to improve program mandata and make these data available to the public i

Year

2000200120032004

Target

62.7%

63%

63.2%63.2%

Actual

62.5%60.7%

2000200120032004

82.5%86.2%86.6%86.8%

86.0%87.6%

2000200120032004

0.570.570.580.59

0.570.56

2002 Actual

2,456

2003 Estimate

2,590

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Education

Program: Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

44

57

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

42 Results / Accountability

0 100

75

77 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

DOE’s progress ranks it among the most improved agencies. It continues to address remaining 

challenges, including having people with the right skills to carry out its diverse missions, lingering 

weaknesses in how it plans and manages capital investments, and managing a contractor 

workforce of over 100,000. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress

Human Capital 

DOE has made progress getting the expertise needed in its most critical mission areas, reducing 

management layers, and streamlining operations. It has established new qualifications for its 

project and contract management staff’ to strengthen its scrutiny of contractor performance. 

Competitive Sourcing 

DOE is reviewing more than 1,100 federal and 1,000 contractor positions. Its status reflects that 

it has not completed reviews of 10 percent of its commercial positions (994 Federal positions). 

Financial Performance 

DOE received a clean opinion on its financial statement in 2001. Its financial controls have no 

major weaknesses, but are not yet integrated with its performance management systems. 

Expanding E-Government 

DOE’s “yellow” status reflects its progress developing the financial analysis needed to support 

its information technology investments and participating in E-Government initiatives. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

DOE’ has not identified how it intends to address remaining problems in defining benchmarks to 

assess its performance and show how it intends to use its resources to achieve them. 

Research and Development (R&D) Investment Criteria 

(Government-wide) 

DOE evaluated nearly all of its R&D programs this year using the R&D Investment Criteria, 

putting it at the forefront of agency efforts to apply this tool to evaluate program performance. 

NASA and the National Science Foundation also made progress, but the government-wide status 

score of this initiative remains “red” until other agencies more meaningfully implement the 

Investment Criteria. 

Program Assessments 

DOE’s assessments indicate that its programs are reasonably well planned and managed. 

DOE needs to better define its R&D goals and long- and short-term benchmarks for assessing 

whether it is achieving its goals – a problem common to many federal research programs. 

Y G

R G

Y G

Y G

R Y

R Y
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measures:Capability of reducing long-term radiotoxicity of high level nuclear wasteCapability of reducing metric tonnes of high level waste produced by commercial nuclear reactorsAnnual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The goal of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFtreat the nuclear waste generated by the operation plants. If DOE's efforts are successful, the new trreduce both the quantity and radioactive hazards the cost of disposing of the waste in a remote undesignificantly reduced as well.1. The assessment indicates that the program purheld by parties committed to an expanded role for States and abroad to address long-term energy sececonomic concerns.2. Because the program is just beginning, indepenbeen conducted; however, the program has been dinternational government, industry, and academic 3. Long-term and near-term program goals have ymeasurable terms. 4. The program budget cannot readily demonstratchanges on performance.In response to these fundings, the Administration 1. Provide increased funding in the 2004 Budget fotechnologies for reducing the quantity and toxicity 2. Revise long-term and annual measures and prethat defines long-term and near-term goals in meacurrent baseline.3. Relate program funding to its goals, plans, and 4. Establish plans for periodic independent evaluaand recommend program improvements.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

20302015

Target

-99%-75%

Actual

2002 Actual

77

2003 Estimate

18

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Nuclear Energy

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

89

88

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

50 Results / Accountability

0 100

78
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The Office of Science's Advanced Scientific Compufunds research in applied math, computer scienceprovides high-performance computer facilities for Science research programs.The program received a perfect score in the purpothe management section, mainly as a result of stawithin the Office of Science that lead the ASCR prdefined mission and merit-based reviews for awarprimary cause for the lower scores for planning ancurrent lack of adequate long-term and annual peNevertheless, the program has made significant stmeasures despite the problems inherent in predict

scientific progress. Other findings include:1. While it provides a valuable service for the rest 

ASCR program was the only one within the Office strategic planning, primarily because it lacks its obecause it has recast its focus between several larg2. The program does not yet have regular reviews processes by ad hoc panels composed of outside visTo address these findings:1. The 2004 Budget provides funds to operate the at 100 percent of maximum capacity, the same as 2. The Administration will work to reform its perfunderstanding that basic research programs face predict future progress.3. The Department will develop an implementatioprogram, in consultation of the program's advisory 4. The Department will institute a formal committprogram by September, 2003.* $3 million was transferred to the Department of 

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

154

2003 Estimate

167

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Advanced Scientific Computing Research

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Science

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

44

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

25 Results / Accountability

0 100

79
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Ability to perform three dimensional predictive simulations necessary to support weapons system certification and refurbishment schedulesAnnual Goal to Measure Progress in Achieving Long-term Measure:Computing capability, measured in trillions of operations per second, that are developed, installed, and testedAnnual Goal to Measure Progress in Achieving Long-term Measure:Number of weapon system components analyzed using ASCI computer codes to certify their performance

Program Summary:The Advanced Simulation and Computing program nuclear weapons stockpile is safe and ready, if necdone without detonating any of the weapons to see age and as they are modified. Therefore, ASCI usexperimental data to understand the effect that agweapons will have on the warheads. Approximatelfunding is for hardware while the remaining three tools that support scientific experiments at the thrlaboratories. Overall, the program scores well because it has a cand has clear and measurable goals. Additional fin1. For the most part, the program makes a unique area and there does not appear to be any other via2. ASCI has specific goals that guide the program some of the annual goals are somewhat vague, thegoal of simulating the performance of nuclear wea3. A possible area of concern with the ASCI prograprogram not be diverted to other, non-weapons relprogram should focus on using its resources to the without developing redundancy in the three weapIn response to these findings, the Administration in the program meets requirements specifically reand does not develop unneeded redundancy.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2009

Target

2009

Actual

2000200320052007

1030

100200

10

2002200420062008

4

101728

4

2002 Actual

704

2003 Estimate

725

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Advanced Simulation and Computing 

(ASCI) Program Type: Research and Development

Rating: Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: National Nuclear Security Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

91

100

83

PlanningManagementPurpose

85 Results / Accountability

0 100

80
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The Office of Science's Basic Energy Sciences (BES

materials sciences, chemistry, geosciences, and asprovides national user facilities for over 7,000 resefunded by DOE, other federal research agencies, fprivate sector.The program received a perfect score in the purpothe management section, mainly as a result of stawithin the Office of Science that lead the BES promission, merit-based reviews for awarding contracregarded large project management practices. Thscores for planning and results is the program's cuterm and annual performance measures. Neverthsignificant strides toward developing such measurinherent in predicting and then measuring scientiinclude:1. The program is focused and well managed, and program to institute a process whereby an ad hoc favorably reviewed the program's research portfolreport validated the program’s merit-based peer recontracts and grants.2. The program's construction projects, including tSource, are all well within 10 percent of their origTo address these findings:1. The 2004 Budget provides funds to operate the percent of maximum capacity (the same as in 2003 over 2002), and to design or start construction on research centers, which are the only approved new starts in the Office of Science budget. The reductiincludes the decreasing costs needed for Spallation 2. The Administration will work to reform its perfsensitive to the difficulties that basic research propredict future scientific progress.

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

997

2003 Estimate

1,020

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Basic Energy Sciences

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Science

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

67

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

40 Results / Accountability

0 100

81
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The Biological and Environmental Research (BERclimate change, environmental remediation, genombiology, and medical sciences, and provides nationand private sector scientists across the range of BEThe program received a perfect score in the purpothe management section, mainly as a result of stawithin the Office of Science that lead the BER promission, merit-based reviews for awarding contracregarded large project management practices. Thscores for planning and results is the program's cuterm and annual performance measures. Neverthsignificant strides toward developing such measurinherent in measuring and predicting scientific pr1. The program is focused, well managed, and has genomics revolution. 2. The program is well-coordinated with other fedethe National Institutes of Health for genomics and 3. The program's current construction project, the and Functional Genomics, is on schedule and with4. The program is regularly reviewed by panels of To address these findings:1. The 2004 Budget provides funds to operate the percent of maximum capacity (the same as in 2003 over 2002), as well as the program's efforts in the Initiative and Genomes to Life initiative.2. The Administration will work to reform its perfwhile being sensitive to the difficulties that basic rattempting to predict future scientific progress.* $20 million was transferred to the Department o

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

523

2003 Estimate

484

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Biological and Environmental Research

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Science

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

67

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

40 Results / Accountability

0 100

82
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Achieve high customer satisfaction ratings (scores above 7.2) based on annual independent surveys (scale 1-10)Annual Measures:Achieve high ratings for: Efficiency (actual generation output in cycles/second[cps] vs the 60 cps goal); and Reliability (% of operating time generation is within its electricity production tolerances) based on nat'l standardsMeet safety standards of 3.3 accidents/200,000 hrs workedAnnual Measures:Make planned debt payment to the Trerasury to repay the long-term ocst of building hydropower facilitiesRecover subsidies identified by GAO incurred during construction of hydropower facilitiesAdopt industry-wide measures of efficiency, such as the cost of generating and transmitting power/kilowatthour

Program Summary:The Bonneville Power Administration markets powEngineers and Bureau of Reclamation dams locateStates. Bonneville is responsible for recovering all power to customers. The program assessment demonstrates that Bonnprograms effectively, meeting national standards to the four Pacific Northwest states while also balrequirements. Additional findings include: 1. It conducts annual financial audits and extensivreviews for power generation and its transmission programs. Bonneville's high score is based on the programs and the reliable delivery of power. 2. Bonneville's score is reduced because the progracontribution to addressing a problem in the industlaw made on a preference basis to a special class odesigned. Developing power rates and customer alrequirements often takes years and is an inefficienbidders) and burdensome process. In addition, accAccounting Office (GAO), Bonneville historically h3. Bonneville competes with the private sector, pasales to California. 4. Bonnevile also has not developed adequate long targets and measures, particularly efficiency measBased on these findings:1. Bonneville will improve its long and short term performance.2. The Administration will develop and collect datcomparable to those used by private industry.3. Bonneville will develop recommendations to impmarketing functions and the recovers its costs.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

200120022003

Target

7.2 to 7.67.2 to 7.67.2 to 7.6

Actual

7.4

200120012001

 100

 903.3

173.1

98.7

2.0

2001 $135 M $230 M

2002 Actual

-52

2003 Estimate

-19

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Bonneville Power Administration

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Power Marketing Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

89

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

73 Results / Accountability

0 100

83
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure (new): Design packages developed and demonstrated that can achieve 40 to 70 percent increases in energy efficiency (depending on climate and home type) relative to the Model Energy CodeLong-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The Building Technologies program develops techstandards for making residential and commercial energy efficient. The program has a very clear purpose, but needs tmethodology for estimating the public benefits of ipriorities within the program and among other ap

development (R&D) programs. Other findings inc1. Two of the program's activities -- "Zero Energy Band Design Strategies" -- are largely duplicative. design packages for buildings. 2. The program has successfully "graduated" some the private sector for commercialization. A Nationof four (among hundreds) of the program's R&D acproduced positive returns to the public on the Fed3. The program has difficulty developing long-term capture the diversity of activities supported. The defining annual performance measures, a challeng4. The program is part of a division that completed 2002, which should improve program planning anIn response to these findings and an assessment othe R&D Investment Criteria developed as part of Agenda, the Budget proposes to:1. Redirect existing funding for lighting R&D towatechnologies that support the Department's propoInitiative;2. Combine and reduce overall funding for duplicadeveloping energy efficient building designs; and3. Develop adequate long-term and annual measu

Year

2008

Target

10

Actual

0

2002 Actual

66

2003 Estimate

61

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Building Technologies

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

70

67

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

42 Results / Accountability

0 100

84
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Capital cost ($/kW) Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is a new, cleaner and more efficient way to use coal to make electricity, and potentially other products. Unfortunately, construction costs of these plants are still too high, and DOE- funded research is trying to lower them.Long-term Measure: Change in cost of electricity (COE) from sequestration (%)To ensure that coal remains in the energy mix, it may be necessary to have a way to keep CO2 out of the environment (sequestered), but right now the available processes are very expensive, increasing the cost of electricity 30-70%.Annual measure: Measures under development

Program Summary:The Clean Coal Research Initiative encompasses including Advanced Central Power Systems, CarbPower Demonstrations, and Innovations for Existiways to use coal more cleanly and efficiently. Key findings, in conjunction with the R&D Investm1. These programs have a clear purpose and have articulate potential public benefits;2. Too high a proportion of funding has been direc(commercial-scale "demonstration", which should 

private-sector interests). This program had over 5toward construction of commercial-size "demonstr3. The program's management scores reflect the laeffectiveness measures, inability to adequately docthe quality of non-competitive awards, and lack of value (cost, schedule and performance) of projects4. The results scores reflect the fact the Departmeannual performance measures. The PART processaccountability mechanisms, brought new thinking measurement, and improved the Program's metricperformance targets with expected dates of comple5. The Department has begun to add rigor to its beit still does not consistently use the methods recomAcademy of Sciences, the Department is making pAs a result of the above, the Administration will:1. Improve research effectiveness by reducing fundplacing greater emphasis in the Budget on fundin2. Consolidate the coal research accounts under onmanagement;3. Improve tracking of cost, schedule and performaspecific program execution efficiency measures; an4. Continue to support improved benefits modeling increase accuracy and consistency between progra(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

20022008

Target

$1000

Actual

$1400

20022010 +10

+ 30-70

2002 Actual

338

2003 Estimate

316

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Clean Coal Research Initiative

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Fossil Energy

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

45

67

83

PlanningManagementPurpose

51 Results / Accountability

0 100

85
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Percentage reduction in program costs(New measure)Long-term Measure:Number of years ahead of schedule that all sites are completed(New measure)Annual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The Environmental Management program protectenvironment by cleaning up contamination from nenergy research at 114 Department of Energy siteThe assessment found that the program is generamanaging cleanup activities. However, the progracompleting its work on time and within budget. O1. The program has a clear purpose, a well-defined role in accomplishing the cleanup mission.2. Although the program does good strategic plannindividual work activities is a significant problem project management and ineffective use of perform3. Despite its success in completing cleanup of 75 have increased from $147 billion to $220 billion anslipped from 2046 to 2070.4. The program recently drafted revised cleanup preduction, cost, and schedule goals. Nevertheless, schedule performance measures makes it difficult progress toward these goals.As a result of these findings:1. The Budget will propose additional funding of $implement significantly revised cleanup plans, whhealth and the environment while reducing costs aschedules.2. DOE will continue to develop with federal and splans that will reduce risk, accelerate schedules, a3. The Administration will develop new annual co(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

20082035

Target

-2%

-29%

Actual

2035 -35 years

2002 Actual

6,450

2003 Estimate

6,903

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Environmental Management (Cleanup)

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Ineffective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Environmental and Other Defense Activities

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

73

88

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

20 Results / Accountability

0 100

86
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Percentage reduction in program costs(New measure)Long-term Measure:Number of years ahead of schedule that all sites are completed(New measure)Annual Measure:Measure under development

Program Summary:The Environmental Management research and demore effective, less expensive, and safer environmthe cleanup of contamination from nuclear weaponresearch at 114 Department of Energy sites.The assessment found that the program has a cleasuccessfully produced numerous technologies, but appear to be effective because the cleanup program uncontrolled cost and schedule growth. Other find1. The program uses diverse resources including tuniversities, and other federal and state programs 2. Except for research conducted at Congressional merit review and competition in awarding its rese3. The program includes research and developmencleanup mission.4. It is difficult for the program to demonstrate its Environmental Management cleanup goals due to measures.As a result of the findings:1. The Budget will focus on funding expertise for salternatives for costly, high-risk cleanup approach2. DOE will continue to rely on merit review and cquality of the research program.3. The Administration will develop adequate annu(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

20082035

Target

-2%

-29%

Actual

2035 -35 years

2002 Actual

247

2003 Estimate

92

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Environmental Management (R&D)

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Environmental and Other Defense Activities

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

64

75

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

25 Results / Accountability

0 100

87
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Amount of maintenance deferred from year to year that would otherwise be required to keep a facility in originally intended condition. Current NNSA data is under development. (Industry standard is to maintain the total cost of deferred maintenance at 5% or less of the total cost to replace the facility.)Long-term Measure: Amount of square feet of excess building space eliminated

Program Summary:The purpose of the Facilities and Infrastructure Ris to restore the physical infrastructure of the nucDepartment established the program in 2000 to adhighlighted in numerous studies. Even though it indications are that NNSA manages it well.Findings from the PART assessment include the f1. The program has a specific purpose--to refurbish 

complex and reduce the backlog of maintenance thover the past decade. The Department has an adeqprocess that should enable it to achieve its goals oamount of deferred maintenance by 2005 and mee2009. 2. The program has a Ten-Year Comprehensive Siprioritizes projects across the weapons complex. Ubacklog of maintenance work will be reduced to a in industry by 2009. It will also lower overall maireducing the amount of unused building space in tmillion square feet. 3. The program appears to have strong program mlevel, with detailed involvement at the site level to funds.4. Given that the program is new (its first year of yet have an extensive record of results.5. Because the program is only two years old, and measurable, there may be some overlap between tNNSA infrastructure related programs. For exambudget line for facility readiness, and provides funscience campaigns budget lines. Both of these contthe weapons complex so it is an area that may reqthe future.The Administration plans to:1. Review all infrastructure programs to ensure ththe FIRP and other NNSA programs; and2. Monitor actual results and change the program 

Year

20052009

Target

Stabilized

Ind. Std.

Actual

20042009

435,000

3,000,000

2002 Actual

197

2003 Estimate

243

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Facilities and Infrastructure

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: National Nuclear Security Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

90

100

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

88
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measures:Capital cost of fuel cell generating equipment ($/kW)Long-term Measures:Fuel conversion efficiency (% of heat in fuel converted to electricity)Annual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The Fossil Energy Fuel Cell program conducts resstationary fuel cells that are intended to generate electricity system (grid power) or for on-site use (dThe relatively high scores in strategic planning, preflect changes in response to external reviews. Threvamped to: 1. Establish new long-term outcome-oriented mea2. Implement a new strategic approach that focusethe use of competitive research teams; and3. Establish specific management tracking systemAdditional findings:4. While the predecessor programs have successfuspecialized markets (such as back-up power for daare relatively low because the Department has not annual performance measures.5. Some programs are reaching completion (e.g. mdemonstration).In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Work to establish specific annual performance mand2. Redirect funds from programs that are reaching laboratory research efforts (e.g. new materials for methods to make hydrogen available (fuel reformito sulfur capture or tolerance.)

Year

200020022015

Target

$400/kw

Actual

$4500

$1000-

1500/kw

20022015

50- 60%

70-80%

53%

2002 Actual

58

2003 Estimate

47

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Fuel Cells (Stationary)

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Fossil Energy

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

73

67

83

PlanningManagementPurpose

40 Results / Accountability

0 100

89
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The Office of Science's Fusion Energy Sciences (FEand research in plasma science, fusion science, anproviding the intellectual basis for a future fusion power.The program received a perfect score in the purpoin the management section, mainly as a result of swithin the Office of Science that lead the FES progmission, merit-based reviews for awarding contracregarded large project management practices. Thscores for planning and results is the program's cuterm and annual performance measures. Neverthsignificant strides toward developing such measurinherent in predicting and then measuring scientiinclude:1. The program delivers projects on cost and schedconstruction project, the National Spherical Torus current decontamination and decommissioning prTest Reactor.2. The program receives a significant amount of exresearch and program management strategies.3. The program budget is not sufficiently aligned wimpact of funding changes on performance is readresearch elements are distinguished from applied To address these findings:1. The 2004 Budget provides funds to operate the percent of maximum capacity (the same as in 2003 2002).2. The Administration will work to reform its perfunderstanding the difficulties that basic research predict future scientific progress.3. The Department will work to further clarify thprogram goals and budget.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

247

2003 Estimate

257

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Fusion Energy Sciences

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Science

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

73

56

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

90
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Medium-term Measure:Amount of natural gas in the US that can be made available to the market(Economically Recoverable Resource (ERR), in trillion cubic feet - Tcf. ERR is very sensitive to market price: 2002 Baseline= 740 Tcf at $2.00/1000 cf and 920 Tcf at $3.50/1000 cf.)Annual measure: Measures under development

Program Summary:The Gas Exploration and Technology Program, to researches better ways for commercial companies natural gas resources. The application of the PART found:1. As currently executed much of the program's effunique, since private industry undertakes similar 2.A recent National Academy of Sciences study con

additional production attributed to the program wof natural gas consumption from 1978 -2000. This with a similar amount for oil, was achieved at a FNAS committee noted "It is difficult to separate thand contributions made by industry and others."3. The program's long-term measures are adequamade progress improving annual performance mewith completion dates. However, the Department development of adequate annual performance goa4. The Department could not document a comprehcost, schedule and performance of this research (enot identify decision points for possible mid-term c5. The National Academy of Sciences study outlinebenefits that would provide consistency within anthe Academy's analysis attempted to track where public, and to separate the contribution of the prohave occurred without federal involvement. The Drefine its own benefits models, has not yet adopted measures but is making progress in this area.As a result of these findings, the Administration w1. Re-examine project selection to improve outcom2. Continue performance measurement improvemannual measures tied to long-term goals; and3. Support improvements in benefits modeling.[Note: Due to restructuring of the program 2002 anot be comparable to 2004.]

Year

200220082015

Target

760860

Actual

740

2002 Actual

20

2003 Estimate

15

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Gas Exploration and Production

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Ineffective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Fossil Energy

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

45

44

33

PlanningManagementPurpose

25 Results / Accountability

0 100

91
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiageneration of nuclear reactors. Generation IV reageneration of nuclear energy and fuel cycle technoimprovements in the sustainability, proliferation a

and reliability, and economics.The assessment indicates that the Generation IV NInitiative has a very clear purpose and is the prodplanning with nine other nations of the Generatio(GIF). Additional findings include:1. The program has established long-term goals to nuclear reactors but needs to quantify measurable 2. DOE has prepared a detailed research roadmap has created the GIF, an international planning anprogress and guide research investments.3. The program budget does not associate funding performance goals, plans, and performance measuof funding changes cannot currently be determine4. Annual performance goals, as outlined in the prdefine work to be accomplished but not adequate msuccess. In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Develop measurable outcome indicators for the performance goals identified in the program's deta2. Develop a plan for independent program evaluamanagers and policy decision makers; and3. Define relationship between funding and the prperformance measures.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

4

2003 Estimate

8

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems 

Initiative Program Type: Research and Development

Rating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Nuclear Energy

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

89

71

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

63 Results / Accountability

0 100

92
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Average cost of power from geothermal technologies (cents per kilowatt-hour)Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The Geothermal Technologies program develops te

of geothermal energy resources, which include heathe earth's surface, as well as molten rock and maThe program has a very clear purpose, but needs tmethodology for estimating the public benefits of ipriorities within the program and among other ap

development (R&D) programs. Other findings inc1. In 2000, the National Research Council (NRC) rcontributed to the development of advanced drillinlowered costs and opened up a larger fraction of thfor competitive power production. 2. The NRC also indicated that much of the progranear-term technologies, and suggested a change in geothermal systems, which are engineered reservoeconomically unproductive geothermal resources.3. The program's "Industry Support" activity fundprojects that do not significantly contribute to the 4. The program has difficulty developing meaningmeasures, a challenge for many R&D programs. 5. The program is part of a division that completed 2002, which should improve program planning anIn response to these findings and an assessment othe R&D Investment Criteria developed as part of Agenda, the Budget proposes to:1. Continue to redirect resources within the progrgeothermal systems R&D;2. Terminate the program's "Industry Support" ac3. Develop adequate annual measures.

Year

20002010

Target

3

3 to 5

Actual

5 to 8

2002 Actual

27

2003 Estimate

27

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Geothermal Technology

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

80

78

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

42 Results / Accountability

0 100

93
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The Office of Science's High Energy Physics (HEPnational and international particle accelerator expenergy (particle) physics and related fields, includcosmology.The program received a perfect score in the purpothe management section, mainly as a result of stawithin the Office of Science that lead the HEP promission and merit-based reviews for awarding conthe lower scores for planning and results is the prlong-term and annual performance measures. Nemade significant strides toward developing such minherent in measuring and then predicting scientiinclude:1. The program's results score was lowered furtheand upgrade projects that are underperforming or because the program is undertaking several high-2. The program coordinates its research strategy wFoundation through a jointly sponsored advisory cprogram does not yet have regular reviews of its rby ad hoc panels composed of outside experts exteTo address these findings:1. The 2004 Budget will focus resources on addresproblems while operating the program's fully-funcpercent of maximum capacity (the same as in 2003 2002).2. The Department will institute a priority-setting medium and large construction projects within the reached the full construction phase.3. The Administration will work to reform its perfwhile being sensitive to the problems that basic reattempting to predict future scientific progress.4. The Department will institute a formal committprogram by September, 2003.

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

713

2003 Estimate

725

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: High Energy Physics

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Science

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

67

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

23 Results / Accountability

0 100

94
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure (new):Use of hydrogen as an energy source to displace petroleum, in millions of barrels of oil per day (mmbbl/d)Long-term Measure:Weight percent of hydrogen storage (a higher weight percent means more hydrogen in a smaller volume, allowing a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle that can operate more miles before refueling)Annual Measure (new):Cost of hydrogen produced from renewable resources, in dollars per gasoline gallon equivalent ($/gge)

Program Summary:The Hydrogen Technology program develops hydrdelivery technologies that are more energy efficiencost. A portion of the program’s funding supports FreedomCAR partnership that aims to develop tecindustry commercialize hydrogen fuel cell vehiclesThe program has a very clear purpose and strong and apply a consistent methodology for estimating activities in order to establish priorities within the applied energy research and development (R&D) p1. In 2000, the National Research Council (NRC) restablished a firm technical foothold in the critical 

production and storage. 2. The NRC also indicated that the program shoulproduction of hydrogen from renewable resources 3. Some program activities that support the Freedinvolvement of the energy industry as well as the 

4. The program has had difficulty developing meanmeasures for much of the R&D it conducts, a chall5. The program is part of a division that completed 2002, which should improve program planning anIn response to these findings and an assessment othe R&D Investment Criteria developed as part of Agenda, the Budget proposes to:1. Establish a new partnership with energy industAdministration’s FreedomCAR partnership, which transition to a hydrogen-based economy; 2. Expand high-risk R&D on hydrogen production on hydrogen storage technologies; and3. Develop adequate annual performance measure(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

200220102020

Target

0

0.0010.180

Actual

0

200020052010

5%5%6%

3.5%

2002200320042010

$6.00$5.00$3.50

$8.50

2002 Actual

29

2003 Estimate

40

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Hydrogen Technology

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

70

89

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

42 Results / Accountability

0 100

95
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Percentage of security upgrades (such as fences or electronic sensors) completed at 53 Russian Navy nuclear sites containing 4,000 nuclear warheads and 60 metric tons of weapons-usable materialLong-term Measure: Percentage of security upgrades completed at 29 Russian and 13 Newly Independent States nuclear sites containing 540 metric tons of weapons useable materialLong-term Measure: Percentage of 29 metric tons of highly enriched uranium converted to low enriched uranium

Program Summary:This program provides money and expertise to RuFormer Soviet Union to prevent proliferation of w(WMD). Funding goes for such activities as consoaround nuclear warheads and nuclear material thnuclear weapon so that terrorists cannot obtain a bomb. This program has a clear purpose that addresses a vitality of this work is apparent in the post Septemknowledge that terrorists are seeking to obtain weDepartment has established specific, measurable gaddition to the long-term performance goals, the Dannual performance goals to measure year to year less well on management primarily because the Dexpenditures by country on a timely basis needs imDepartment is slow to spend annual funding. Histcarried forward a large amount of funding from onthis slow spending is largely the result of difficultiagreements with Russia (DoD's Cooperative Threafrom the same problem). Because the Department results, it scored well on the results section. For exDepartment secured 40 percent of nuclear weaponat numerous Russian Navy sites.The Department needs to improve the way it trackthat it can better manage its allocation of resource(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2002200320042006

Target

40%60%90%

100%

Actual

40%

2002200320042008

8%

18%22%

100%

8%

2002200320042009

12%22%32%

100%

12%

2002 Actual

315

2003 Estimate

227

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: International Nuclear Materials 

Protection and Cooperation Program Type: Direct Federal

Rating: Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: National Nuclear Security Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

57

100100

PlanningManagementPurpose

87 Results / Accountability

0 100

96
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Economically producible methane hydrate reserves (trillion cubic feet of methane)Annual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The Methane Hydrate Program focuses on improvnatural gas from naturally occurring mineral formand methane) in the deepwater continental shelf aprogram also works to improve the safety of offsho

role of these formations in seafloor stability.The application of the PART found:1. Scientific questions regarding methane hydrateagencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospecology and geology of seafloor methane hyrates) aFoundation (e.g. role of hydrates in the carbon sysmost appropriately addressed by the industry;2. DOE's Office of Fossil Energy estimates the voludomestic natural gas to be 740 trillion cubic feet (athousand cubic feet [cf], or a much larger 920 trillisupply of standard natural gas will last over 30 yeconsumption, meaning this resource may not be n4. While long-term measures are adequate, the resthe Department has not completed development oand5. Applied energy programs are expected to be ablefforts. To date, this program cannot demonstrate information. The program hopes to complete a benAs a result of these findings, the Administration w1. Continue performance measurement improvemannual measures tied to long-term goals; and2. Support improvements in benefits modeling.

Year

20032015

Target

1400

Actual

0

2002 Actual

10

2003 Estimate

4

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Methane Hydrates

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Fossil Energy

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

45

67

50

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

97
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Measures under developmentAnnual Measure: Measures under development

Program Summary:The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) fuproblems that impede the expanded use of nuclear The program uses a competitive, expert peer-revieresearch at universities, national laboratories, and The assessment indicates that while the program long-term and near-term performance measures imobjectively determine the program's technical accofindings include:1. NERI funds investigator-initiated, innovative Rgrants and cooperative agreements for up to three and deliverables that are monitored routinely, but contributions to larger program goals are not asse2. Basing project selection on independent expert helps DOE select the most scientifically-meritoriou2. NERI publishes an annual report describing thDepartment annually reviews the research topics considered. However, it has not conducted an indevaluation.3. Program performance has been measured in terawarded. This output measure is not acceptable, bthe program's effectiveness in resolving the probleIn response to these findings, the Administration:1. Will establish a program baseline and measuraobjectives against which to plan and measure annprojects and the program as a whole.2. Will plan independent program evaluations to development.

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

30

2003 Estimate

25

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Nuclear Energy Research Initiative

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Energy Programs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

92

56

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

26 Results / Accountability

0 100

98
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The Office of Science's Nuclear Physics (NP) progrfacilities and funds research in fundamental nuclesuch as nuclear astrophysics. It also develops the workforce needed to underpin DOE's missions for security, energy, and environmental quality.The program received a perfect score in the purpothe management section, mainly as a result of stawithin the Office of Science that lead the NP progrmission, merit-based reviews for awarding contracregarded large project management practices. Thscores for planning and results is the program's cuterm and annual performance measures. Neverthsignificant strides toward developing such measurinherent in measuring and then predicting scientiinclude:1. The program is well-managed with a strong focuand utilizing existing facilities in order to maximi2. The program coordinates its research strategy wFoundation through a jointly sponsored advisory cprogram does not yet have regular reviews of its rby ad hoc panels composed of outside experts exteTo address these findings:1. The2004 Budget provides funds to operate the ppercent of maximum capacity (compared with 80 pin 2002), while ceasing operations at one of its sm2. The Administration will work to reform its perfwhile being sensitive to the difficulties that basic rattempting to predict future scientific progress.3. The Department will institute a formal committprogram by September, 2003.

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

359

2003 Estimate

382

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Nuclear Physics

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Science

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

67

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

99
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Goal:An industry decision by 2005 to build a new nuclear power plant by 2010Annual Measure:Utilities submit Early Site Permit applications to NRC in the fourth quarter of 2003Initiate advanced reactor technology development and certification projectsLong-term Goals:NRC issues first Early Site Permits approving locations for new nuclear power plantsNRC issues a combined Construction and Operating License for a new nuclear power plant in 2007

Program Summary:The mission of the Nuclear Power 2010 program iregulatory barriers to deployment of new nuclear States by 2010. Nuclear Power 2010 is a joint govprogram to develop near-term advanced reactor tenew regulatory processes that would enable the prmore new nuclear power plants in the United StatFindings from the PART include the following:1. The program purpose is extremely clear and refgovernment/industry consensus on a plan of action the U.S. by 2010, which was prepared under the aEnergy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC).2. The program has established annual performanclear path to achieving its long-term objective with measures, timelines, and definitions of success.3. Close oversight by the NERAC Generation IV TSubcommittee will maintain program focus and pr4. DOE's Nuclear Power 2010 Program Plan, inclupeer-reviewed project awards and personnel apprainformation needed to manage the program effectimanagers accountable for results.In response to these findings, the Budget proposes to continue the program. (For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

8

2003 Estimate

35

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Nuclear Power 2010

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Energy Programs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

90

89

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

100
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Medium-term Measure:Domestic economically recoverable oil (in billions of barrels)(2002 baseline = 120 billion barrels (bbl) at $18/bbl and 149 billion bbl at $30/bbl.)Annual Measure: Measures under development

Program Summary:The Oil Exploration and Technology Program seekresearching better ways for the oil industry to expand gas resources. The application of the PART found: 1. The purpose of the program is well-defined. 2. Actual additional production attributed to the psmall, about 1.7% of consumption from 1978 -2000programs totaled $1.4 billion in the same period. Tdifficult to separate the contributions made by DOindustry and others."3. The program has initiated an improved process and improved the program's metrics to include speexpected dates of completion;4. While long-term measures are adequate, the anunder development; and5. The National Academy of Sciences, in recent prprocedures for estimating program benefits. The Dthese uniform procedures to outline potential benethis area.As a result of these findings, the Administration w1. Refocus the program on longer-term high-risk rdomestic production in the world market; (e.g. unienhanced recovery from older oil fields or margina2. Re-examine project selection to improve outcom3. Continue performance measurement improvemannual measures tied to long-term goals; and4. Support improvements in benefits modeling to iconsistency in application across programs.[Note: Due to restructuring of the program 2002 anot be comparable to 2004.]

Year

200220082015

Target

120.7122.2

Actual

120

2002 Actual

32

2003 Estimate

16

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Oil Exploration and Production

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Ineffective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Fossil Energy

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

36

44

50

PlanningManagementPurpose

25 Results / Accountability

0 100

101
Key Performance Measures

New performance measures are under development.

Program Summary:The Weapons Safeguards and Security program pinformation, and people throughout the National N(NNSA) weapons complex which consists of three production facilities, and the Nevada Test Site. Thsecurity measures including guards, fences, electrsecurity measures.Findings from the PART assessment include the f1. The Department commits a significant amount weapons complex, and it is arguably one of the mocountry.2. The program lacks clearly defined goals that cagreatest return on its investment and thus enhanc"adequate" rating received by the program largely should not be interpreted to mean that security at complex is lax or insufficient. 3. The program has a clear purpose which address

Nation's nuclear weapons complex" and thus scoreThe design of the program is still evolving and the need to clearly articulate changes to the existing s4. The program does not have strong linkages betwquantifiable outcomes. For example, the goals of tcost effective security program"; (2) to "demonstrathreat"; and (3) to "develop new technologies." Themeasurable and it is therefore difficult to quantify spending going towards this effort. One may argue be higher because there have been no security bredepth security posture is in place and operating efimproved measures of effectiveness and direct linkthe safeguards and security program can better aseffectiveness and efficiency. (The program receivethan a "results not demonstrated" rating because this shortcoming and is actively working on new mBased on these findings, the Administration will dwhich, ultimately, will improve the results of the p

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

525

2003 Estimate

481

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Safeguards and Security

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: National Nuclear Security Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

86

50

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

42 Results / Accountability

0 100

102
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Cost of solar water heating (cents per kilowatt-hour)Annual Measure:Cost of electricity from photovoltaics (cents per kilowatthour)Long-term Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The Solar Energy program develops solar energy dmore efficient, reliable and affordable than those cThe program has a very clear purpose and strong needs to develop and apply a consistent methodolobenefits of its activities in order to establish prioriamong other applied energy research and developfindings include:1. In 2000, the National Research Council (NRC) rprogram's activities have been successful, while otSolar Power (CSP) systems activity, have not. The out the CSP activity.2. The program has previously overstated the poteand has previously set overly optimistic goals that 3. The program has improved its planning, workinidentify R&D needs and develop realistic expectat4. Congress earmarked $7 million of program fundfunding was used to establish a "site office" and to which was not solar) in certain geographic areas. contribute to the performance goals of the program5. The program has made progress developing annwhich is a challenge for many R&D programs. 6. The program is part of a division that completed 2002, which should further improve program planIn response to these findings and an assessment othe R&D Investment Criteria developed as part of Agenda, the Budget proposes to:1. Terminate the CSP activity.2. Redirect funding from earmarked activities to Rthe program's performance goals.

Year

199820002005

Target

674

Actual

88

2000200320042006

12-20

222018

25

2002 Actual

88

2003 Estimate

80

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Solar Energy

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

80

89

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

103
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measures:Measures under developmentAnnual Measures:Achieve high ratings for: Efficiency (actual generation output in cycles/second[cps] vs the 60 cps goal); andReliability (% of operating time generation is within its electricity production tolerances) based on nat'l standardsAdopt industry-wide measures of efficiency, such as the cost of generating and transmitting power per kilowatthourAnnual measures:Make planned annual debt payments to the Treasury to repay the long-term cost of building hydropower facilitiesRecover subsidies identified by GAO incurred during construction of hydropower facilities

Program Summary:The Southeastern Power Administration markets Corps of Engineers dams located in the Southeastis responsible for covering all its costs through the The program assessment shows that Southeastern purpose, but the function it performs is not unique program, though largely in accordance with the laits power sales activities are inefficient (power is nand administratively burdensome (rate changes soand implement). Additional findings include: 1. Southeastern plans its activities effectively to edependably and meets national standards for qualutilities. These elments, in concert with its managoperations, earn this activity a high score. 2.The program conducts annual financial audits abudgets its full annual costs except for a portion oGeneral Accounting Office (GAO) indicates is not r3. Southeastern lacks adequate long and short terpartculalry efficiency measures. Based on the findings:1. The Budget proposes to continue current operatgoals, measures and targets.2. The Administration will develop and collect datcomparable to those used by private industry. 3. Southeastern will review its program and develits power marketing functions.4. Southeastern's management team will develop rhelp the program recover its costs and fully repay obligations. (For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

200120012003

100

90

TBD

204

99.8

200120022003

$27 M

$8.8 M

$26 M

$13 M$10 M

2002 Actual

5

2003 Estimate

5

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Southeastern Power Administration

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Power Marketing Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

86

71

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

73 Results / Accountability

0 100

104
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measures:Measures under develpomentAnnual Measures:Achieve high ratings for: Efficiency (actual generation output in cycles/second [cps] vs the 60 cps goal); and Reliability (% of operating time generation is within its electricity production tolerances) based on nat'l standardsAdopt industry-wide measures of efficiency, such as the cost of generating and transmitting power per kilowatthourAnnual Measures:Make planned debt payments to the Treasury to repay the long-term cost of building hydropower facilitiesRecover subsidies identified by GAO incurred during construction of hydropower facilities

Program Summary:The Southwestern Power Administration markets Corps of Engineers dams located the southwestern designed to recover all costs of producing and transales of electricity to customers.The program assessment rating shows that Southand managing its program. The program also meeall utilities across the country that measure generefficiency, reliability and quality of service. Addit1. Southwestern contracts for annual financial audmanagerial reviews.2. Transmission line construction projects are adeThis element, and the previous two, give this activ3. Southwestern's rating is reduced because the prcontribution to addressing a problem in the industsuppliers by buying power in the market to substi

that product is unavailable because of drought or 4. The marketing program, though largely in accooptimally designed. Power sales contracts rely on system that allocates power to special customers (bidders) and is administratively burdensome (allodevelop). In addition, according to the General AccSouthwestern, historically, has not recovered all it5. Southwestern has inadequate long and short teparticularly efficiency measures. Based on these findings: 1. The Budget proposes to continue current operatincreases for maintenance and high cost electrical replacement schedule. 2. The Administration will develop and collect datcomparable to those used by private industry.3. Southwestern will develop long-term goals, targ4. Southwestern will develop recommendations to functions and meet all its financial obligations. (For more information, see Department of Energy 

Year Target Actual

200120012003

100

90

TBD

192100

20012002

$22.8 M

$25 M

$19.9 M

2002 Actual

28

2003 Estimate

27

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Southwestern Power Administration

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Power Marketing Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

90

77

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

70 Results / Accountability

0 100

105
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Number of homes weatherized from 2002 to 2011Long-term Measure:Program benefit-cost ratio (excluding non-energy benefits)The ratio represents the discounted value (4.7 percent discount rate) of energy saved over 20 years divided by the total program costs. (Targets under development).Annual Measure:Number of low-income homes weatherized

Program Summary:The Weatherization Assistance program provides formula grants to State and local agencies to weatfamilies, with target populations including the eldand families with children.The program has a very clear purpose, and generahomes it commits to weatherize each year. Other 1. On average, the program saves each low-income annually on its energy bill.2. The program reports a favorable benefit-cost ranot conduct a periodic independent analysis of its program require States to report on cost effectiven3. Efficiency and quality of service may be improvother agencies with related missions, particularly Urban Development.4. The program is part of a division that completed 2002, which should improve program planning anIn response to these findings, the Budget: 1. Continues the President's commitment to increa10 years to help a total of 1.2 million low-income f2. Recommends periodic independent evaluation oeffectiveness.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

20022011

Target

105,000

1,200,000

Actual

198919962005

1.061.79

2001200220032004

74,803

105,000123,000123,000

76,631

2002 Actual

230

2003 Estimate

277

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Weatherization Assistance

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

67

71

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

84 Results / Accountability

0 100

106
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measures:Measures under developmentAnnual Measures:Achieve high ratings for: Efficiency (actual generation output in cycles/second [cps] vs the 60 cps goal); andReliability (% of operating time generation is within electricity production tolerances) based on nat'l standardsAdopt industry-wide measures of efficiency, such as the cost of generating and transmitting power per kilowatthourAnnual Measures:Make scheduled debt payments to the Treasury to repay the long-term cost of building hydropower facilitiesRecover subsidies identified by GAO incurred during construction of hydropower facilities

Program Summary:The Western Area Power Administration (Westerngenerated at Corps of Engineers and Bureau of ReNorthern Midwest states extending through the SWestern is responsible for recovering, through salproducing and transmitting power. The assessment found that Western is effective in activities. It meets national standards for providinfindings include: 1. Western conducts annual financial audits and mthat its activities are conducted according to sound standards. 2. Its system for reviewing and adopting construct3. Western's role in marketing power makes no unproblem in the industry and the program, though law, is not optimally designed. The process of allocbasis to special customers (rather than to bidders) administratively burdensome (allocations sometimadjust). Also, according to the General Accounting recover all its costs. 4. Western competes with private industry by purresell. 5. Western lacks adequate statements of long and measures.As a result of these findings:1. The Budget proposes that Western continue curincrease construction expenditures for scheduled sreplacements and the ongoing replacement of tranhousekeeping needs such as a new roof on one of t2. The Administration will develop and collect datcomparable to those used by private industry.3. Western will review its activities and develop reits record of Treasury repayments and the market4. Western will develop long-term goals, targets an(For more information, see Department of Energy 

Year Target Actual

200120012003

100

90

TBD

187

98

200120022003

$62.6 M$26.2 M

$11.9 M

2002 Actual

172

2003 Estimate

163

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Western Area Power Administration

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Power Marketing Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

91

78

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

78 Results / Accountability

0 100

107
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure (new):Cost of power in medium wind speed areas (Class 4, or about 12 mph at 30 feet above ground level)Measured as cents per kilowatt-hour.Long-term Measure:Cost of power from small (< 100 kW) wind turbine systems in low wind speed areas (Class 3, or about 10 mph at 30 feet above ground level)Measured as cents per kilowatt-hourAnnual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The Wind Energy program conducts research and energy systems to reduce their cost and expand thThe program has a very clear purpose and strong However, it needs to develop and apply a consistenthe public benefits of its activities in order to estabprogram and among other applied energy R&D pr1. In 2000, the National Research Council (NRC) rprogram, combined with temporary substantial feenergy subsidies, have been responsible for the U.development." 2. The growing commercial success of wind energy areas (15 mph or more) obviates the need for furththis area. The President's 2003 Budget reflected tprogram's funding to R&D aimed at reducing costwind energy systems in lower wind-speed areas (13. Congress earmarked nearly $4 million of prograearmarked funding was used to install wind energareas and will not contribute to the long-term goal4. The program has difficulty developing meaningmeasures, a challenge for many R&D programs. Wmeasures, the program cannot demonstrate short-5. The program is part of a division that completed 2002, which should improve program planning anIn response to these findings and an assessment othe R&D Investment Criteria developed as part of Agenda, the Budget proposes to: 1. Continue emphasis on wind technology develop2. Redirect funding from earmarked activities to Rprogram's goals; and3. Develop practical but meaningful annual perfor

Year

20022010

Target

No Data

3

Actual

5.5

20022007 10-15

2002 Actual

39

2003 Estimate

44

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Energy

Program: Wind Energy

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

89

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

50 Results / Accountability

0 100

108
109 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

HHS faces a major management challenge in creating “One HHS” from a highly decentralized 

structure. Progress on government-wide initiatives has been uneven, but HHS has established 

internal accountability standards that strengthen reform efforts. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

Ambitious programs to address recruitment and succession challenges are in place, and HHS is 

expanding its use of performance-based employment contracts. HHS has completed difficult 

personnel office consolidations at NIH and FDA, and is de-layering from as many as seven 

management levels in some agencies to no more than four Department-wide. 

Competitive Sourcing 

HHS has competitively sourced more than 700 commercial positions in areas such as cleaning 

services, IT development and support, building maintenance, and clerical support. 

Financial Performance 

HHS has implemented a corrective action plan to resolve internal control weaknesses and 

identified common accounting functions for the Unified Financial Management System. HHS is 

also implementing Medicaid error rate pilots in 12 states. 

Expanding E-Government 

HHS has developed a standard federal electronic grant application to be linked to a single 

identifying grant number. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

Budget and performance staff has been integrated within the Office of the Secretary, and HHS 

has developed for the first time a draft “One-HHS” action plan that identifies key performance 

goals for 2004 program activities. This plan has been streamlined from reporting 800 

performance measures in 15 volumes to about 40 performance measures in one report. 

Broadening Health Insurance Coverage Through State Initiatives 

Since the beginning of the initiative, HHS has approved seven HIFA demonstrations and five 

Pharmacy Plus demonstrations. Of the approved HIFA demonstrations, four support enrollment 

in employer-sponsored health insurance. HHS is working with an independent evaluator to 

determine whether or not implemented demonstrations are decreasing the number of uninsured. 

R G

R G

R Y

R Y

R G

Y G
110 

Faith-based and Community Initiative 

HHS progress is strong in encouraging the full participation of faith-based and community 

organizations (FBCBOs) in service delivery. Efforts are focused on providing FBCBOs with the 

tools to compete for federal grants. Additional work is needed to ensure that FBCBOs can 

compete for federal programs administered by States. 

Program Assessments 

HHS undertook an ambitious agenda to evaluate, with OMB, 31 programs, one of the highest 

numbers of programs evaluated for any department government-wide. In general, HHS programs 

rated slightly above the overall government-wide average. Twenty-two of the 31 programs 

evaluated developed new performance measures, including 14 new long-term performance 

measures. The PART highlighted general weaknesses across HHS programs in the financial 

management area and in budget and performance integration. HHS’s development of a Unified 

Financial Management System should help address these deficiencies. The PART summaries 

follow. 

Y G
Key Performance Measures

Long-Term Measure:Number of cases of vaccine-preventable diseases in the U.S. (Target is 0 or close to 0 for all vaccine preventable diseases, and actual performance reflects a range.)Annual Measure:Immunization coverage in children 19-35 months of age for recommended vaccines (target is 90 percent)(Performance is over or close to 90% except for varicella which was recommended in 1999.]Annual Measure:Number of polio cases worldwide(2004 target is 0.)

Program Summary:The immunization program awards grants to state carries out other activities such as surveillance anthat children are vaccinated against disease.The assessment found that:1. The program is successful in improving immuni2. There are no comprehensive evaluations analyzmanagement, and the structure of the overall progachievement of program performance.3. The program generally has strong management processes in place to measure or improve efficiency4. There is no explicit mechanism linking the progimmunization administrative activities to program In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Include a legislative proposal in the 2004 Budgeunderinsured children who are eligible for the CDprogram to receive immunizations in public health 

efficiency in the overall childhood immunization pexpand the VFC program and result in savings to immunization program.2. Work on conducting a comprehensive evaluation and operations of the immunization program.

Year

20012010

Target

<150

0

Actual

<183

20012004

90%90% >=90%

20032005 0

200

2002 Actual

627

2003 Estimate

628

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: 317 Immunization Program

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

60

57

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

42 Results / Accountability

0 100

111
Key Performance Measures

Long-Term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Percentage of pre-market reviews reviewed and acted on within 10 months of receiptAnnual Measure:Percentage of pre-market applications submitted to CBER via electronic application(New measure)

Program Summary:The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research products, such as blood and vaccines. CBER reviewsafety and effectiveness, and ensures that productsafe and effective.Findings from the PART assessment include the f1. CBER uses performance data to recommend im2. Financial management is sound, and managers address management problems.3. CBER created a new annual performance measof the pre-market product reviews through increasinformation technology. Data for this measure is 4. CBER achieved a relatively high score for their comprehensive list of annual performance goals almeasurement of performance results. Long-term ostrategic planning at CBER.5. Long-term measures don’t currently exist. Therdemonstrate the impact it is having on the public.6. CBER achieves solid performance in meeting cugoals. In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Establish new, measurable long term outcome g2. Increase funding for CBER pre-market reviews prescription drug review user fees. 

Year Target Actual

199920002004

30%50%90%

100%100%

2004 85%

2002 Actual

176

2003 Estimate

200

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Center for Biologics Evaluation and 

Research Program Type: Regulatory

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Food and Drug Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

77

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

112
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Percent of premarket approval application "first actions" for new devices completed within 180 days of receiptAnnual Measure:Percent of domestic medical device manufacturers inspected (Statutory performance target is 50%.)

Program Summary:The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (Cdevices, ranging from pacemakers to hearing aidsCDRH also ensures that medical devices available effective.Findings from the PART assessment include the f1. CDRH achieved a high score for their Planning performance goals allows for measurement of perf2. CDRH does have "strategic goals" (such as "Promarketed products safe") that aim to produce long there is no way to measure progress on those strat

cannot currently prove long-term results.3. Financial management is sound, and managers address management problems.4. In recent years, CDRH has shown some improvmedical devices, but further performance improve5. Inspection coverage for medical device manufacbelow the statutory expectation each year. CDRH highest priority establishments.6. CDRH uses performance data to recommend prIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Establish new, measurable long term performan2. Improve current annual performance goals for tCDRH is developing new annual goals that measureview, an important review process milestone. Paintermediate step in the review process. 3. Increase funding for medical device reviews thrmedical device review user fees.

Year Target Actual

1999200020012004

65%85%90%90%

74%96%96%

1999200020012004

26%22%17%20%

30%13%20%

2002 Actual

196

2003 Estimate

221

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Center for Devices and Radiologic Health

Program Type: RegulatoryRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Food and Drug Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

69

75

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

27 Results / Accountability

0 100

113
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Percentage of new drug applications "reviewed and acted on" within 10 months of receiptAnnual Measure:Percentage of human drug manufacturing establishments inspected (Statutory target is 50%.)

Program Summary:The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDsafety and effectiveness. Findings from the PART assessment include the f1. Accountability/Results was identified as a weakthe establishment of measurable long-term outcom2. CDER achieves solid performance in meeting anfor the review of new drug applications. 3. CDER exhibits poor performance in inspection restablishments. In 2001, CDER inspected only 19 manufacturing establishments. Inspections are taestablishments.4. CDER uses performance data to recommend immanagement is sound, and managers take meaninaddress management weaknesses.5. CDER created a new annual performance measof the pre-market review process through enhanceinformation technology.6. CDER achieved a relatively high score for their annual performance goals allows for measurementerm outcome goals would improve strategic plannIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Establish new, measurable long term performan2. Increase funding to support the timely review oprescription drug user fee collection levels.

Year Target Actual

199920002004

30%50%90%

66%79%

1999200020012004

22%22%26%55%

26%22%19%

2002 Actual

367

2003 Estimate

426

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

Program Type: RegulatoryRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Food and Drug Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

77

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

114
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Percentage of "high-risk" domestic food establishments inspected annuallyAnnual Measure:Percentage of safety evaluation of food and color additive petitions completed within 360 days of receipt

Program Summary:The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition except meat, poultry, and egg products to make suFindings from the PART assessment include the f1. CFSAN achieved a high score in Purpose. Food health concern; it is estimated by the Centers for Dillness causes 5,000 deaths each year.2. Weaknesses were identified in Accountability/Rcurrently have long term outcome goals. As a resuprogram results.3. Inspection rates for "high-risk" food establishmerates of imported food are less than two percent. Ito inspect imports that reflect the highest risk of c4. CFSAN uses performance data to recommend p5. Financial management is sound, and managers address management deficiencies.6. CFSAN is improving performance in the review petitions, but continued improvements are needed7. CFSAN achieved a high score for their Planning innovative annual "Program Priorities" report. Propublished during the year, and a final report is puThese reports are made available to the public, anstakeholder feedback.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Establish new, measurable long term performan2. Improve current annual performance goals for t3. Increase funding to support additional food estaenhance FDA’s ability to analyze samples of impor

Year Target Actual

200020012004

90%90%95%

91%80%

199920002004

30%40%75%

77%91%

2002 Actual

404

2003 Estimate

412

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Center for Food Safety and Applied 

Nutrition Program Type: Regulatory

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Food and Drug Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

69

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

27 Results / Accountability

0 100

115
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Percentage of new animal drug applications reviewed and "acted on" within 180 days of receiptAnnual Measure:Percentage of registered animal drug and feed establishments inspected(Statutory performance target is 50%.)

Program Summary:The Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) reguladistribution of food additives and drugs given to aadditives and drugs are safe for animals and humanimals or their products (such as milk).Findings from the PART assessment include the f1. The creation of long-term outcome goals would program performance, and would strengthen CVM 2. CVM is improving the review of new animal drucreated work backlogs, which resulted in the estab

that were far from ambitious. CVM identified this annual performance goal aimed at eliminating bacanimal drugs. 3. CVM has exhibited outstanding performance in establishments as a part of CVM efforts to prevenSpongiform Encephalopathy (BSE, or "Mad Cow D4. Financial management is sound, and managers address management weaknesses.5. CVM achieved a high score for their Planning eperformance goals allows for measurement of perfoutcome goals would improve strategic planning a6. CVM achieved a high score in Purpose. CVM’s estrategy to prevent the introduction of BSE into threlevance of CVM’s responsibilities.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Establish new, measurable long term performan2. Improve current annual performance goals for tannual performance goals for the review of new anmeasure time to completion of FDA review, a critiprocess.3. Propose the authorization of new user fees to suenhancements in the review of new animal drugs. goals for animal drug reviews are under developm

Year Target Actual

200020012002

73%75%50%

74%50%

1999200020012004

27%27%50%50%

25%39%37%

2002 Actual

86

2003 Estimate

89

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Center for Veterinary Medicine

Program Type: RegulatoryRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Food and Drug Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

69

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

27 Results / Accountability

0 100

116
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Percent of funded sites that will exceed a 30 percent improvement in behavioral and emotional symptoms among children receiving services for six months(New measure)Long-term Measure:Percent of systems of care that are sustained five years after Federal program funding has ended(New measure, baseline under development)Annual Measure:Average days of inpatient/residential treatment among children with serious emotional disturbance in grantee communities over the past year(Measure and targets to be refined)

Program Summary:The Children's Mental Health Services program mand local governments to support services for childdisturbance.The assessment found:1. The Children's Mental Health Services program contribution to improve care for children with serireaches a limited number of communities and the known.2. The program purpose is clear and commonly he3. The program supports an annual evaluation to services and outcomes for children with serious emcommunities.4. While accountability for results could be improvperformance information to improve annual outco5. The program has limited data related to the newperformance measures, but is meeting most of the 6. A recent evaluation indicates the program is effwell being of children with serious emotional distuservices, 42 percent of the children showed a signibehavioral and emotional problems and an additiowere stabilized.Based on these findings, the Administration:1. Proposes an increase of $10 million above the 20of the program and help additional communities pchildren with serious emotional disturbance.2. Will determine if the program is making lasting children with serious emotional disturbance. The pchildren's behavioral and emotional symptoms imcommunities sustain their systems of care beyond 

Year

20012010

Target

60%

Actual

30%

2008 80%1999200020012004

212212159151

144149152

2002 Actual

96

2003 Estimate

97

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Childrens Mental Health Services

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

86

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

58 Results / Accountability

0 100

117
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Percent of newly enrolled women in need of testingThese are women who have not received a Pap test within the past five years.(New measure)Annual Measure:Percent of women with cancer who start treatment within 60 days of diagnosis for both breast and cervical cancer(New measure)

Program Summary:The Breast and Cervical Cancer program provides departments to support breast and cervical cancer women who have little or no health insurance coveThe assessment found that:1. The program provides important health screeniotherwise not receive these services. However, the outcome goals (e.g., reduced morbidity/mortality tproposed long-term goals focus strictly on inputs amore screenings) and intermediate measures (e.g. cancer into treatment) rather than health outcome

far, unable to demonstrate the level of impact on t2. The program has developed new annual performmeasuring the contribution of its program on its t3. While the program has relatively strong managmanagers are not held accountable for achieving tperformance goals, and the program lacks proceduefficiency.To address these findings, the Administration will1. Work on developing outcome-oriented long-term long-term goals; and2. Propose a $10 million increase in the 2004 Budgadditional screenings.(For more information on this program, please see Human Services chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

20002004 22.5

21.7

200020012004 95/90

94/88

94.4/87.8

2002 Actual

193

2003 Estimate

202

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Chronic Disease - Breast and Cervical 

Cancer Program Type: Competitive Grants

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

64

71

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

25 Results / Accountability

0 100

118
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under development in 2003Annual Measure:Percentage of diabetics receiving eye and foot exams in states with comprehensive diabetes programsAnnual Measure:Percentage of persons with diabetes who receive at least 2 blood sugar control measures per year in states with comprehensive diabetes programs(New measure)

Program Summary:This program supports state health department prthe health complications caused by diabetes.The assessment found that:1. While the program does not yet have adequate lsubstantial progress in developing long-term outcoannual performance measures to reflect output raprogram is very close to developing adequate healreductions in diabetes-related blindness) for its lon2. The program has made progress in achieving its some efficiencies in its program operations.3. The management of this program is fairly stronin place to review the efficiency of its operations.4. There is no explicit mechanism that links the prachievement of the program's stated performance To address these findings, the Administration will1. Work to develop the program's long-term health measure performance on the annual performance 2. Maintain diabetes program funding in the 2004 of the Administration’s disease prevention initiatithe health complications of diabetes and preventin

Year Target Actual

1999200020012004

72/6272/6272/6272/62

67.3/57.8

69/62.469.8/62

20002004 72.5%

69.8%

2002 Actual

62

2003 Estimate

62

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Chronic Disease - Diabetes

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

60

71

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

119
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Number of months after the date of completion of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data will be available(New measure)Long-term Measure:Number of organizations that will use Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases, products or tools to improve statewide health care quality for their constituencies(New measure, baseline under development)Annual Measure:The strategy for achieving the long-term goal on Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases, products or tools(New measure, baseline and targets under development)

Program Summary:These programs collect data on the cost (Medical E(Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project), and quaStates and develop and survey beneficiaries regar(Consumer Assessment of Health Plans).The assessment found:1. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Qualitnew long-term and annual performance measures have committed to achieving the stated goals and evaluations. 2. The programs do not yet have data available to 3. Program managers acknowledged difficulties trand their impacts on actual program performancebudget and planning systems to identify more eastheir goals.4. The purpose of these programs is clear--to have and availability of national level health care cost, data. These programs do not effectively articulate 5. AHRQ regularly collects timely and credible perdata to manage the program. There are some manan inability to determine the full annual costs of tIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Collect performance data on the new measures.2. Propose an increase of $5 million above the 200efforts to ensure continued collection and availabiuse, and quality data.3. AHRQ has begun to address management deficbased contracts that require superior performance goals.

Year

19972008

Target

12

Actual

19-27

2010 5

2002 Actual

55

2003 Estimate

60

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Data Collection and Dissemination

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

80

89

83

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

120
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Annual incidence of new HIV infections(Targets under development)Annual Measure:Number of HIV infection cases diagnosed each year among people less than 25 years of age (New measure)Annual Measure:Percentage of HIV-positive tests with post-test counseling sessions reported from CDC-funded test sites (New measure)

Program Summary:The HIV/AIDS prevention program supports appliactivities regarding HIV/AIDS. It also awards graand community based organizations for HIV/AIDS The assessment found that:1. The number of new HIV infections in the U.S. h40,000 for the past decade and has not declined.2. The program does have long-term health outcom

and timeframes that are consistent with the existion these long-term outcome goals.3. The program has developed new annual performdoes not have data to measure performance on the4. The program has had comprehensive evaluationprogram improvements.5. The program has some weaknesses in the managrantees and accountability for all Federal funds, some cases specific grantees have violated CDC's gexpenditures.6. The budget and program performance are not e7. There are no processes/measures in place to impTo address these findings, the Administration will1. Maintain program funding to continue efforts to infections, specifically among minorities and wom2. Modify the program targets for its long-term menew annual performance indicators.

Year

2000

Target Actual

40,000

20002004 1600

1805

20012004 80%

70%

2002 Actual

691

2003 Estimate

691

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Domestic HIV/AIDS Prevention

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

33

57

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

8 Results / Accountability

0 100

121
Key Performance Measures

Long-term measure: Measure under developmentAnnual Measure: Percentage of children with substantiated reports of maltreatment that have a repeated substantiated report of maltreatment within 6 monthsAnnual Measure: Percentage of children with no more than 2 placement settings, for those who had been in care less than 12 months

Program Summary:The purpose of the federal foster care program is tabuse of children in troubled families by providing foster care family - until the children can safely repermanent home is found. Foster Care Maintenanparents to cover the costs of a child’s food, shelter, travel home for visits.The assessment indicates that the overall purpose addresses a specific need. However, the program ithe program financial structure does not provide apermanent placement of children. Additional findi1. Program performance goals are non-specific and unambitious. 2. There is a lack of independent evaluations, the not aligned, and the program lacks a proactive, systrategic planning deficiencies.3. While program management is generally soundpayments indicate that program funds are not alwpurpose. There is no existing performance measur4. Finally, there has been inadequate progress towTo address these findings, the Administration recoan option available to all states to participate in afor child welfare that will better meet the needs of population. The change will focus on getting resuparticipate will face fewer administrative burdens form of flexible grants. This will serve as an incenwelfare plans with a stronger emphasis on prevenincreased flexibility in services provided and popu

will be balanced with accountability to ensure the children and their families. Participating states msafety, permanency, and well-being of children by performance.

Year Target Actual

1999200020012004

7%7%

8%9%

1999200020012002

72%60%

60%58%60%

2002 Actual

4,380

2003 Estimate

4,629

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Foster Care

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Administration for Children and Families

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

63

43

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

8 Results / Accountability

0 100

122
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Gain in word knowledge measured at Head Start entry and exit (Prior to 2002, measured as gaining in scale points -- 12 scale pts = 34%, after 2002 as % gains)Annual Measure:Percentage of parents that report reading to their child three times a week or moreAnnual Measure:Other annual measures under development

Program Summary:Head Start provides grants to local public, non-prohelp low-income children prepare for school and imdevelopment.The assessment found:1. The program's long-term goals are not well linkcomprehensive development services to children afocused on strengthening Head Start in its traditireadiness. The current program design is flawed bindividual grantees responsible for effectively prep2. The program's existing long-term goals are weaschool readiness.3. Head Start has not demonstrated sufficient prolong-term results. While Head Start children demmath and social skills, relative to their non-Head still lag behind other children. Head Start is not weducation and care programs.Based on these findings the Department will:1. Create a new system to assess every Head Start preparing children for schools.2. Propose legislation to better integrate Head Stapre-school programs.3. Develop annual performance measures that assgrantees in improving school readiness and better 4. Provide inflationary increase in program fundin(For more information on this program, please see Human Services chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2000200220032004

Target

32%32%34%

Actual

10

32%

2000200220032004

70%70%70%

66%70%

2002 Actual

6,537

2003 Estimate

6,668

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Head Start

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Administration for Children and Families

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

55

50

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

27 Results / Accountability

0 100

123
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Percent of State/Local public health jurisdictions with: (1) high speed, continuous internet; (2) 24/7 broadcast capability to local public health officials and key partners; and (3) distance learning infrastructure(New measure)Annual Measure:Percent of HAN grantees are (1) served by a Center for Public Health Preparedness (CPHP) and (2) hold all CDC required certifications Actual performance was 30% in 2002.(New measure)Annual Measure:Percent of (1) state and (2) local public health agencies to whom CDC is able to transmit health alerts on a 24/7 basis, within 30 minutes of notification that an alert must be transmitted(New measure)

Program Summary:The Health Alert Network is an information netwresponse against bioterrorism and other public hegrants to state public health departments, which pand staff to ensure rapid exchange of information public health agencies in the event of an emergencFindings from the PART assessment include the f1. While CDC has shown progress toward previourefining existing goals into better outcome measurcannot yet show significant progress toward these 2. There were minor deficiencies identified in the mCDC-wide issue on financial management, and thavailable to demonstrate the timeliness of obligatithis program is above average.3. CDC has gone to great lengths to ensure that thworking to attain the larger strategic goals. Good previous output goals. However, since new goals woutcomes were established, grantee progress towademonstrated.4. The purpose of the program is clear.In response to these findings, the Budget proposes1. Continued funding at the 2003 Budget level, wh2001 level.2. Increased funding for CDC's Public Health Infoinitiative, that will coordinate and establish interopublic health information activities (including HAother).

Year

20022005

Target

baseline

100

Actual

68

2003200420052006

50/1080/2590/40

100

200220032004

100/60100/80

100

100/60

2002 Actual

183

2003 Estimate

183

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Health Alert Network

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

78

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

40 Results / Accountability

0 100

124
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control (HCFAprevent health care fraud, waste, and abuse includinvestigations.The assessment found that the program purpose iagency and the authorizing statute, with a design the mission. Additional findings include:1. The program does not use objective data to estaresources, or measure program performance, but rprofessional judgment to identify and pursue prog2. The program has a good management track recothe program has certified in each of the three bienmanagement practices are free from material wea3. The program has demonstrated anecdotal succewaste and abuse. It has also resulted in identifyincorrections to close loopholes or stop abusive billin4. While providing some information on the status the existing goals -- return on investment, expectesavings -- do not objectively measure if the progracurrent measures do not demonstrate whether headecreased, which is the program’s ultimate missioIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Develop performance measures that are closely measurable against an established, objective baselresource allocation decisions.

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

139

2003 Estimate

160

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control 

(HCFAC) Program Type: Direct Federal

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of the Inspector General

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

83

17

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

25 Results / Accountability

0 100

125
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Rate of low weight births among health center patients(New measure)Annual Measure:Number in millions of those served by health centers who are below 200% of poverty and the national percentage of all people below 200% of poverty served by the program(New measure)Long-term Measure:Number of new and expanded health center sites and millions of additional people served

Program Summary:The Health Center program provides grants to hecare to uninsured, underserved and vulnerable poareas. The assessment found:1. The program purpose is clear and commonly heprogram is designed to have a unique and signific2. The program uses performance information to iand clinical outcomes. Internal and external evaluconducted regularly and indicate the program is equality health care to underserved populations.3. The program is also making progress on its long

including reducing the percentage of low-weight bpatients. For example, the percentage of low-weighpatients declined from 7.4 percent of all health cenin 2001.4. The program more efficiently met key milestoneexpanding existing health center sites, in addition sites can serve more people with lower startup cos5. The program has struggled to estimate liabilitiefrom malpractice coverage extended to health centTort Claims Act.6. Collaboration with programs that share commoIn response to these findings, the Administration:1. Proposes an additional $150 million above the 2health center initiative to expand and create 1,200 increase the service capacity by 6.1 million patien2. Proposes an additional $20 million increase to pclaims, a legislative proposal to cap non-economic HHS Inspector General to improve oversight of he(For more information on this program, please see Human Services chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

1999200020012006

Target

6.53%

Actual

7.37%7.14%7.13%

200020012004 11.8/14%

8.4/10%9.1/11%

200120022006

Baseline

260/1.31,200/6

289/NA

2002 Actual

1,343

2003 Estimate

1,458

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Health Centers

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Health Resources and Services Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

80 Results / Accountability

0 100

126
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Proportion of persons who have a specific source of reliable, continuing healthcare(New measure)Long-term Measure:Proportion of health professionals completing funded programs that are serving in medically underserved communities (These communities have too few primary care physicians, higher infant mortality rates, lower family incomes and often an older population.)(New measure)Annual Measure:Proportion of health professionals completing Health Professions funded programs who are underrepresented minorities and/or from disadvantaged backgrounds(New measure)

Program Summary:The Health Professions program provides grants tmeet the costs of training and educating students other health professionals and provides additional income students and faculty.The assessment found:1. There is disagreement regarding the purpose of focused purpose is not found in the authorizing legprogram documents. For example, the agency belithe failure of the market to distribute health provand to serve all population groups. Others believe rural areas or to subsidize schools. 2. While the program is managed well overall, it hperformance data to improve program outcomes. Tnoted in 1997 that effectiveness has not been showdifficult to measure without common goals, outcom

program has adopted new performance benchmarkdemonstrate progress. 3. Outcome data on some program activities are avof the program may be limited. One study found oby institutions receiving a family medicine traininprovide health care in areas with a shortage of phphysicians trained by institutions not funded by th4. An expert panel convened by George Mason Unan increased emphasis on agency activities to suppIn response to these findings, the Administration:1. Proposes to continue the phase-out of most healwith the 2003 Budget and direct resources to activplacing health care providers in medically underse2. Proposes to redirect $34 million from advanced nursing activities, including $12 million to the NuRepayment program for loan repayment awards ascholarships to increase the supply of practicing n

Year

1999200020012010

Target

96%

Actual

84%85%86%

2010 40%2004 40%

2002 Actual

378

2003 Estimate

95

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Health Professions

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Ineffective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Health Resources and Services Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

73

71

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

13 Results / Accountability

0 100

127
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Years of Productive Life lost in American Indian/Alaska Native population(New measure, target will be developed by October 2003)Long-term Measure:Obesity rate in American Indian/Alaska Native children (ages 2-5)(New measure, target will be developed by October 2003)Annual Measure:Unintentional injury mortality rate in American Indian/Alaska Native population

Program Summary:The Indian Health Service provides health care to Native population through direct care, contracts, aIndian health programs.The assessment indicates:1. The overall purpose of the program is clear and 2. The program is successful in meeting the majoradopted new long-term goals and established amb

measure is new, historical performance data is avof Productive Life Lost rate was reduced by 50 perpercent from 1987 through 1998.3. The program's efficiency and cost effectiveness ifollowing: a) achieved approximately $182.5 millioservices funds in 2001 as a result of rate agreemenproviders; b) met its performance goals with a net 1993-2001 while outpatient visits increased by 50 period; and c) compared favorably on the health coCommunity Health Centers, and Department of Dhealth systems.4. The program uses performance information to mgrouped under broad categories rather than a cost activity.5. Audited financial statements for the past five yeweaknesses with respect to the timeliness of prepareconciliation of financial statements.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Include $25 million in the 2004 Budget to fund costs for new facilities.2. Propose a $25 million increase above the 2003 Bservices to reduce the number of denied claims du3. Support continuation of, and a $50 million increfunding for the Special Diabetes Program for Indiaperformance improvements.4. Develop baselines and targets for new measures

Year Target Actual

1998199920022004

95.895.895.8

94.795.5

2002 Actual

2,120

2003 Estimate

2,183

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: IHS Federally-Administered Activities

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Indian Health Services

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

60

78

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

74 Results / Accountability

0 100

128
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) homes with sanitation facilities(New measure)Long-term Measure:Percentage of Deficiency Level 4 or 5 AI/AN homes (as defined by U.S.C. 1632) provided with sanitation facilities(New measure, target will be developed by October 2003)Annual Measure:Number of new or like-new AI/AN homes and existing homes provided with sanitation facilities

Program Summary:The Indian Health Service's Sanitation Facilities Cpotable water and waste disposal facilities for Amhomes.The assessment indicates the overall purpose of thprovide sanitation facilities to American Indian/Alprogram consistently exceeds its annual performahomes provided with sanitation facilities. Addition1. The program has demonstrated progress toward increasing the percentage of American Indian/Alasanitation facilities from 20 percent in 1959 to 92.2. The program is also able to demonstrate improveffectiveness, with declines in the cumulative averover $5,700 in 1995 to $5,200 in 2000 and 2001 deinflation in construction costs from 1992-2001.3. The program compares favorably with similar pReclamation, the Rural Utility Service, and the En4. The program uses performance information to mstrong financial management practices, however irecent, credible cost benefit analysis.5. No independent analysis of the program has beeIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Propose a $20 million increase above the 2003 Bincrease services to the most needy homes in its inconstruction costs.2. Conduct an independent, comprehensive evalua3. Develop baselines and targets for new measures(For more information on this program, please see Human Services chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

20002010

Target

94%

Actual

92.5%

1999200020012004

15,23014,77514,73018,150

16,57118,37618,002

2002 Actual

94

2003 Estimate

94

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction 

Program Program Type: Capital Assets

Rating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Indian Health Services

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

89

83

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

129
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:National rate of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births(New measure)Long-term Measure:National rate of infant deaths per 1,000 live births(Existing measure)Annual Measure:National rate of illness and complications due to pregnancy per 100 deliveries(New measure)

Program Summary:The Maternal and Child Health Block Grant (MCHto States to: improve the health of all mothers and mortality, provide access to comprehensive prenatincrease the number of children receiving health aThe assessment found:1. The program is well designed as a safety net to mothers and children and to have a significant impopulations.2. The Health Resources and Services Administratimely and credible performance data for this progmanage the program. This information is used by review each State's performance and budget data year projections.3. The Block Grant is effectively achieving results regularly collect and report timely data. 4. Regular, independent and quality evaluations oconducted. Also, HRSA does not make budget decisystem of costing that is linked to targets.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Propose an increase of $19 million above the 20program's strong performance and to ensure contihealth of all mothers and children.

Year

198019992008

Target

8

Actual

9.48.3

199520002008 6.5

7.66.9

199819992004 26

31.231.4

2002 Actual

731

2003 Estimate

732

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Maternal and Child Health Block Grant 

(MCHBG) Program Type: Block/Formula Grants

Rating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Health Resources and Services Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

78

71

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

73 Results / Accountability

0 100

130
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Medicare national fee-for-service error rateLong-term Measure: Percentage of contractor-specific error rates below national Medicare error rateLong-term Measure: Provider compliance error rates versus previous year(Baseline under development)

Program Summary:This program funds a variety of efforts to fight fraprogram.The assessment found the program purpose is cleareduction of the Medicare Error Rate, which measfor-service claims. The Medicare error rate, the koverall effectiveness, has declined from 14 percent 1996 to 6.3 percent in 2001. Additional findings in1. The program is well managed and relies on perfMedicare error rate, that are directly relevant to i2. The Administration is developing sub-national pidentify more specific error rates. In addition, the provider compliance rates to identify providers thaassistance billing accurately for Medicare services3. Although the program has an effective national not require its partners to commit to national or s4. CMS hires contractors on a cost basis, and budgactivity level (e.g. number of claims reviewed). As reimbursement is unaffected by the number of claIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Complete development of contractor specific errto commit to reducing their error rates.2. Pursue the "Performance-based Outcomes Pilotfees to performance.

Year

1996200020012008

Target

7%6%4%

Actual

14%

6.8%6.3%

2005200620072008

25%50%75%

100%

2005200620072008

+20%+20%+20%+20%

2002 Actual

700

2003 Estimate

720

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Medicare Integrity Program (HCFAC)

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

88

71

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

80 Results / Accountability

0 100

131
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Patients served through the placement and retention of NHSC clinicians(New measure, baseline under development)Long-term Measure:Patients served through NHSC placements and retention, as well as other sources (Communities with a compelling need for providers that do not receive a NHSC clinician may more easily recruit a provider from another source as a result of increased exposure from the program.)(New measure, baseline under development)Annual Measure:Average Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) score of areas receiving NHSC clinicians (HPSA scores gauge provider shortages and whether the program targets communities well.)(New measure, target/baseline under development)

Program Summary:The National Health Service Corps (NHSC) providrepayment awards to doctors and other health procommitment to provide health care to people livinhealth providers regardless of their ability to pay. The assessment found:1. The program purpose is clear and the program significant impact. By directly placing doctors and 

shortage of health providers, the NHSC can help pwithout access to a physician and may also have bcare.2. The program ensures clinicians honor their servgovernment and uses additional performance infor3. The program lacks outcome information for newneed to set ambitious targets once baseline data aevaluations indicate the program is effective at inexample, roughly half of program providers remaitime after the end of the federal service contract.4. The program has shown some efficiency improvfrom federal administrative staff positions to pay fclinicians. Greater flexibility in the allocation of fuloans could further improve efficiency.Based on these findings, the Administration:1. Proposes $23 million above the 2003 Budget, a 46% increase above 2002, to place more doctors anfacing a shortage of health providers.2. Will support more underrepresented minorities professionals from disadvantaged backgrounds thrrecruitment efforts.3. Will serve areas of greatest need by better targetaking into account foreign physicians who serve ihealth providers through visa waivers.(For more information on this program, please see Human Services chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2010

Target

+20%

Actual

2010 +20%2004 +1%

2002 Actual

145

2003 Estimate

189

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: National Health Service Corps

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Health Resources and Services Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

100100

PlanningManagementPurpose

47 Results / Accountability

0 100

132
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Number of individuals enrolled nationwide in nurse education and training programs compared with 2004 (Increasing enrollment in these programs can help prevent or reduce a shortage of nurses in the health care system.)(New measure, baseline under development)Annual Measure:Percentage of program participants that serve in nursing homes, hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate number of low-income patients under Medicare and Medicaid, and public health departments and clinics compared with 2003(New measure, baseline under development)Annual Measure:Percentage of participants who remain employed at the health facility for at least a year after completing their federal service contract(New measure, baseline under development)

Program Summary:The Nursing Education Loan Repayment and Schrepayment awards to nurses in exchange for a comfacilities facing a nursing shortage.The assessment found:1. The program directly places registered nurses inurses. Research has found health care quality animpacted by the number of nurses working in the patients in their care.2. The program's national impact on nurse vacancSelecting an outcome measure on a large problem program such as this one. Further work is needed key outcomes.3. Participating nurses are repaying their loans an4. While the program has adopted new performandata to show progress.5. An evaluation of program results could be usefuother decisions, but no evaluations have been condavailable to indicate the program's overall impact.In response to these findings, the Administration:1. Proposes an increase of $12 million above the 20repayment awards and newly authorized scholarsfrom advanced nursing education activities that dpracticing nurses. 2. Will maximize the impact of the program by tarhomes, hospitals that serve a disproportionate numunder Medicare and Medicaid, and other priority h3. Will conduct an evaluation of the program's impand begin to track performance against newly adoa baseline and refining performance targets.(For more information on this program, please see Human Services chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2010

Target

+10%

Actual

2004 +10%2004 +10%

2002 Actual

10

2003 Estimate

15

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Nursing Education Loan Repayment and 

Scholarship Program Program Type: Competitive Grants

Rating:

Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Health Resources and Services Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

71

90

PlanningManagementPurpose

17 Results / Accountability

0 100

133
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Percentage of enrolled homeless persons who receive community mental health services(New measure)Annual Measure:Percentage of contacted homeless persons with serious mental illness who are enrolled in servicesLong-term Measure:Average federal cost for enrolling a homeless person with serious mental illness into services(New measure)

Program Summary:Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelegrants to states to provide outreach, mental health to homeless individuals with serious mental illnesThe assessment indicates:1. PATH is not entirely unique, but is designed to 2. The program purpose is clear and commonly he3. As required by the authorizing legislation, PATthree years to ensure expenditures are consistent recommend changes in program design and operat4. Evaluations have found PATH succeeds at targeserious mental illness. For example, the 2000 evalreceived funded services were diagnosed with schipsychotic disorder and an additional 30% were diadisorder such as major depression or bipolar disor5. The program has adopted useful and ambitious performance measures and is managed well overa6. The program's existing data indicate progress to

long-term performance measures.7. The program can take additional steps to improoperates with a relatively limited number of emploin place to be more efficient, such as electronic appIn response to these findings, the Administration:1. Proposes a $3 million increase above the 2003 Babove 2002.2. Will track and improve program performance uoutcome and efficiency measures.

Year

20002005

Target

75%

Actual

61%

1997199819992000

30%33%41%

37%36%42%

1999200020042005

$668$668

$579$668

2002 Actual

40

2003 Estimate

47

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Projects for Assistance in Transition from 

Homelessness Program Type: Block/Formula Grants

Rating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

78

100

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

134
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Entered employment rate: the ratio of refugees entering employment relative to the number of refugees receiving employment services(New measure)Annual Measure:Number of refugees entering employment through the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) funded refugee employment servicesAnnual Measure:Number of entered employments with health benefits available as a subset of full-time job placements

Program Summary:The Office of Refugee and Resettlement's Entrant Programs (ORR) helps recently arrived refugees gThe assessment indicates: 1. The program purpose and mission are clear. Socpopulations are not provided by other programs. A70,000 refugees who arrive annually speak no EngEnglish language and job training.2. ORR is weak in strategic planning because it faevaluations, (b) align program budget with goals astrategic planning deficiencies.3. ORR's management is generally strong. For insperformance data from States.4. Financial management is good although this prcongressional earmarks, which complicates financ5. The results section score is largely due to the faestablished long-term outcome goals for which dat6. The program tracks and reviews unit costs as a does not set performance targets to reduce unit coIn response to these findings:1. The Budget includes funds ($2 million) for ORR quality evaluations.2. ORR will establish targets for unit costs as an aeffectiveness.3. The agency will continue its ongoing efforts to iensure that goals are measurable and linked to thplace to identify program deficiencies.

Year

2012

Target

85%

Actual

2001200220032004

56,88548,188

Increase 

by 3%

Increase 

by 3%

45,893

2001200220032004

30,61328,702

Increase 

by 3%

Increase 

by 3%

27,270

2002 Actual

208

2003 Estimate

201

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Refugee and Entrant Assistance

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Administration for Children and Families

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

89

57

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

50 Results / Accountability

0 100

135
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:National rate of deaths per 100,000 people due to HIV infection(New measure)Long-term Measure:National proportion of people living with HIV receiving primary medical care and treatment(New measure)Annual Measure:Number of persons who learn their serostatus from Ryan White CARE Act-funded programs(New measure)

Program Summary:The Ryan White program ensures care and treatmthrough assistance to localities disproportionately goes to States, and other public/private/nonprofit eThe assessment found:1. The program has developed new long-term and 2. There is effective coordination with similar progevaluations occur, and the Health Resources and Sis working with Booz Allen Hamilton to identify aorganizational improvement.2. There is general consensus that the program puaddresses a specific problem. The score for the prosection was affected by weaknesses with program duplication among services funded under each Titbased on a formula that provides funds according over a 5 year period without regard to the level of with HIV/AIDS. 3. The program has contributed to the overall decland deaths due to HIV. Program results were consthat in some cases baseline data are not yet availamore on the results of the program.4. HRSA has not implemented preemptive mechanmake corrective fixes prior to the mismanagement grantees/subgrantees do not use their funds accorWhen problems are identified, legal action is takenindividuals pay restitution.In response to these findings the Administration w1. Develop recommendations and legislative stratereauthorization, to find more meaningful ways of funding and standardizing eligibility across states2. Increase funding for the Ryan White AIDS Drumillion, so that the program can purchase drug trpersons.(For more information on this program, please see Human Services chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

199419992010

Target

3.6

Actual

15.4

5.4

20002010 50%

33%

20002004 381,323

352,283

2002 Actual

1,910

2003 Estimate

1,911

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Ryan White

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Health Resources and Services Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

55

86

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

59 Results / Accountability

0 100

136
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Rate of non-AoA funds leveraged to each $1.00 of program funding(Targets under development)Annual Measure:Measure under developmentEfficiency Measure: Measure under development

Program Summary:The Administration on Aging (AoA) attempts to entheir homes and communities. These programs anas meals in community settings and home-deliveresenior centers and support of family caregivers.The assessment indicates that the overall program a specific need, and is effectively designed. Howevshould be strengthened. Findings include:1. There is a lack of focus on program outcomes in proposed annual targets maintain current performterm improvements. For example, while AoA encofrom non-federal sources, the 2004 target is $1.90 been achieved since 1998.2. While AoA monitors the financial performance opromote efficiencies, utilize full cost accounting or management deficiencies.3. State and local entities have a great deal of flexand leveraging funds. Therefore, grantees cannot and measures, and it is difficult to determine how affect program performance.4. The most recent program evaluation indicated pHowever, AoA’s annual performance plans do not outcomes. Performance measures and targets shoimprove these outcomes.In response to these findings, the Administration reevaluate its performance measures to reflect proappropriate performance targets.

Year

2000200120022003

Target

$1.50

Actual

$1.90

2002 Actual

1,200

2003 Estimate

1,341

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: State and Community-Based Services 

Programs on Aging Program Type: Block/Formula Grants

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Administration on Aging

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

67

29

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

25 Results / Accountability

0 100

137
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Increase in the number of additional children enrolled in regular Medicaid or SCHIP as compared to previous yearLong-term Measure:Implement national health care performance measures across Medicaid and SCHIP (Measures under development)Annual Measure:(Measures under development)

Program Summary:The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Sto initiate and expand health insurance coverage tchildren less than 19 years of age. The assessment found the program purpose is cleaeffective, and program results are evident. Since tmore children have been enrolled in Medicaid and of uninsured children has decreased. SCHIP was flexibility to design their health care programs anadditional flexibility. In addition, States annually measures and enrollment. Additional findings incl1. Existing performance measures, such as numbeprogram do not measure what impact the program The measures do not capture health outcomes or tWithout a core set of national performance measuand Medicaid Services (CMS) has not been able to on national goals or to improve the program’s perfutilization, access, health outcomes, or financial mdoes not perform risk assessments or calculate err2. GPRA goals for SCHIP do not reflect appropriatas those suggested by HHS in Healthy People 201health indicators such as immunization and acces3.While GPRA goals for SCHIP measure increases measure the impact of SCHIP on the rate of uninsIn response to these findings, CMS should:1. Develop, a core set of national performance meathe quality of care received by low-income children2. Develop new annual and long term GPRA goals SCHIP on the rate of uninsured children), and3. Develop a methodology to measure SCHIP imprproducing error rates.(For more information on this program, please see Human Services chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

200020012002

Target

1million1million1million

Actual

>1million>1million>1million

2002 Actual

3,682

2003 Estimate

4,751

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: State Childrens Health Insurance 

Program Program Type: Block/Formula Grants

Rating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

43

86

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

75 Results / Accountability

0 100

138
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Individuals who have received drug treatment services that show no past month substance use six months after admission to treatment(New measure; baseline under development)Annual Measure:Grantees that provide drug treatment services within approved cost per person guidelines by the type of treatment, such as inpatient, outpatient or methadone(New measure; approved cost range and baseline under development)Annual Measure:Drug treatment professionals trained by the program that adopt proven treatment methods (Adopting proven methods ultimately improves drug treatment outcomes.)(New measure, target to be refined)

Program Summary:Substance Abuse Treatment Programs of Regionacomprised of a variety of grants and activities inteavailability of drug treatment services.The assessment indicates:1. The overall purpose of the program is clear, but activities to expand access to drug treatment and of drug treatment, such as training, communicatioclear.2. Grant awards are based on merit and competiti3. The program has not regularly used performancoutcomes and some activities have never been eva

data to indicate progress on newly adopted perform4. A previous evaluation of drug treatment serviceThe 1997 National Treatment Improvement Evaluprogram's treatment services demonstration grantinclude drug use declined from 73% to 38% one yedeclined 78%, arrests declined 64%, employment ialcohol/drug-related medical visits declined 53%.5. Evidence of impact is not available for research efforts.In response to these findings, the Administration:1. Proposes $200 million as part of the President's expand access to treatment using vouchers. Vouchdetermine where they will receive treatment. The of settings, including criminal justice and health cthose in need of treatment and determine the type 2. Proposes $50 million at the 2003 Budget level fostates.3. Proposes to redirect $8 million from research relacking evidence of effectiveness to drug treatmen4. Will increase support for the National Treatmento provide current data on the effectiveness of dru5. Will further improve the effectiveness of servicefunding incentives and reductions based on perfor

Year

2006

Target

42%

Actual

20002004 68%

60%

20012004 44%

40%

2002 Actual

291

2003 Estimate

358

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Substance Abuse Treatment Programs of 

Regional and National Significance Program Type: Competitive Grants

Rating:

Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

64

86

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

139
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Rate of hospitalizations for pediatric asthma in persons under age 18(Modified existing measure)Long-term Measure:Number of immunization-preventable pneumonia hospital admissions of persons aged 65 and older(Modified existing measure)Long-term Measure:Number of immunization-preventable influenza hospital admissions of persons aged 65 and older(Modified existing measure)

Program Summary:Translating Research Into Practice (TRIP) grants entities, universities, and clinics, to address comminfant mortality, cancer screening, cardiovascular child and adult immunizations, and mental health Grantees assess the effectiveness of promising new new interventions are replicable; compare their beexisting approaches; and focus on the day-to-day pcould improve health outcomes.The assessment found:1. There is general consensus that the program pu2. The program developed new long-term goals in them for the 2004 Budget. The 2004 national meato assess how the use of new interventions in healimprove health outcomes/reduce the number of unthose with pediatric asthma and those receiving aprogram recognizes the difficulty of linking expenperformance, but plans to better integrate its exisdatabases to easily identify those programs that a3. The program does not use performance informa

does not measure efficiencies and/or cost savings.4. There is a lack of long-term and annual performdifficult to measure the success of the program or it may be making to changes in provider behaviorIn response to these findings the Administration w1. Maintain funding at the 2003 Budget level to enbeyond collecting data to actually changing provid

health outcomes. 2. The program is addressing its management defiintegrating its planning and budget decision-maki

Year

199920002010

Target

105,613

Actual

178,901150,876

199920002010 520,441

792,264743,487

199920002010 11,570

17,50816,529

2002 Actual

14

2003 Estimate

7

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Program: Translating Research into Practice

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

56

88

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

140
141 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Over the next two years, DHS faces the challenge of reorganizing nearly two dozen programs 

and agencies with nearly 180,000 employees. Key to success are new management flexibilities. 

Because DHS is new, the status starts at red reflecting the known condition of several of the large 

components being transferred to the department. Progress ratings will be determined in the next 

year. As such, specific near-term goals for each initiative are highlighted below rather than 

progress reports in reaching them. 

President’s Management Agenda 

 Status 

Human Capital 

• Conduct a workforce analysis to identify mission-critical skills, the competencies of 

current workers, and actions to be taken to close the gaps. 

• Develop a performance-based human resources management system to reward and 

motivate employees. 

Competitive Sourcing/Procurement 

• Use innovative procurement methods during DHS’ start up. Partner with the private 

sector when possible and appropriate. 

• Conduct a review of the Department’s activities, identify commercial functions, and 

develop a plan for competing jobs that can be done in the private sector. 

Financial Performance 

• Implement a unified financial management system that links funding to performance. 

Expanding E-Government 

• Develop a unified operating infrastructure that supports DHS programs and activities. 

• Map operational systems to identify any redundancies and obsolete systems. 

• Develop an interactive website that allows for on-line benefit and grant applications. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

• Develop a five-year strategic plan and line up resources with goals for the 2005 Budget. 

• Develop a performance management system that links resources to programs’ operations. 

Program Assessments 

Nine programs that moved into DHS received PART reviews. Seven did not demonstrate 

results. These programs generally have a clear purpose but lack long-term, measurable goals. 

DHS will undertake performance evaluations of its programs over the next two years to identify 

remedial steps or other appropriate action. 

R

R

R

R

R
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Total number of commercial vessel collisions, allisions, and groundingsA collision is when two moving objects hit each other. An allision is when a vessel hits a stationary object. While this is an acceptable indicator, the program is not yet able to demonstrate its effect on accidents in the long-term.Annual Measure:Percentage of time waterways are available for commerceWaterways are usually open to traffic but may be closed due to accidents or to navigational aids being unavailable.(New measure)

Program Summary:The Aids to Navigation (ATON) program helps enU.S. ports and waterways. This mission includes and radio navigation systems. The PART raised questions about the design of thdirectly by the Coast Guard. Other program desigfunctions, may be more appropriate or efficient. In that the ATON program has no long-term performevaluations. Therefore, the program cannot demoimpact it is having on vessel safety. To address thwill conduct an A-76 study on the ATON program services may be more efficiently provided by the p

Year Target Actual

1999200020012002

2,2612,098

2,1942,1521,677

2003 98%

2002 Actual

973

2003 Estimate

974

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Program: Aids to Navigation

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Coast Guard

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

66

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

53 Results / Accountability

0 100

142
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measures:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Customer satisfaction rating on survey of grant recipientsAnnual Measure:Efficiency measure under development

Program Summary:The Public Assistance program provides grants to 

the repair of damaged public facilities such as cousports stadiums, and hospitals. The grants also pemergency services.The program assessment demonstrated that the pbut suffers from planning and management deficie1. The program has no long-term outcome measur2. It cannot meaningfully track its operations with 3. The program fails to adequately screen requests whether Federal help is needed.Additional program reforms are being deferred unincorporation of the program into the Department Note--Funding identified below is estimated perceDisaster Relief Fund for the Public Assistance pronot budget separately for this program, but budgeRelief program as a whole. Actual funding from yeof disaster activity and destruction to public facilit

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

87%88%87%

87%

2002 Actual

5,521

2003 Estimate

981

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Program: Disaster Relief Fund - Public Assistance

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

43

57

90

PlanningManagementPurpose

50 Results / Accountability

0 100

143
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Seizure rate for cocaine shipped through the transit zone (Metric tons of cocaine seized by Coast Guard relative to total estimated by interagency flow models to be smuggled through a six-million square mile area including the Carribean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Central America, northern coast of South America, Mexico, and Eastern Pacific)Efficiency Mesaure: Measures under development

Program Summary:The Coast Guard's Drug Interdiction program seizshipments before they arrive in the U.S. This misGuard ships and aircraft patrolling the ocean arecountries and the U.S. border.The PART found that while the program is generachallenges in strategic planning and performance.1. The PART identified no significant problems wiprogram purpose or management.2. This program has significant weaknesses in strnot have long-term performance measures specific comprehensive evaluations for this program are n3. While the Coast Guard has not met its annual gstrategies and making key investments to improve In response to these findings, the Administration term performance measures and efficiency measur

Year Target Actual for regular evaluations.

1999200020012002

12.5%13.0%15.0%18.7%

12.2%10.6%11.1%

2002 Actual

724

2003 Estimate

697

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Program: Drug Interdiction

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Coast Guard

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

83

65

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

25 Results / Accountability

0 100

144
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Partner organization satisfaction rate of law enforcement training(New measure, targets under development)Annual Measure:Student satisfaction rate of law enforcement training(New measure, targets under development)

Program Summary:The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (Fenforcement officers for over 74 Federal agencies. training programs for State, local and internationFLETC is transferring from Treasury to the DepaThe assessment indicates the overall purpose of thcoordination between FLETC and other training pAdditional findings include:1. The program's long-term performance goals lack whether or not outcome goals are being achieved.2. FLETC's budget is not structured in a way to aspolicy changes on program performance.3. The program's annual performance goals are nolong-term performance goals.To address some of these findings, FLETC recentla capacity assessment and it will submit the resul

addition, the program is implementing a series of these findings, including:1. Developing clear long-term performance goals wmeasures;2. Working with other training providers to establcosts of training personnel; and3. Refining existing annual performance goals and performance goals.

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

169

2003 Estimate

144

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Program: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

65

68

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

40 Results / Accountability

0 100

145
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Value of avoided property damage(Interim targets under development)Annual Measure:Community resistance to natural hazards- as measured by reduction in lives at risk(Targets under development)

Program Summary:The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program provides gdesigned to reduce losses to public and private proAlthough the program has a relatively clear purpomanagement weaknesses that limit results. Chief performance measurement and reporting are lackinadequate. As the PART revealed, the program adesign flaws. Key findings of the assessment inclu1. The program allocates funds to States based on Thus the program is reactive and lacking in targetrisk. 2. The program sets a low hurdle for project eligibthat mitigation projects require no more than $1 i3. The program reserves a significant portion of furequires no benefit-cost determination so that a prin benefits for every $1 spent.The budget proposes a major restructuring of the effectiveness.1. The program will be replaced with a pre-disastefunded at $300 million, that will allocate limited Fmitigation priorities.2. The new program will operate independently of assuring that funding remains stable and is not suactivity.3. Awarding grants on a pre-disaster, competitive most worthwhile, cost-beneficial projects receive furecommended for the existing program.Note--Funding identified below is estimated perceDisaster Relief Fund for the Hazard Mitigation Gr(For more information on this program, please see Security chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2008

Target

$2.45 B

Actual

2001 5,000 11,274

2002 Actual

589

2003 Estimate

0

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Program: Hazard Mitigation Grant

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

60

57

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

42 Results / Accountability

0 100

146
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Average number of months to process benefit applications (data in months; 2001-2002 data for naturalization applications only; 2003-2004 data for all benefit applications; 2003 target under development)Annual Quality Measure:Percentage compliance with naturalization quality procedures(2001-2002 data for naturalization applications only; 2003- 2004 data for expanded application types) (New quality measure under development)Efficiency measure:Specific measure and targets under development

Program Summary:Immigration Services provides immigration informImmigration Services makes decisions about who both temporary and permanent legal status in the alien registration cards and asylum applications, tcitizenship. Findings from the PART assessment include the f1. Immigration Services has engaged in extensive long and short term goals.2. Significant progress has been made towards achsuch as reducing the application backlog and main3. The program has a plan to reduce backlogs of approcessing times of its applications and reports to its progress towards achieving goals.4. Although Immigration Services has made a numseveral years, it is not yet designed to quickly resppast year, events such as September 11, expansion and new legislation/policies implemented to meet have diverted resources and caused sudden increa5. Immigration Services also has significant finansuch as not making timely deposits of application guidelines and audit problems concerning the inabrevenue" through automated systems for case procimplementing a series of reforms designed to addr(For more information on this program, please see Security chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

200120022004

Target

986

Actual

8

10

20012002

99%99%

99%99%

2002 Actual

1,604

2003 Estimate

1,656

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Program: Immigration Services

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

43

86

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

53 Results / Accountability

0 100

147
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The MMRS program helps local health personnel incident, including a terrorist use of a weapon of mFindings from the PART assessment include the f1. The purpose of MMRS is clear. The program wawith funding to establish a base level of preparedn2. The program has not developed any long-term owhich to measure results.3. Evidence of proper management demonstrated audit information was available for this program.4. Due to the fact that this program is administere

grants, contractors are in many ways automaticalto the goals of the program. However, goals are nocontracts, nor is performance information used to amounts, or purposes.The Budget recommendation reflects:1. Discontinuation of this program in 2004 since thBudget completes the mission of providing 122 citiestablish a base level of preparedness.

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

25

2003 Estimate

60

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Program: Metropolitan Medical Response System

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Departmental Management

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

4343

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

13 Results / Accountability

0 100

148
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Estimated value of disaster and property loss avoidedLong-term Measure:Percentage of flood claims processed according to program standards(New measure)Annual Measure:The income to expense ratio of the flood insurance program

Program Summary:The National Flood Insurance Program offers basihomes and businesses in the United States. The PART revealed that the program purpose and program management are basically sound. The prconcerning its low participation rate and the incluare only a burden on the taxpayer. Currently, less properties in identified flood plains participate in participation rate for private wind and hurricane at-risk areas. Additionally, FEMA is not currently allowing repetitive loss properties to be insured unmodifications could improve program results. Exa1. Phasing out repetitive loss properties.2. Ending taxpayer subsidies for second homes anThese reforms depend on enactment of legislationdeclined to do.In response to these findings, the Administration performance measures. Additional program reformestablishment and incorporation of the program inSecurity.Note--Funding identified below is estimate of grosThere are fees and premiums which offset the pro

Year

200220032008

Target

$1.000B$1.200B

$10B total

Actual

$1.102B

20042008

90%

100%

2000200120032004

114.0%116.0%117.0%

112.4%

2002 Actual

943

2003 Estimate

1,527

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Program: National Flood Insurance

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

86

90

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

149
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Percent of all mariners in imminent danger rescued

Program Summary:The Search and Rescue (SAR) program saves peopWhile the program is well-managed, it faces stratechallenges.1. The program has a clear purpose and is well-ma2. While the Coast Guard has a useful performancprogress, more work is needed to develop long-term 3. Coast Guard has reached or very nearly reached saving 85% of all mariners in imminent danger. Hreceive high scores in "Results" because it lacks loand because an audit found readiness problems.4. A recent audit by the Inspector General identifiand equipment problems in the SAR program." Thfew high-profile SAR cases that have been mishanTo address these findings:1. The Budget will provide funding in 2004 for two improve SAR station readiness. These initiatives, the Coast Guard to increase SAR staffing. With asmall boat stations and command centers, individuto 68 hours and watch standards will be capped at changes will ensure that SAR operations are not hoverworked and exhausted. 2. Coast Guard will work to develop useful long-tethe SAR program.

Year Target Actual

1999200020012002

85%85%

87.5%82.7%84.2%

2002 Actual

640

2003 Estimate

777

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Program: Search and Rescue

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Coast Guard

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

83

85

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

45 Results / Accountability

0 100

150
151 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

For many years, audits and other assessments have documented chronic weaknesses in HUD’s 

staffing as well as information and financial systems. Two large programs, comprising two-thirds 

of the Department’s funds, are rated high-risk by the General Accounting Office. HUD officials 

have focused on these deficiencies and have demonstrated sustained progress. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

HUD is red in status for several reasons including skill gaps and human capital deficiencies 

across the Department. HUD does not sustain a high-performing workforce that is continually 

improving in productivity. HUD’s progress, which is yellow, includes stepped up recruitment and 

hiring, adding new talent to augment the Cabinet’s oldest workforce. 

Competitive Sourcing 

HUD is red in status because it has completed no studies of public-private competitions to 

determine the best method to deliver services. Progress is yellow because HUD has decided on 

the activities it plans to subject to public-private competition. 

Financial Performance 

HUD’s red status is due to five repeat material weaknesses on its latest audit report. Some 

financial systems fail to meet federal requirements. HUD’s progress is green because of new 

internal controls procedures and the successful implementation of the first phase of the FHA 

commercial accounting system. 

Expanding E-Government 

HUD is red in status because of chronic problems implementing IT systems. HUD’s progress is 

green because of improved oversight and control of costs on investments in information 

technology. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

HUD is red in status because planning and budget are separate, with not enough focus on 

outcomes. HUD’s green progress rating results from using outcomes rather than outputs in 

selected cases in this year’s budgeting and its development of a performance-based budget 

format. 

R Y

R Y

R G

R G

R G
152 

HUD Management and Performance 

HUD is red in status until improvements reach the targeted levels. HUD’s progress is 

commendable. The housing provided to HUD-assisted tenants is better today than it was a year 

ago; many more units comply with HUD’s physical standards. Some large long-troubled public 

housing authorities are turning around. FHA has lowered risks of its FHA loan guarantees by 

eliminating firms with inflated appraisals and improving the way it manages defaulted 

properties. 

Program Assessments 

Program assessments for six HUD programs are presented below. Ratings range from 

moderately effective for housing vouchers and HOME to ineffective for project-based rental 

assistance. In three programs, results were not demonstrated. HUD has ample room to improve. 

R Y
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentThey will be included in HUD's Strategic Plan.Annual Measure:Number of HOME production units completedThis figure includes rental units produced and new homebuyers and existing homeowners assisted.Annual Measure:Number of homeowners assisted with HOME funding(includes Downpayment Assistance Initiative in 2003)

Program Summary:The HOME Investment Partnerships Program progovernments to expand the supply of affordable hoGrantees may assist renters, new homebuyers or evariety of activities such as rehabilitation, new contenant-based assistance.Designed to provide affordable housing, the HOME purpose. A strong management team is in place, bmeasures do not capture outcomes. Key findings in1. The program purpose and flexible design enable significant impact on affordable housing problems2. In comparison to other forms of housing assistaconjunction with other housing programs, creates leverages outside funding, and works with commuorganizations.3. Management is excellent. HOME program manperformance information submitted by grantees to promote accountability and transparency. HOME that rank the more than 600 state and local grantperformance and efficiency.4. The program has made progress toward its anndemonstrated improved efficiency over time. 5. The primary shortcoming of the program is its lwhich limits HOME's ability to demonstrate its imlives of low-income persons assisted. For instancethe number of people assisted, not on the long-term recipients.While no major program changes are recommendeHOME will include long-term outcome measures iexpand the program, funding requests include $20Down Payment Assistance Initiative to help first-t(For more information on this program, please see Urban Development chapter in the Budget volume

Year Target Actual

2000200120022003

58,00060,00061,00062,000

76,60955,14852,344

2000200120022003

32,00036,00034,00045,000

30,74829,69032,490

2002 Actual

1,796

2003 Estimate

2,084

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Program: HOME Investment Partnerships Program

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Community Planning and Development

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

77

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

54 Results / Accountability

0 100

153
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Number of elderly households (in thousands) in the United States with worst-case housing needsThese households are renters that do not receive Federal assistance but have incomes below 50 percent of the local median and pay more than half of their income on rent or live in poor quality housing.

Program Summary:The Housing for the Elderly grants program (also program) provides construction grants and on-goinlow-income elderly persons. The grants go to nonpand operate the housing. Grants to these organiza

finance the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitapersons. Funds for operating the housing are provThe analysis resulted in low performance scores doutcome goals, insufficient performance measuresproduced relative to need, higher costs compared tfor this population, and long lead times to produce findings include:1. Although most elderly households who eventuaprogram are satisfied with their units, the program overall level of impact it is having on poor elderly focused on inputs in funding and program managebacklog of unexpended funds. Little attention has outcomes.2. Over one million very low-income elderly houseneeds, but the program provides fewer than 6,000 severe housing needs are one measure of housing the effect of this program on this measure as it is affecting the level of need.3. Development delays and cost increases are cominexperience of non-profit sponsors in housing devadditional funding to complete projects.In response to these findings, HUD will produce a performance within a year, which will include the performance measures. HUD will examine possibl(statutory, administrative, regulatory) within the strengthen performance.

Year Target Actual

1995199719992003 970

1,0511,1801,028

2002 Actual

783

2003 Estimate

773

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Program: Housing for the Elderly

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Housing Programs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

18

43

40

PlanningManagementPurpose

13 Results / Accountability

0 100

154
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Number of households including a disabled person with worst-case housing needs (in thousands)These households do not receive Federal assistance but have incomes below 50 percent of the local median, and pay more than half of their income on rent or live in poor quality housing.

Program Summary:The Housing for Persons with Disabilities program program) provides construction grants, on-going o

vouchers for very low-income persons with disabilorganizations who own and operate the housing. Facquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of multfor project operation are provided when projects ato 25 percent of annual funding for housing vouchdirectly to recipients so that they can afford to renthe private market.Major findings are:1. Development delays and cost increases are comprogram. Overall, the program does not monitor cdelivery of housing assistance.2. Long-term measures are inadequate to determihas on poor disabled individuals. HUD has been fprogram management, including reducing the bacthe program needs to track the extent to which rehousing. This problem is the major reason the pro"Accountability" score.3. An estimated 1.1 to 1.4 million very low-income severe housing needs, but the program only providunits a year. While the number of households with measure of whether this program is working, it is this program on this number. It is only one factor 

of need.As a result of the analysis, HUD will take the follo1. Develop performance measures that attempt to efficiency of the program. 2. Propose amendments to streamline the delivery provide more housing units for very low-income dithe current program would allow non-profit organgrant funds to respond to local needs. 3. Give priority to local projects that are part of thhomelessness by housing those disabled who are a

Year Target Actual

1995199719992003 1,070

1,0501,1001,100

2002 Actual

241

2003 Estimate

251

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Program: Housing for Persons with Disabilities

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Housing Programs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

18

43

40

PlanningManagementPurpose

13 Results / Accountability

0 100

155
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Number of worst-case needs households in the US (households with incomes below 50 percent of the local median income, who pay more than half of their income in rent or live in poor quality units) (In thousands)Annual Measure:Share of the Housing Choice Voucher program administered by housing agencies with poor records of using their allocation of program funds (Targets under development)Long-term Measure:Number of Housing Choice Voucher households that have accumulated financial savings through the Family SelfSufficiency program

Program Summary:The Housing Voucher program provides assistancincome households so they can afford to go out on in the private market.This program received a relatively high score in coprograms because it is a cost-effective alternative assistance. The specific findings are:1. It provides greater benefits (choice in housing, palternatives such as public housing.2. While focusing on the goal of providing housinggoals of tenant mobility and movement toward sel3. Some of the 2,700 local public housing authoritivouchers are poor managers. For instance, more thfederal aid was not used by the PHA’s last year. Thave housed 200,000 families.4. The program is not coordinated effectively with 5. A rating system has been implemented to help mgoals, but HUD has not taken effective action to sanor do they appear confident in the data received In support of the President's Management Agenda performance of housing intermediaries, the BudgeHousing Voucher program now administered by 2grant, Housing Assistance for Needy Families (HAThis would improve the utilization of vouchers, encoordination with TANF while allowing greater flelessen HUD’s administrative burden. (For more information on this program, please see Urban Development chapter in the Budget volume

Year

1997199920012003

Target

NANA

3,8073,730

Actual

4,3313,921

200020012003

43.9%33.3%

53.9%43.3%

200120022003

16,38317,202

15,603

2002 Actual

9,518

2003 Estimate

11,891

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Program: Housing Vouchers

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Public and Indian Housing Programs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

73

86

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

156
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Percent of overcrowded houses on tribal lands(New measure, targets under development)Annual Measure:Percent of overcrowded houses on tribal lands(New measure, targets under development)Annual Measure:Number of households receiving assistance

Program Summary:The Native American Housing Block grant providuse to provide rental assistance, rehabilitation, necounseling, and other housing-related activities.The assessment indicates that the overall purpose clear. However, the program receives poor performthe program does not have a history of establishingoals, targets, and timelines. It, therefore, cannot level of impact it has on providing housing to thosprogram does not have information systems in plaare in compliance with reporting requirements. To address these findings, HUD will:1. Look to the HOME program, which received a mpercent, for ways to effectively run a housing block 2. Develop short- and long-term, outcome-oriented track reductions in overcrowded housing.3. Complete the development and implementation systems. HUD has scheduled and funded the devetechnology systems for the block grant in 2003.4. Simplify reporting requirements for grantees. Hessential data needed to evaluate grantee performfederal regulations and also give consideration to burdensome reporting requirements are on smalle5. Propose legislative language to strengthen and HUD should develop language that will expedite efraud or non-compliance.

Year Target Actual

20032004

19,96723,960

2002 Actual

649

2003 Estimate

647

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Program: Native American Housing Block Grants

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Public and Indian Housing Programs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

56

29

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

0 Results / Accountability

0 100

157
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Thousands of households with worst-case housing needs (households not receiving federal assistance with incomes below 50 percent of the local median, who pay more than half of their income on rent or live in poor quality housing)Annual Measure:Percent of units meeting physical standardsLong-term Measure:Self-Sufficiency: Average earnings among non-elderly, non disabled households(Target under development)

Program Summary:Project-based rental assistance provides funding tnumber of affordable apartments to low-income fais tied directly to the properties; tenants can genetheir assistance.This program receives low performance scores becprogram outcomes and produces poor results relathousing assistance. The specific findings are:1. There is confusion over the objectives of the properformance targets. For example, while HUD has self-sufficiency of assisted households, it has not sfor the project-based program.2. There is a lack of strong financial accountabilitycontrol of rents paid to landlords. 3. While worst-case needs are one measure of housisolate the effect of this program on this measure many affecting the level of need.4. Assisted households lack the ability to move to bphysical quality of project-based housing has impryears, those households in substandard properties option of moving. Similar programs such as the Hhave this problem.5. The program costs more than other forms of renIn light of this assessment HUD will make managstepped-up enforcement against properties in poor increase the number of units meeting acceptable pPerformance measures for self-sufficiency will also the program is proposed in 2004. Funding increasproperties are renewing assistance contracts than properties assisted does not increase.

Year

1997199920012003

Target

3,8073,730

Actual

4,3313,921

1999200020012003

86.5%97.6%

77.3%86.2%93.1%

2002 Actual

4,413

2003 Estimate

4,536

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Program: Project-Based Rental Assistance

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Ineffective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Housing Programs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

63

35

40

PlanningManagementPurpose

22 Results / Accountability

0 100

158
159 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Since it was established in 1849, the Interior Department has consisted of semi-autonomous 

bureaus with diverse missions and strong, independent cultures. Interior’s challenge is to improve 

efficiency by managing common functions collectively. Interior has recently begun to make 

significant progress in overcoming these century-old institutional barriers, in part by effectively 

using an internal scorecard to monitor the bureaus. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

Interior has developed a human capital strategy that is generally aligned with mission, goals, 

and objectives. It has also completed a final action plan to guide implementation steps, such as 

an SES performance system and mid-career exchange program. 

Competitive Sourcing 

DOI has many work sites with few employees, so it is taking the initiative to find more efficient 

ways to review small groups. While these efforts are reflected in progress, the limited number of 

cost comparisons completed to date is reflected in status. 

Financial Performance 

Indian Trust Fund reform remains the greatest financial management challenge facing Interior. 

DOI has done well to correct eight FMFIA material weaknesses this past year, but it still has 

several outstanding material weaknesses and non-compliance issues. It also needs to 

incorporate its business processes into its Enterprise Architecture. 

Expanding E-Government 

DOI has documented its Capital Planning and Investment Control process and drafted an initial 

Enterprise Architecture. It still needs to better manage its IT portfolio and IT security. The 

Department leads two e-gov initiatives: Recreation.gov and Geospatial one-stop. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

Interior will soon release for public comment a new, department-wide strategic plan to replace 

multiple bureau-level plans. The draft plan has already helped formulate the 2004 Budget, as 

well as other management initiatives. Three bureaus already use activity-based costing to track 

and manage costs, with all bureaus scheduled to do so by 2004. 

Program Assessments 

The PART process resulted in new goals and performance measures for most of the programs 

assessed. The Department performed slightly above the government-wide PART average with six 

programs rated as Moderately Effective, two as Adequate, and seven as Results Not 

Demonstrated. The last group will develop new measures to better indicate effectiveness. 

R R

R G

R G

R G

R G
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Outcome measures under development, such as measuring reduction of health and safety problems of abandoned coal mine sites near communitiesAnnual Measure:Equivalent acres of abandoned coal mine land with health and safety problems remaining to be reclaimed. (Base is 1998 - 129,000 acres held constant) NOTE: States identify additional equivalent acres at the rate of about 22,000 annually.Efficiency Measure:Measure under development

Program Summary:The Abandoned Mine Land program reclaims and degraded by abandoned coal mining activities. Feeprogram and a portion of the fees collected are appthree states and three Indian Tribes carry out the program oversight from the Office of Surface MiniThe assessment found that the program is well maconsiderable coordination among program stakehoTribes. Over the past 25 years, the program has reidentified abandoned coal mine sites. Some states their abandoned coal mine sites and are using theallowed by the program's authorizing legislation. Tof the fees collected within a state to be returned tother purposes. The increased use of this funding slowing the reclamation in states with large numbwill take over 50 years to restore all the sites. The program, will expire on September 30, 2004. While this assessment was based largely on existinot adequately demonstrate results and will not bThe Office of Surface Mining needs to develop meaoriented, such as measuring how well the program problems related to abandoned coal mine sites neaOSM needs to develop an efficiency measure.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Propose legislative changes to the program’s auof pre-1977 abandoned coal mine land reclaimed.2. Extend the coal fee, which expires on Septemberemaining work.3. Develop long-term measures that are more outcleast one efficiency measure.

Year Target Actual

1999200020012002

119,900111,800103,200

96,200

118,051105,875

92,067

2002 Actual

203

2003 Estimate

174

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Interior

Program: Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

88

86

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

160
Key Performance Measures

Long-Term Measure: Number of high priority acres moved to a better condition classMeasures the extent to which excessive fuel loads (small trees and brush that exacerbate risks of catastrophic fire) are reduced and forest health is improved(New measure, targets under development)Annual Measure:Number of high priority acres treated in (1) the wildland urban interface (WUI) or (2) in condition classes 2 or 3...outside the WUIMeasures acres treated to reduce fire risk in areas adjacent to communities and in other high-priority areas. (New measure, targets under development)Efficiency Measure: Number of high priority acres treated in (1) the wildland urban interface (WUI) or (2) in condition classes 2 or 3...outside the WUI per million dollars of gross investment (New measure, targets under development)

Program Summary:DOI is responsible for managing and, if necessaryit owns. The program consists of five major activifire suppression, (3) hazardous fuels reduction, (4) (5) rural fire district assistance.The assessment found that the program faces signlong-term goals, most of which appear to be manamanagement changes are currently underway at tissues. Specific findings include:1. The purpose and design of the program is clear 2. The cost of responding to fires is rapidly rising containment strategy is in place to track and contr3. The program cannot demonstrate that fuels redactivities are adequately targeted and efficiently msignificant amount of fuels reduction funding ($56 prior years.4. The long-term goals developed as part of the 10baseline data, annual and long-term targets, and cgoals and 18 measures.Based on the identified problems in the program, timplement management improvements in the fire 1. Improving accountability for firefighting costs apaying their fair share of such costs.2. Developing a new fire preparedness model that available resources.3. Establishing project criteria to ensure that haztargeted as effectively as possible to reduce risks turban interface.

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

678

2003 Estimate

654

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Interior

Program: DOI Wildland Fire Management

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Bureau of Land Management

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

43

57

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

161
Key Performance Measures

Long-Term Measure: Percent of plant and animal species listed or proposed for listing pursuant to the Endangered Species Act with a stable or increasing trend in the resident populations(New measure)Long-Term Measure: Percent of watersheds within priority sub-basins achieving proper functioning condition or an upward trend(New measure)Efficiency measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:This Bureau of Land Management (BLM) program Work may include invasive weed treatments, reinenhancements to riverbanks.The assessment found that BLM's restoration actiinclude leveraging of significant funding from nonnecessary work done. The agency's Challenge Cosapproximately $16.4 million in 2002 with Federal BLM maintains an extensive network of volunteerBLM also emphasizes the use of performance-baseinternal program evaluations, and uses funds in a weaknesses were identified in the assessment. Th1. Gaps in monitoring of resource conditions to suand to assess the impacts of restoration activities.2. A lack of program performance measures that f3. Insufficient data on exising performance measuis accurate and performance targets are aggressiv4. Significant similarities and potential overlaps bBLM's restoration programs and in the Departmeprogram for rehabilitation and fuels reduction. Based on these findings, the Administration will:1. Provide an additional $2 million in 2004 for BLimprove baseline data and track trends over time.2. Refine existing performance measures and devmeasures across the Department for similar restor3. Evaluate options for more clearly distinguishinfunded within the Department's wildland fire progprograms.

Year

200120022003

Target

17.5%

35%

43.5%

Actual

28%34%

200120022003

10%24%34%

14%23%

2002 Actual

139

2003 Estimate

145

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Interior

Program: Habitat Restoration Activities

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Bureau of Land Management

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

8686

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

50 Results / Accountability

0 100

162
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: The average Facility Condition Index (FCI)(FCI is a measure commonly used by private firms to monitor the condition of facilities. This is a new measure with the baseline established using 2001 data)Annual Measure: Percentage of BIA's building square footage identified as excess.(New measure)Efficiency Measure: Measure and targets under development

Program Summary:This program is responsible for the repair and con

Indian Affairs' (BIA) schools and dormitories. BIA secondary schools, including dormitories, serving students in 23 states. The President has committerepair/maintenance backlog over 5 years. The assessment found that public laws are fairly pgoverning what the BIA can regulate as far as the negotiated between the tribes and the bureau. Ad1. The program had limited flexibility to adjust funproject cost when there are delays or changes due original project.2. Recent designs for replacement schools and majprojects do not reflect trends, such as a declining s3. No comparison exists for costs of similar state s4. There is insufficient planning to ensure the Preeliminate the backlog will be met. The program hadata is not yet available. The rating is based on necontinue to develop additional measures.To address the PART findings, BIA will:1. Refrain from identifying construction cost estimhave been completed. This will avoid project "earmand appropriations reports.2. Establish an efficiency measure, such as reducinfunding to completion of project, or the cost per sq3. Complete an independent study comparing the schools to schools built by states in similar locationThe Budget proposes to fund 7 or more replacemenimprovement and repair projects.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

200120022007

Target

.10

Actual

.265

.21

2002 Actual

293

2003 Estimate

293

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Interior

Program: Indian School Construction

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Bureau of Indian Affairs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

80

56

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

28 Results / Accountability

0 100

163
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Percentage of students achieving standardized proficiency ratings in math and language artsAnnual Measure: Percentage of students achieving standardized proficiency ratings in mathEfficiency Measure:Measure and targets under development

Program Summary:The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) supports 185 eschools serving approximately 48,000 Indian child121 of these schools under Indian self-determinatiremaining schools are BIA operated. The assessment identified a need for more indepenof the program. Additional findings include:1. BIA schools meet the cultural needs of Americaremote and isolated communities often not accessialso includes boarding schools and dormitories, whlocal school systems.2. BIA changed the target year for reaching its lonmath and language arts proficiency for students frprogram's annual target was adjusted, as well, to 3. In 2002, 43 schools needed corrective action plaDepartment of Education guidelines, for raising st4. The program does not have adequate academic measures that provide valid comparisons with pubhigh concentrations of Indian students.5. In 2002, BIA instituted a pilot program, focuseschools, aimed at helping the faculty improve studInitial findings indicate that at least 4 of the schooIn response to these findings:1. BIA will establish a measure to report on schoobelow, near, meet or exceed academic proficiency p2. BIA will develop academic performance and coscomparable to similarly located public schools. (For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2012

Target

70

Actual

1999200020012002

45475458

435050

2002 Actual

504

2003 Estimate

522

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Interior

Program: Indian School Operations

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Bureau of Indian Affairs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

71

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

20 Results / Accountability

0 100

164
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Goal: Percent of National Fish Hatchery System priority recovery tasks implemented as prescribed in approved Recovery Plans to recover listed species.(New measure)Annual Goal: Percent of National Fish Hatchery System priority restoration tasks implemented as prescribed in approved Fishery Management Plans to restore depleted native fish populations.(New measure)Efficiency Measure: Pounds of healthy rainbow trout produced per dollar spent.(New measure)

Program Summary:The National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS) prodfish for the recovery of threatened or endangered sdue to federal water development actions, restoratstocks, and the enhancement of tribal fisheries. Th"ineffective" in the 2003 President's Budget and fupriority, more effective programs. The assessment reflects a focusing of the role of thproviding sport fish to a more diversified and balamanaging aquatic resources including restoring nthreatened and endangered species and supportinmitigation programs. Efforts over the past year to direction of the NFHS helped focus the program. Hto address issues concerning its mission, design, aassessment rating is based largely on previous methe assessment process. Through the assessment statement and performance measures were crafted1. The program does not have complete flexibility consolidate hatcheries to emphasize priorities and mitigation production programs.2. The program does not have regularly scheduled quality evaluations of program strategic planning 3. Field managers are generally held accountable held directly accountable for achieving program go4. The Fish and Wildlife Service does not do full cocosts and associate them with specific performancIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Adopt the mission statement and goals develope2. Schedule periodic strategic planning and progra3. Link individual employee performance plans witargets for each fiscal year.4. The FWS will begin implementing Activity Baseallocate and associate program costs with specific (For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2008

Target

48%

Actual

2004200520062007

72%73%74%75%

20042008

0.370.41

2002 Actual

55

2003 Estimate

50

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Interior

Program: National Fish Hatchery System

Program Type: MixedRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

53

76

57

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

165
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Percent of the nation's surface for which hydrography, elevation, and orthoimagery data are available through the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Clearinghouse and supported through partnerships (This measure indicates whether basic information needed to make maps is easily accessible to the public.) (New measure)Annual Measure: Produce draft standard to fill gaps in data integration capabilities and standards to accomplish long term data integration goals.(New measure)Efficiency Measure: Cost per scene of delivery of Landsat type data (currently $600)A scene is one snapshot of a part of the earth by a satellite.(New measure)

Program Summary:This program in the United States Geological Survand use geospatial data such as maps. It is in trancollects and distributes such data, to a program thintegrate and apply geospatial data. The program collecting and disseminating because this is done bstate and local levels. The analysis found that USGS is moving very slow Other PART findings included the following: 1. The purpose of the program is clear, and while ta unique impac, it is not optimally designed.2.The program has new long term goals but lacks The program has been successful at partnering winot demonstrated how these partnerships help congoals. 3.The program is not effective at identifying termiensure achievement of strategic outcomes.4. The program does not have the appropriate wormapping forward. USGS currently has a work forpaper map products or providing technical advice 5. Most employees are located at three mapping cecollection and dissemination of geographic informadispersed organization that facilitates others to fingeographic information. In response to these findings:1. To speed the transition, the budget proposes to acquisition efforts by $5 million and increase suppgeospatial data standards, ensure data quality, prapplications, and align geospatial data requiremenfederal, state and local governments. 2. USGS will work with the Federal Geographic Drequirements across federal, state and local governcoordinating the update and integration of data. 3. USGS will develop a realistic implementation pagency's new role by April 2003.

Year

200220032012

Target

1%

15%80%

Actual

.8%

2003 $595

2002 Actual

133

2003 Estimate

129

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Interior

Program: National Mapping

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: United States Geological Survey

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

55

89

87

PlanningManagementPurpose

40 Results / Accountability

0 100

166
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: The average Facility Condition Index (FCI)FCI is a measure commonly used by private firms to monitor the condition of facilities. (New measure, targets to be developed by June 2003)Annual Measure: Percent of parks that have completed condition assessments for all facilitiesEfficiency Measure: Maintenance cost per square foot(New measure, targets under development)

Program Summary:This program builds and maintains all the buildinthe nation's 387 national parks. Over time, the codeclined as visitation increased, the number of parinfrastructure got older. To change this trend, the eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog witThe PART found that NPS plans to use a Facility measure performance. Before it can set FCI targeother steps, such as assessing current facility condfacility maintenance software system (FMSS) to trNPS cannot document its results until FCI targets is low. The PART also found that:1. The purpose of the program is very well defined2. Strategic Planning has improved and will get bfor its long-term goals.3. Management still needs significant work. The steps to improve financial and management overs4. Results depend upon getting FCI targets in plahow different funding levels can lead to different ocompare its cost-effectiveness against benchmarksIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Provide $4.9 billion in funding over five years fconstruction of park facilities and roads. This inclto bring park roads up to good condition (as measunext six-year highway bill. Construction funds remgoals are set.2. Complete condition assessments and FCI targeimplement FMSS by 2004.3. Publish a 5-year priority list emphasizing defer4. Increase use of efficiency measures, benchmarkand capital asset plans.5. Continue ongoing efforts to reduce unobligated management, and streamline environmental comp(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

200120022003

50

100

0

35

2002 Actual

661

2003 Estimate

661

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Interior

Program: National Park Service Facility 

Management Program Type: Capital Assets

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: National Park Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

10

67

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

25 Results / Accountability

0 100

167
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Percent of 270 national parks that use monitoring networks to track key "vital signs" parameters (Vital signs are the key indicators that best represent how an overall ecosystem is doing.)Annual Measure: Percent of the total of 2,767 data sets completed (Data sets consist of 12 basic inventories of natural resources, such as vegetation, soil, and water chemistry.)Annual Measure: Percent of 990 federally listed species found in national parks that are in stable or improving condition

Program Summary:The NPS Natural Resource Challenge monitors thsuch as wildlife habitat, in 270 of the Nation's natmade a commitment to support this program, arguhave access to the best scientific research about thThe PART found that the Challenge has a well-plamonitoring networks to collect data, monitor resoumeasures. NPS will have in place 25 networks by rating is not as high as it could be because the prothe PART concluded that:1. The purpose of the program is very well defined2. Strategic planning is excellent. The program aigaps in information on natural resources.3. Management of the program is adequate, but thbroader weaknesses in finance and other managem4. Results have not yet been fully demonstrated, bThere will be more evidence of results next year.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Provide $76 million in 2004 (+$8 million over 20this Presidential commitment on track.2. Coordinate performance measures in the prograDepartment's overall strategic plan.3. Continue efforts to improve overall Park Serviccontracting, and other areas.4. Establish efficiency measures.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2002200420062008

Target

4%

37%80%

Actual

0%

2002200320042005

27%41%54%56%

28%49%

2002200320042005

32%33%33%34%

32%

2002 Actual

50

2003 Estimate

68

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Interior

Program: National Park Service Natural Resource 

Challenge Program Type: Direct Federal

Rating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: National Park Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

43

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

70 Results / Accountability

0 100

168
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Acquire the environmental information needed for agency NEPA documentation completion for the next five-year OCS leasing program in accordance with the program's five-year study strategic plan(The quantification of this measure is under development.)Annual Measure:Timely design and execution of individual research projects reflecting the priorities in the annual National Studies List(The quantification of this measure is under development.)Efficiency Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The environmental studies program provides enviInterior decision makers, states, local governmentthat proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) -- oilis conducted in an environmentally safe manner. The assessment found that the program is very eff

peer reviewed environmental research to decision 1. An independent OCS Scientific Committee, conestablished to advise on the feasibility, appropriatEnvironmental Studies program.2. The program uses a planning process that develplans in consultation with the Scientific Committefive year plans are used to determine which studie3. To implement the annual studies, research is cocompetitive contracts, cooperative agreements, an4. To avoid duplication and maximization of opporcost sharing, the program coordinates extensively Federal, state, industry, and universities and colle5. To ensure good science, the program uses the Scvenues to provide peer review and to recommend cor emphasis.Because program activities are largely process-orioutcome measures is particularly challenging. Thion existing measure; however these measures are meaningful program outcomes. The assessment aperformance information is compiled manually. Thtime delays for management to take appropriate aemerging problems.In response to these findings:1. The 2004 Budget provides funding at the 2003 B2. The Administration will work to quantify the mthe difficulties that research programs face in atte

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

15

2003 Estimate

16

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Interior

Program: Outer Continental Shelf Environmental 

Studies Program Type: Research and Development

Rating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Minerals Management Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

72

100100

PlanningManagementPurpose

75 Results / Accountability

0 100

169
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Goal: Acres of wetlands enhanced or restored through voluntary agreements to help improve fish and wildlife populationsAnnual Goal: Acres of wetlands enhanced or restored through voluntary agreements to help improve fish and wildlife populationsAnnual Goal: Acres of upland habitat enhanced or restored through voluntary agreements to help improve fish and wildlife populations

Program Summary:The Partners for Fish and Wildlife program providassistance to private landowners who wish to resttheir lands.The assessment indicates that while the program hitting targets, the long-term goal will not likely bThis is because the long-term targets are overly ambaseline. Through the assessment, it became obviprocess to address strategic planning flaws did noproblem. Additional findings include:1. The program purpose is clear and the program iencourage habitat restoration and conservation on 2. The program does not have regularly scheduled quality evaluations of program strategic planning 3. While senior level managers and landowners arachieving program goals, field managers are not.4. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) does not dallocate costs and associate them with specific perIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Develop a schedule to evaluate strategic planninon a regular basis.2. Link individual employee performance plans witargets for each fiscal year.3. Propose additional funding in the President’s 20supporting annual goals which the assessment shoexceeded.4. Continue to develop efficiency measures as part exercise.5. The FWS will begin implementing Activity Baseallocate program costs and associate those costs wmeasures.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2005

Target

 330,000

Actual

2001200220032004

39,70033,39539,07441,158

45,78757,522

2001200220032004

65,979

179,467160,979197,457

283,606158,176

2002 Actual

37

2003 Estimate

29

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Interior

Program: Partners for Fish and Wildlife

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

57

68

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

170
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Measures under developmentAnnual Measure: Rate of unplanned generator shutdowns as a percent of scheduled generating timeThis measures how often a generator is shutdown for unplanned maintenance.Annual Measure: Power production efficiency as measured by dollar per megawatt goal that is cheaper than 75% of comparable hydropower facilitiesThe agency is still improving technical details on how costs are determined for this measure.

Program Summary:The Bureau of Reclamation's hydropower program ancillary services for the 17 Western States. It opdams, which generate about 10 percent of electricaThe dams and resulting resevoirs also provide watsupply and recreation. Financing of Reclamation'complex, including a combination of appropriationwhich is reimbursable through power sale revenuepower customers.The assessment indicates that the program is stroits long-term planning. Specific findings include:1. Reclamation competently manages its hydropowmaintains its facilities, closely tracks costs, and reits customers. 2. The dams and other facilities are aging, yet Redeveloped a long-term strategic plan to address th3. The main goal for the hydropower program is tgeneration while keeping power production costs lsuccessfully met its annual performance goals for long-term goal is to meet its annual goals in perpein perpetuity is inadequate as a long-term goal beReclamation's future in hydropower. 4. The Administration is developing long-term gowhere Reclamation could improve its tracking and delivery services.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. The Department of the Interior give funding prmaintenance of aging facilities, above non-core act2. Interior develop long-term strategic plans inclumeasures.

Year Target Actual

20022003

3%3%

1.6%

200120022003

730073007300

7100

unknown

2002 Actual

164

2003 Estimate

166

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Interior

Program: Reclamation Hydropower

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Bureau of Reclamation

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

78

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

171
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Percent of targeted population served with reliable, safe drinking waterThis measure is being considered for inclusion in Interior's Strategic Plan, and Reclamation's Performance Plan, and is not finalized. (Measure under development)Annual Measure: Percent of acre-feet of water delivered on time as defined in contractsThis measure is currently being considered for inclusion in Interior's Strategic Plan, and Reclamation's Performance Plan, and is not finalized. (Measure under development)Annual Measure: Efficiency measure under development

Program Summary:The Bureau of Reclamation's Rural Water Supply water development projects that serve large, sparson developing municipal, industrial, and residentiThe PART evaluation of Reclamation's rural wate1. Reclamation does a competent job of managing program needs stronger controls for project develocurrently developed by local project sponsors withsubmitted to Congress for authorization. Agency iensure that all options to efficiently and effectively considered. The lack of agency involvement durinresult in a project that is not in the federal interes2. Local cost sharing is insufficient and varies bet3. There is significant overlap with other federal rthose in the Rural Utilities Service, Indian Health Protection Agency.4. Reclamation is developing performance measur

measures are not yet finalized and are being evaluPlan. In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Submit legislation this Spring establishing a Rwith adequate controls and guidelines, instead of authorized and developed projects that are based orules. 2. Scale back funding for Reclamation's rural watsystemic program weaknesses are addressed, such eligibility, local cost share, and program planning(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

83

2003 Estimate

69

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Interior

Program: Rural Water Supply Projects

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Bureau of Reclamation

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

63

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

39 Results / Accountability

0 100

172
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Attain 500 thousand acre feet (taf) per year of recycled and reused waterThe Administration has determined that this is an inadequate goal because it has no time frame for reaching this benchmark of annual use. (New measure under development)Annual Measure: Execute all necessary cooperative agreements and obligation of appropriated fundsAn inadequate goal, because it measures outputs, not outcomes.(New measure under development)Long-term Measure:Increase affordability and pubic acceptance of water reuse projects through researchAim for 10% reduction in wastewater treatment cost Inadequate because no time frame.(New measure under development)

Program Summary:Reclamation's Title XVI Water Reuse and Recyclindriven grant program for local projects encouraginwastewater. Additionally, a small component of thdedicated to water reuse and recycling research, aprogram is only in its second year. The federal sh100% for appraisal studies, up to 50% for feasibilitproject construction. The assessment resulted in the following findings1. While water reuse and recycling is important twater needs, this activity is not one of Reclamatio2. There is no clear linkage between federal fundioutcomes. Performance measures need to be revisbetween federal funding and performance. It is noshould play in pursuing water reuse and recycling 3. The program is moderately well-managed, althindividual projects is limited by the strong degree 4. These water reuse and recycling projects help ethat routinely face severe water shortages, and arto shift California from its dependence on Colorad5. Reclamation staff generally work very closely asponsors in project development and planning and funds and technical assistance to the projects. 6. The program's main weakness is its lack of longreluctant to set any long-term goals within clear tresources to this program that is tangential to its To address these findings:1. The Administration will consider reclamation's context of any re-alignment of federal water reseaanalysis either expand or transfer those functions 2. Because this program serves a function that is a Budget scales back funding.

Year

2002

Target

none

Actual

98

200020012002

100%100%100%

97.3%97.7%

98% (est.)

2002 Actual

36

2003 Estimate

18

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Interior

Program: Title XVI Water Reuse and Recycling

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Bureau of Reclamation

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

60

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

60 Results / Accountability

0 100

173
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Number of ownership interests acquiredAnnual Measure: Number of Individual Indian Money accounts inactivated/closed(Targets under development)Effectiveness Measure:Average purchase price of ownership interests acquired

Program Summary:The Tribal Land Consolidation pilot program purc(2% or less) in Indian land allotments. There are 4 10 million acres of Indian lands that were originaltribal members in the 1800s. The federal program fractionation among individual owners, enable tribreduce future federal trust administration expensThe assessment concluded the pilot projects need purposes and objectives, such as reducing federal and coordinating federal purchases with tribal devprogram is made permanent. Additional findings i1. There is a high level of interest and voluntary p2. The rate of fractionation has been reduced, but interests remained about the same due to addition1999-2002.3. The federal purchase cost averages $328 per intacquisition costs could be recovered sooner if targeIndividual Indian Money (IIM) trust accounts. Cloabout $143 per account annually.4. Significant federal probate costs can be avoided ownership interests from willing sellers. Probate a$3,200 per decedent.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Propose additional funding in the 2004 Budget management, standardize business processes, and guide program expansion to other tribal reservatio2. Target federal acquisitions to reduce future costfunctions, such as managing land title records, addistributing lease payments to IIM accounts, and 3. Quantify federal program impacts, including netarget ownership interests and federal benefit-cos4. Develop legislative amendments to consolidate for waiving full/partial repayment of purchase cos

Year

1999200020012002

Target Actual

 8,178

17,52310,78810,699

20012002

310479

1999200020012002

$231$215

 $283

$632

2002 Actual

11

2003 Estimate

8

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Interior

Program: Tribal Land Consolidation

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Bureau of Indian Affairs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

70

50

75

PlanningManagementPurpose

75 Results / Accountability

0 100

174
175 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

DOJ’s biggest management challenge is transferring the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service (INS) and other programs to the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Overall, 

Justice has made good progress in the initiatives identified below, but remains a long way from 

reaching goals. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

DOJ has drafted a human capital management implementation plan that outlines action items, 

along with target dates and responsible staff, to support each of the plan’s objectives. DOJ is 

developing a workforce model that links performance plan objectives, measures, and results to 

employee performance. 

Competitive Sourcing 

DOJ has submitted a competitive sourcing plan to achieve the 15 percent goal by the end of 

2003. For instance, in 2003, DOJ will subject to competition with the private sector 140 FBI 

auto mechanics and 441 grants management personnel in the Office of Justice Programs. 

Financial Performance 

DOJ’s systems are not in compliance with federal statutory or regulatory requirements. To 

address these deficiencies, DOJ will acquire a Department-wide core financial system. Because 

of its commitment to implement such a system, and because of its unqualified opinions, DOJ 

received a green for progress in this initiative. 

Expanding E-Government 

Many of DOJ’s IT business cases have serious weaknesses in the area of IT security, but DOJ 

has committed to a plan that will correct them. It has also taken steps to redesign its website to 

promote and facilitate greater citizen access, one of the key tenets of the E-Government 

initiative. DOJ has issued its IT Strategic Plan and prepared 2004 business cases for its major 

IT investments. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

In many instances, DOJ’s strategic plan lacks long-term, measurable outcome oriented goals; 

however, DOJ’s budget is presented in a new format that aligns budget accounts, staff and 

program activities to performance goals.

Faith-based Initiatives 

While progress on this initiative has been slow, a timeline for implementing outreach, pilot 

projects, and technical assistance is now in place. 

R G

R G

R G

R G

R G

R Y
176 

Program Assessments 

The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was completed for 10 DOJ programs, including 

DEA, Bureau of Prisons, FBI, and various Office of Justice Programs activities. The assessments 

represent diversity in program type, scope and size. There is considerable variance in the 

effectiveness ratings among the DOJ programs; however, a consistent theme throughout the PART 

analyses is the lack of long-term, outcome oriented goals for these programs. DOJ is encouraged to 

develop long-term, measurable goals that align with its strategic objectives. 
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Number of escapes from secure prisonsAnnual Measure:Percent of eligible inmates who attained high school diplomas or GED certifications within 7 months prior to their release from prison

Program Summary:The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) incarcerates the BOP houses approximately 165,000 federal inmfacilities nationwide. The 2004 Budget requests $prisons located in various regions throughout the crowding at reasonable levels. Funding for openinavailable, in part, by using previously appropriateresources that are not needed at this time.The assessment indicates that the overall mission assessment also indicates a fairly high level of commanagement, yet reveals weaknesses in the progroutcome orientation. However, the BOP has commterm program performance measures. Strong annindicate the program is relatively results oriented1. The BOP has identified broad range, long term performance goals with measurable, long-term out2. The BOP makes inadequate use of contract prishas increased the percentage of federal inmates in than 1 percent in 1980 to over 16 percent today, thand localities and private sector prison facilities havailable for federal use. 3. The BOP has insufficient knowledge of, or compsimilar prison operations in the state, local and prdifficult to determine whether the BOP provides tgovernment at the best rate.In response to these findings, the BOP will:1. Develop long term outcome-oriented performan2. Make greater use of contracted space for low/miinmates.3. Begin using the National Clearinghouse for Priit becomes operational, to identify available prison locations, costs and services, and ultimately place appropriate, cost-effective non-BOP facilities to heto obtain the best incarceration services for federa

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

0000

40

2001200220032004

66%66%75%75%

66%64%

2002 Actual

4,182

2003 Estimate

4,208

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Justice

Program: Bureau of Prisons

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Federal Prison System

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

7171

88

PlanningManagementPurpose

80 Results / Accountability

0 100

177
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Number of training hours deliveredAnnual Measure:Total number of funded officers on the street (at present)

Program Summary:The Community Oriented Policing Programs (COPand technical assistance to local law enforcement been a hiring grant program (authorized in the 19community policing. The assessment indicates that the COPS programtimelines or specific targets. These objectives, such increasing trust in police, are to replace the existingrants, that are no longer funded. Additional findi1. The program has good financial oversight procefinancial material weaknesses.2. The sheer number of grantees makes it difficult detailed oversight of how grant funds are being usto have surpassed its original goal of advancing thfunding 100,000 officers by 2000. However, while 117,000 officers was awarded through 2002, less tbeen hired or redeployed to street duty. This variaoptimistic projections of "efficiency savings" from gbased redeployments.3. COPS has used evaluation studies to assess whimpact on crime, though the resulting findings are In response to these findings, the agency will:1. Increase local accountability by making informaavailable to the public.2. Better define its long-term goals to specify when 3. Take additional steps to guarantee the independ4. Increase the level of grantee oversight as the nu5. Realign COPS funding structure to include only by the COPS Office. (For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

200220032004

122541225412254

20012002

91,000

100,000

83,02488,028

2002 Actual

684

2003 Estimate

737

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Justice

Program: Community Oriented Policing Services

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Justice Programs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

64

57

45

PlanningManagementPurpose

30 Results / Accountability

0 100

178
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Computer intrusions investigated(Setting annual targets not appropriate for this measure; however, actual results are reported.Annual Measure:Computer intrusion convictions(Setting annual targets not appropriate for this measure; however, actual results are reported.

Program Summary:The FBI's Cybercrime Program prevents, deters, acriminal acts facilitated by or involving computersprogram is the protection of the Nation's critical intelecommuncations networks, transportation systefinancial services.The assessment found that the Cybercrime Prograaddresses a specific need. It is designed to make a significant impact on the problem. Additional find1. There are no long-term, outcome-oriented goalsperformance goals. There are no independent, reg2. Financial management and accounting controls are not held accountable for results through formaperformance goals. Program performance can not funding.3. The only available benchmark for results is a Gevaluation conducted in 2001, in which the programarks in such areas as investigative capabilities aThe Cybercrime Program provides a unique Federprevention and investigation of cybercrimes, and aconsistent with this finding. However, the assessmimprove performance measures and to hold managresponse to these findings, the FBI will:1. Develop long-term and annual performance goaprogram evaulations.2. Include the achievement of performance goals acontracts with senior officials.

Year Target Actual

20012002

2,2261,956

20012002

98

101

2002 Actual

82

2003 Estimate

89

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Justice

Program: Cybercrime

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

57

14

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

17 Results / Accountability

0 100

179
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measures:Measures under developmentNumber of drug courts that become operationalPercentage of drug-court participants who remain arrestfree

Program Summary:Drug Court provides grants and technical assistangovernments to implement "drug courts." These csubstance abuse and crime by providing non-violeabuse treatment while keeping them under court testing.The assessment indicates that the Drug Court proterm objectives: improving public safety and reduccommunities. However it has not specified measurobjectives. Additional findings include:1. Annual performance measures are focused on ocourts, instead of grantees' effectiveness or quality2. From a financial management standpoint, Drug managed programs in the Office of Justice Prograweaknesses. Like other OJP programs, a fair numrequired status reports or performance data. Howgrantees makes it possible to correct this problem witholding funds from grantees who are non-comp3. The program appears to have achieved its targefew years, though this only tracks offenders currenIndependent studies of drug courts indicate that tintervention to substance abusers who might not ogenerally result in lower recidivism rates. Still, mhow participants fare after they complete the progIn response to these findings, the agency will:1. Develop measures for the long-term goals of impreducing recidivism.2. Determine how many additional drug court progoals enough, which could be based on the optimaor the total offender capacity.3. Improve grantees' performance reporting.

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

56505055

4946

2001200220032004

80%80%80%80%

80%80%

2002 Actual

50

2003 Estimate

52

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Justice

Program: Drug Courts

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Justice Programs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

57

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

53 Results / Accountability

0 100

180
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Percent reduction in the supply of illegal drugs in the United States(New measure)Annual Measure:Percent of DEA's over 600 priority targeted organizations disrupted/dismantled (targets nominated by field offices and approved by DEA Headquarters)

Program Summary:The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) enforces the includes preventing, deterring, and investigating tmanufacture, or distribution of controlled substanThe assessment indicates that the overall purpose activities are not unique in that other Federal ageService, Coast Guard) and State and local entities responsibilities. Additional findings include:1. DEA is unable to demonstrate its progress in redrugs in the U.S. While DEA has developed some these goals lack specificity in targets and time fram2. DEA recently developed two annual performancon disrupting the drug supply. However, these meto establish links to an impact on drug availabilitytargets.3. DEA managers are not held accountable for achIn response to these findings, the Administration appropriate performance information to determine the drug problem. In addition, the program will:1. Revise its strategic plan to include specific, ambtimeframes, continue to develop and refine existincontinue data collection and validation. DEA will specific measures that could assist in resource allomanagement actions. 2. Hold managers accountable for performance by goals and schedules and implementing periodic re3. Contract for a comprehensive, independent eval

Year Target Actual

20032004

5%5%

2001200220032004

5%6%

10%10%

18%20%

2002 Actual

1,482

2003 Estimate

1,546

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Justice

Program: Drug Enforcement Administration

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Drug Enforcement Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

34

14

90

PlanningManagementPurpose

0 Results / Accountability

0 100

181
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measures:NoneAnnual Measures:None

Program Summary:Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants (Jto support improvements in state and local juvenilGrants can support up to 16 different purpose aresentencing programs, hiring court personnel, and correction facilities. The ultimate purpose of the goffenders more accountable for their actions and taccountable for juveniles’ safety. These disparate consistent definition of "accountability" have made clear, outcome-based performance measures. Sevetangential relationship to juvenile crime. Instead"Number of formula grant awards made", which dprogram’s effectiveness. Additional findings inclu1. Because the funding criteria are extremely broa

minimal, OJP has little power to redirect funds to 

poorly-performing grantees to successful grantees2. Other than anecdotal evidence, the program hameasurable impact on either juvenile crime or the In response to these findings, the Budget requests 2004.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

211

2003 Estimate

140

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Justice

Program: Juvenile Accountability Block Grants

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Ineffective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Justice Programs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

50

33

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

10 Results / Accountability

0 100

182
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measures:Percentage of treated offenders arrested within one year of release (target and actual data under development)Annual Measure:Average treatment cost per inmateAnnual Measure: Number of state and local offenders treated annually byRSAT-funded programs

Program Summary:The Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAand local governments in developing, implementinsubstance abuse treatment programs within their ultimate goal of prison drug treatment is to reduce inmates and facilities. The assessment indicates that actually measuring by the failure of nearly half of grantees to provide data. The generally poor quality of RSAT grantee difficult to ascertain how many prisoners are treatoutcomes of such treatment. Additional findings i1. Establishing a clear linkage between funding ancomplicated by highly variable treatment costs amlevel of funding will have different impact in each treatment programs in the Federal Bureau of Prisper inmate cost.2. There have been few independent evaluations ooverall program.In response to these findings, the agency will:1. Institute changes to improve the quality of gran2. Develop a simplified model for estimating grantcosts.3. Develop long-term goals for reducing recidivism 

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

N/A

466546654665

4317

2001200220032004

7,2934,375

40,00040,000

10,54638,639

2002 Actual

70

2003 Estimate

77

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Justice

Program: Residential Substance Abuse Treatment

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Justice Programs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

56

71

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

20 Results / Accountability

0 100

183
Key Performance Measures

Long term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Percentage of Weed & Seed sites implementingcommunity policingAnnual Measure:Number of homicides per Weed and Seed site

Program Summary:Weed and Seed aims to reduce violent and drug-reGrants fund locally devised crime reduction plans targeting specific drug markets and providing afteyouth. The assessment indicates that many jurisdictions assistance in developing local Weed and Seed straactive projects has led to inconsistent oversight aninclude:1. While Weed and Seed had selected good performhomicide rates, it lacks the data to specify a 'baselimprovements can be measured. Furthermore, DOgoals implying that any level of crime is “successfu2. Despite the program's 11-year history, only a limsites have been independently evaluated. Those redifficult to generalize given the wide variation in lIn response to these findings, the agency will:1. Establish performance baselines and targets.2. Toughen reporting requirements to require annwithhold from grantees that fail to submit perform

Year Target Actual

20012002

100%100%

99%99%

20002001

00

5.54.1

2002 Actual

59

2003 Estimate

59

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Justice

Program: Weed and Seed

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Justice Programs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

36

57

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

27 Results / Accountability

0 100

184
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Recoveries, restitutions, and fines from white collar fraud cases ($ in billions) (Setting annual targets not appropriate for this measure; however, actual results are reported)Annual Measure:Convictions in public corruption cases(Setting annual targets not appropriate for this measure; however, actual results are reported)

Program Summary:The FBI's White Collar Crime Program prevents aincludes financial institution fraud, insurance fraulaundering, telemarketing fraud, and Internet fraThe assessment found that the White Collar Crimand addresses a specific problem. It is designed to have a significant impact on the problem. Addition1. Improvement is needed in the area of strategic term, outcome-oriented goals, nor are there annuaare no regular evaluations of the program conduct2. Financial management and accounting controls are not held accountable for results through formaperformance goals. Program performance can not funding.3. The only available benchmarks for results are onumber of public corruption convictions and moneannual goals are set for these measures. The White Collar Crime Program provides a uniquprevention and investigation of fraud schemes, buperformance measures and independent assessmeas counterterrorism efforts become the primary fofindings, the FBI will:1. Maintain the current level of effort in 2004, witcorporate fraud, where the Budget proposes a $16 additional investigative efforts.2. Develop long-term and annual performance goaand contribution of the White Collar Crime Prograinvestment in this program.3 Develop a capacity for program evaluation eitheorganizations or contracting for internal assessme

Year Target Actual

20012002

6

10

20012002

475631

2002 Actual

490

2003 Estimate

506

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Justice

Program: White Collar Crime

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

67

17

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

0 Results / Accountability

0 100

185

187 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

To address DOL’s wide array of management problems, the Secretary has created a 

Management Review Board. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

DOL has overhauled its employee appraisal system; screened 250 candidates through its MBA 

recruitment initiative; and selected 24 of the 196 applicants to its SES candidate development 

program. 

Competitive Sourcing 

The Department has made progress, exceeding its 2002 competitive sourcing goal by directly 

converting 152 positions. However, it has not yet initiated a competition or completed its 2003 

competition plans. Green status will require competition or direct conversion of at least 1,400 

FTE from DOL’s 2000 inventory. 

Financial Performance 

DOL’s financial statements consistently receive clean audits, and its work to reduce 

Unemployment Insurance benefit overpayments by states could save hundreds of millions of 

dollars annually. Green status will require an integrated financial and performance 

management system to inform managers’ real-time decisions about programs. 

Expanding E-Government 

DOL led the creation of the GovBenefits website, which informs visitors about federal programs 

for which they may qualify; was the first agency with a central fund to promote cost-effective IT 

investments; and had the highest grade of any Cabinet agency on a recently issued congressional 

Computer Security Report Card. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

DOL has proposed a format that would show the Department’s budget requests in terms of its 

strategic goals and performance. The 2004 budget attempts to identify all funding sources 

within the Department for each activity, and calculate the costs of achieving major program 

goals. 

Faith-Based and Community Initiative 

DOL is providing technical assistance, and has begun pilot programs to determine the best 

practices for incorporating FBCOs into the local workforce development system. 

Y G

R Y

Y G

Y G

Y G

Y G
188 

Program Assessments 

Nine DOL programs were reviewed, including three regulatory, two grant programs, and four 

administered directly by the federal government. PART scores ranged broadly. A number of 

PARTs called for efficiency measures to relate outcomes to resources, while others reflected the 

need for more rigorous performance indicators or the absence of appropriate, reliable evaluation 

data. 
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Coverage of the entire business sector by labor productivity measuresLong-term Measure:Coverage of the service sector by the Producer Price Index (PPI)Annual Measure:Accuracy measure: That only a minimal revision is required to PPI data (that is, referring to a key component of PPI, the measure is the percent of monthly-change data that needs to be revised no more than than 0.2 percentage points.)

Program Summary:The BLS collects and disseminates data on employchange, compensation, productivity, safety and herelated statistics.The assessment found:1. Design for data collection and reporting is soundevelopment of national labor-related statistics.2. BLS is a pioneer in performance budgeting, but performance measures (listed in a 56-page table) aexplain how resources drive performance. The prooperations.3. Independent, quality evaluations have demonsthave been used by BLS to improve its practices. 4. Judging by a variety of informal information, thimproving. Also, despite their limitations, its longachieved. However, BLS lacks outcome-based, quperformance measures. Many performance targets completion of activities on schedule. Also, there arIn response to these findings, DOL will ensure:1. The development of more outcome-based, quantperformance measures.2. That an efficiency measure is developed.3. That the new performance measures clearly demthe general data user.4. The maintenance of BLS' current successes in poperations.

Year

2001200220032004

Target

54%60%60%61%

Actual

54%60%

2001200220032004

47.8%53.1%54.0%59.1%

47.8%53.1%

2001200220032004

90%90%90%90%

100%100%

2002 Actual

475

2003 Estimate

498

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Labor

Program: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

60 Results / Accountability

0 100

189
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Annual Measure:Entered Employment: % employed in 1st quarter after program exitNew measure: result of common measure exercise; targets to be determined2001 reports performance against a previous measure of job placement.Long-term and Annual Measure:Retention in Employment: % employed in 1st quarter after program exit who remained employed in the 2nd and 3rd quarters after exitNew measure (see above)Long-term and Annual Measure:Earnings: % change in earnings: (1) pre-enrollment toprogram exit; (2) 1st quarter after exit to 3rd quarter after exitNew measure (see above)

Program Summary:The Community Service Employment for Older Amprovides grants to public and private non-profit orolder low income people part-time to perform commincludes literacy tutoring, community beautificatidevelopment activities. This program's rating is "Results Not Demonstratthe new common performance measures for job traat this time. As indicated under "Key Performancprogram achieved its target for a previous perform

but its measures are inadequate.Key PART findings include:1. Although the 2000 Older Americans Act (OAA) competition for grants in cases where grantees repprograms' 10 national grantees have historically bfunds, regardless of performance. 2. The program does not have any adequate long-tmeasures and, therefore, cannot demonstrate the or its target population. The program currently hmeasure for employment. It is in the process of adbased on common measures that allow comparison3. As required by the authorizing legislation, DOL proposed rule that will strengthen accountability bcomprehensive long term performance measures. In response to these findings, DOL will:1. Award national grants competitively to strengththe door to new grantees, including faith-based anorganizations.2. Develop a cost-effectiveness measure.3. Ensure that the annual and long-term performanew common measures are sufficiently challengin

Year

2001200220032004

Target

26%37%37%37%

Actual

30%

2002 Actual

445

2003 Estimate

440

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Labor

Program: Community Service Employment for 

Older Americans Program Type: Direct Federal

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Employment and Training Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

57

29

40

PlanningManagementPurpose

7 Results / Accountability

0 100

190
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Annual Measure:Entered Employment: % employed in 1st quarter after program exitNew measure: result of common measures exercise; targets to be determined2001 reports performance against a similar previous measure of job placement for Program Year 2001.Long-term and Annual Measure:Retention in Employment: % employed in 1st quarter after program exit who remained employed in the 2nd and 3rd quarters after exitNew measure (see above)2001 reports performance against a previous measure of employment retention.Long-term and Annual Measure:Earnings: % change in earnings: (1) pre-enrollment to program exit; (2) 1st quarter after exit to 3rd quarter after exit New measure (see above) 2001 reports performance against a previous measure: earnings replacement.

Program Summary:The Dislocated Worker Assistance program providlocalities for retraining and re-employment servicepermanently lost their jobs.This program's rating is "Results Not Demonstratnew common performance measures for job traininthis time. However, as indicated under "Key Perfoprogram has achieved all of its targets for previouKey PART findings include:1. There is duplication among this program's purpadministration, and target population and those o(WIA) program for Adults, and Trade Adjustment 2. The only program evaluation was canceled befo3. Too few resources are available to the Secretary layoffs in specific locations, because too much fundformula.4. The program cannot show how much funding is workers because it cannot adequately track State 5. Although the program needs to adopt challenginappears to be somewhat effective in helping dislocnew jobs at wages close to those they used to haveparticipant than TAA.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Consolidate this program with several other adustreamline and improve service delivery and elimiduplication.2. Increase the Secretary's and Governors' flexibilspecial, local layoff situations.3. Adopt common performance measures to be usevarious job training programs, including a new meeffectiveness.[Note: In 2004, formula grants to assist dislocated a new Consolidated Adult and Dislocated Worker 

Year

2001200220032004

Target

73%

Actual

78%

2001200220032004

83% 87%

2001200220032004

91% 101%

2002 Actual

1,129

2003 Estimate

1,106

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Labor

Program: Dislocated Worker Assistance

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Employment and Training Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

44

71

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

40 Results / Accountability

0 100

191
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Average lost production days (LPDs) resulting from workrelated disability, compared to 2001 baseline of 56 days (New measure)Efficiency Measure:Cumulative savings in first-year benefit payments realized as a result of periodic beneficiary roll review (expressed in millions)Annual Measure:Change in average medical service cost per case, compared to the annual rate of change in nationwide health care costs as measured by the national Milliman Health Cost Index(New measure)

Program Summary:FECA provides wage-replacement and medical bensuffer work-related injuries or illness.Key PART findings include:1. FECA's purpose is clear and its design is rationcontains administrative overhead (which averages 2. Performance goals are clear, outcome-oriented, 3. Efforts to minimize erroneous benefit payments 

rate to 0.65%. In the past, the timing of the Depaagency FECA liability data has hampered the timwide financial statements. 4. FECA's performance goals are ambitious, and pindividuals to work and containing federal costs. Fgenerally been good, although in the most recent yproduction day and medical cost containment targDOL is implementing a series of reforms designed build upon FECA's strengths. These reforms inclu1. Re-proposing legislation to update the benefit stadopt best practices of state workers' compensatio

agencies for their full FECA costs. These reforms wgovernment-wide benefit savings approaching $39benefits for current recipients.2. Undertaking an evaluation of FECA's design anvarious program strategies, and State/industry be3. Changing the method used to estimate Federal ensure timely submission of these data.4. Exploring the efficacy of a cost-effectiveness perrehabilitation).5. Continuing to measure and improve the level of recent claimant survey yielded a 59% overall satis(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

200220032004

Target

555554

Actual

54

2001200220032004

$95

$122$142$160

$103$129

2002 Actual

81

2003 Estimate

86

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Labor

Program: Federal Employees Compensation Act 

(FECA) Program Type: Direct Federal

Rating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Employment Standards Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

8686

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

59 Results / Accountability

0 100

192
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Number of workplaces that experienced a significant (20 percent or greater) reduction in injuries following OSHA interventionAnnual Measure:Reduction in injuries and illnesses in five high-hazard industries (Data reflect only the targets and actual levels for the construction industry measure.)Annual Measure:Reduction in the three most significant types of workplace injuries and causes of illnesses (Data shown are silica exposure.) Baseline varies by injury/illness.

Program Summary:OSHA develops and enforces regulations to protecthe workplace.Key PART findings include:1. Studies have shown workplace-level safety imprinspections (particularly inspections where penalteffect of compliance assistance on workplace safety no agreement on the extent to which declining natare attributable to OSHA. 2. While OSHA's goals are generally meaningful adata has hindered timely performance assessmentperformance measures rely on Bureau of Labor Stquality but entail a time lag of up to one year, limmeasures as management tools. 3. OSHA does not perform cost-benefit comparisonAnalyses for proposed regulations, or evaluate reg4. OSHA is unable to provide evidence of efficiency year or that the program maximized net benefits aachieved at the least incremental cost to society.To address these findings:1. OSHA will develop new, challenging performandata from its own system to complement the Bureallow more timely performance assessment.2. OSHA will improve effectiveness by conducting analysis of proposed standards, including regulato3. OSHA will develop a plan to evaluate the resultregulatory and non-regulatory programs.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2000200120022003

Target

50,00075,000

100,000125,000

Actual

67,90088,850

110,000

2000200120022003

-3%-7%

-10%-10%

-23%

2000200120022003

-7%

-11%-15%-15%

-59%-87%

2002 Actual

444

2003 Estimate

437

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Labor

Program: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration Program Type: Regulatory

Rating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

54

75

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

47 Results / Accountability

0 100

193
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Reduce the incidence of employment discrimination among federal contractors to 7% from a 2001 baseline of 12% (based on findings made in OFCCP compliance reviews)(New measure)Long-term Measure:Increase contractor compliance with other equal opportunity workplace standards, including technical statutory and regulatory requirements, to 65% over a 2001 baseline of 57%(New measure)Annual Measures:The agency has annual goals of 1-2% improvement in each area which build to the long-term goals described above.

Program Summary:OFCCP enforces Executive Order 11246 and federcontractors to adopt and abide by equal employmeaction in their hiring, firing, and promotion practirelated to race, color, gender, religion, national orirights.Key PART findings include:1. Currently, OFCCP cannot measure the impact othat is, its contribution to the reduction of employLack of recent, appropriate evaluation data prevenassessment of day-to-day operations and overall efgap is the basis for a portion of the low scores in thby the PART.2. Strong quality controls and effective communicaregional offices give teeth to program managemenconduct look-back studies and has not adequately of particular reporting requirements. One major rimplementation of an Equal Opportunity Survey, burdensome and not providing useful, reliable datIn response to these findings, the program:1. Has developed new performance goals that are will measure high-level employment discriminatiocompliance with more detailed requirements. OFCperformance goals for 2002, and has already estabto measure performance in 2003. However, becauits new goals, it was not able to demonstrate resul2. Will complete, in 2003, an external evaluation ameasure and improve program performance.3. Will complete review of and, as appropriate, moOpportunity Survey.4. Will consider a more comprehensive review to uregulations.

Year

2001200220032004

Target

9%9%

Actual

12%

2001200220032004

59%61%

57%

2002 Actual

78

2003 Estimate

78

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Labor

Program: Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs (OFCCP) Program Type: Regulatory

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Employment Standards Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

54

63

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

20 Results / Accountability

0 100

194
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Ratio of criminal cases referred for prosecution to total criminal cases. Measures success in protecting benefits.(Target lowered for 2004 and later)Annual Measure:Percentage of telephone inquiries responded to within 24 hours. The baseline is 1998 when 99.9% of calls were answered within 24 hours. Measure provides incentives to managers to avoid very delayed responses to inquiries.Annual Measure:Ratio of closed civil cases with corrected violations to all civil cases closed. Measures success in protecting benefits.(Target lowered for 2004 and later.)

Program Summary:This program helps safeguard private-workplace against embezzlement and other illegal acts, using assistance, education, and outreach. Note: With thPension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWEmployee Benefits Security Administration (EBSAThe assessment found:1. Although the program design is good, the progrpension and health plans is unknown.2. The long-term performance goals are not outcominstance, the long-term measure shown does not inprotecting benefits. Moreover, the program is not strategic planning difficulties. Program evaluatiolimited scope. They do not build a solid foundation 3. Despite good rulemaking and economic analysisaccounted for. Past regulations are rarely updated4. The agency generally meets its performance tarsuch as when targets have been lowered. Thus, whtargets, this did not heavily influence the “Resultsof adequate long-term measures (see finding 2 aboto this score.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Develop more outcome-oriented performance mimpacts on protecting pension and health plans.2. Develop more ambitious performance targets.3. Expand existing efforts for more comprehensive evaluation.4. Examine whether the program should conduct a This examination will weigh the advantages of regdisadvantages of altering past regulations that hainvestment strategies.(For more information on this program, please see chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2000200120022004

Target

42.91%43.16%43.41%25.00%

Actual

64.27%53.98%

1998199920002001

99.00%99.00%99.00%

99.90%99.98%99.90%99.90%

1999200020012004

15.92%21.10%34.99%50.00%

36.49%44.45%57.20%

2002 Actual

110

2003 Estimate

117

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Labor

Program: Pension and Welfare Benefits 

Administration (PWBA) Program Type: Regulatory

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

69

38

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

47 Results / Accountability

0 100

195
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Annual Measure:Percentage of participants who entered employment in the 1st quarter after program exitNew measure: result of common measures exercise, targets to be determined beginning in 2003. 2001 reports performance against a similar previous goal.Long-term and Annual Measure:Percentage of participants who were employed in the 1st quarter after program exit who remain employed in 2nd and 3rd quarters after exitNew measure (see above)Long-term and Annual Measure:Percentage change in earnings: Based on (1) preenrollment to program exit; (2) 1st quarter after exit to 3rd quarter after exit New measure (see above)For 2001, performance is based on the previous measure.

Program Summary:Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) provides trainworkers that lose their jobs due to imports and otheligibility and benefits were recently expanded in substantially higher funding.This program's rating is "Results Not Demonstratnew common performance measures for job traininthis time. However, as indicated under "Key Perfoprogram has achieved most of its targets for previKey PART findings include:1. TAA serves a subset of all dislocated workers, meligible for services through the Workforce Investmworker program. TAA provides a narrow set of expincome support, supportive services) and relies on less expensive job search assistance. TAA has proWIA dislocated worker program in helping trade-dat wages close to those they used to earn. TAA alsthan WIA. 2. While DOL has not conducted an impact evaluadeveloping a plan to conduct regular evaluations fthe next several years and will include a TAA asse3. DOL has made good progress in using performaTAA, which is run by the States for DOL. DOL be1999 and has linked the TAA performance measurdislocated worker program.4. The program is adopting challenging new commIn response to these findings, DOL will:1. Add common performance measures that can bperformance of various job training programs, inclcost-effectiveness.2. Use the revised regulations for the TAA program Governor agreements to increase accountability fothe TAA program to the WIA dislocated worker pr

Year

2001

Target

73%

Actual

66%

2001 80% 90%2001 82% 88%

2002 Actual

416

2003 Estimate

972

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Labor

Program: Trade Adjustment Assistance

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Employment and Training Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

86

71

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

196
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Annual Measure:Job Placement: Entry into employment or enrollment in postsecondary education/advanced training (Note: Target population is youth who are not employed at program entry.) New goal: result of common measures exercise2001 reports performance against a similar previous measure for 14-18 year olds.Long-term and Annual Measure:Attainment of diploma or certificate: Attainment of a high school diploma, certificate, or GED(Note: Target population is youth without this education credential at enrollment.)New goal: result of common measures exerciseLong-term and Annual Measure:Literacy and Numeracy: Increace in literacy and numeracy skills of participantsNew goal: result of common measures exercise, targets to be determined

Program Summary:Youth Activities provides formula grants to States provide training to low-income and other disadvanthem secure employment.This program's rating is "Results Not Demonstratnew common performance measures for job trainnthis time. However, as indicated under "Key Perfoprogram has achieved its targets for previous perfKey PART Findings Include:1. There is duplication and overlap between the pr

target population and programs for in-school youtEducation such as Vocational Education and Tech 2. There is no program evaluation for this program

conducted of the predecessor program in 1992.3. The current program does not have the authoritresources to areas of greatest need.4. DOL cannot show how much funding is availabbecause it does not adequately track State and locIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Adopt common performance measures and longcompare all job training programs, including a new effectiveness.2. Minimize duplication between DOL and the Depfocusing DOL resources entirely on out-of-school y3. Through appropriations language, provide the Sincreased authority to reallocate resources to area4. Plan and conduct an impact evaluation for this 

Year

2001200220032004

Target

50%60%

Actual

50.2%

2001200220032004 50%2001200220032004 TBD

2002 Actual

1,128

2003 Estimate

1,001

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Labor

Program: Youth Activities

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Employment and Training Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

44

57

40

PlanningManagementPurpose

40 Results / Accountability

0 100

197

199 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

The Department of State (DOS) has improved in the first quarter of 2003 by making 

progress in four of five PMA areas. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

DOS is red in status because it has not resolved its human capital challenges, such as skill and 

staffing gaps, integration of its three separate workforces, and strategic management of human 

resources. DOS has made significant gains in the past year, including a record number of 

applicants for the Foreign Service exam and increased leadership and management training. 

Competitive Sourcing 

DOS is in red status due to the fact it has not met the competitive sourcing goal of 15 percent. 

Its primary challenge is building up the expertise to enable it to hold competitions effectively. 

State has made some progress, including targeting funding to the effort and revising the 

Foreign Affairs Manual to cover competitive sourcing, obtaining expert contractual assistance, 

and hiring a competitive sourcing manager. However, progress has slipped from green to yellow 

reflecting insufficient progress overall. 

Financial Performance 

State's progress is green because the Regional Financial Management System (RFMS) system 

implementation continues on track, and State has worked diligently to eliminate material 

weaknesses. Forty-four posts have been transitioned to RFMS. Twenty-five percent of State's 

transactions are now covered by the new system. The system is expected to be fully completed 

during 2003. The status remains red pending removal of material weaknesses. 

Expanding E-Government 

Status remains red; however, State' progress has been upgraded to yellow. Significant slippage 

in implementation and quality of deliverables remains (particularly security action plans); 

however, State used this quarter to focus senior management on Enterprise Architecture 

development and security certification and accreditation. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

State’s status remains red because it has yet to connect performance of its programs with 

budgetary decisions relating to those programs. State has also put budget and planning staffs 

together in a resource management office. It has also begun to institute accountability for 

achieving performance goals as part of annual manager evaluations. 

A Rightsized Overseas Presence 

The State Department has worked closely with OMB to review current staffing and costs 

overseas and to develop future plans for overseas presence. The 2002 State Department 

R

R G

R Y

R G

R Y

G

R G
200 

authorization bill mandates that the State Department establish an inter-agency working group 

to review rightsizing of posts worldwide in 2003. Over the past year, OMB and the State 

Department have worked with agencies to develop a capital surcharge proposal to cover Agency 

costs for housing their employees at facilities paid for by the State Department. The 

Administration will continue to advance this initiative. 

U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID) 

 Historically, USAID has had significant difficulties managing thousands of projects in over 80 

countries because of obsolete management systems. The agency faces serious challenges in 

improving, given the low starting point for each agenda item. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

More than 40 percent of USAID workforce can retire within five years. So, the agency has 

increased recruitment with its New Entry Professional program. Yet, USAID has not finalized a 

strategic plan, and has not yet evaluated the reorganization of its Washington headquarters. 

Competitive Sourcing 

USAID has not yet provided a competition plan that commits the agency to competing any of the 

nearly 600 commercial positions on its FAIR Act inventory. 

Financial Performance 

For the first time, USAID got audit opinions on three of the 2001 financial statements and has 

increased financial reporting capacity. USAID anticipates an improved 2002 audit, and plans to 

deploy an integrated agency-wide accounting system. 

Expanding E-Government 

USAID has improved its process for overseeing information technology investments and has an 

enterprise architecture with a strong technology layer. USAID has begun active participation in 

government-wide initiatives and has improved collaboration with the Department of State. The 

agency still needs to strengthen its business cases for proposed information technology 

investments and continue work on a comprehensive modernization strategy for the agency. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

While unable to support its 2004 Budget request according to performance criteria, USAID has 

developed a model for resource allocation and begun implementing full-cost accounting. 

Reform of Food Aid Programs 

The Administration has successfully reformed federal food aid policy to provide greater certainty 

of funding, target funding to feeding hungry people and to increase consistency in USDA and 

USAID management of food aid programs. Based on these successes, this initiative will no 

longer be monitored as part of the President’s Management Agenda. 

R Y

R Y

R R

R R

R G

R G
201 

Program Assessments – State, USAID, and other International Affairs Agencies 

Program assessments were completed for 17 international affairs programs, including nine in 

the Department of State, three in USAID, two in the Department of the Treasury, and one each in 

the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Broadcasting 

Board of Governors. 

In part, international affairs programs are hampered in demonstrating performance by the 

inherent difficulty in quantitatively measuring certain foreign policy results. However, the 

programs that rated particularly low in this area will focus their efforts in 2003 on putting into 

effect clear quantitative, or objective qualitative performance measures, and on adjusting strategic 

and performance plans as appropriate to facilitate performance measurement. 
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Anti-terrorism skill level of key countries sufficient to deter and counter terrorist threats(Specific measure and targets not yet developed)Annual Measure:Number of planned anti-terrorism courses and number of course evaluations to ensure that skills taught continue to be retained and used after training is completedAnnual Measure:Percentage of United Nations (UN) member states implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1373 that requires all states to take sweeping measures to combat terrorism

Program Summary:The Anti-Terrorism Assistance (ATA) program buabroad to fight terrorism, establishes security relaforeign officials to strengthen cooperative anti-terrmodern, humane and effective anti-terrorism techThe assessment found that the ATA program does terrorist threats and generally meets its annual pprogram’s long-term goals do not have performanctargets. Thus the program cannot demonstrate thterrorism preparedness. Additional findings includ1. The events of September 11th have compelled thstrategic planning and to expand the program's catraining overseas.2. Courses covering such areas as airport securityand crisis management have been expanded to covweapons of mass destruction (WMD) incident resp3. The program collects information relating to achand allocates resources to specific country program monitored to make sure there are no improper pay4. ATA program plans are constantly reviewed in outlined by the Secretary of State's Coordinator fo5. The ATA program is establishing quantifiable mprograms. In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Propose a 2004 funding level that will allow the training programs currently underway and to expareas that respond to the evolving terrorist threat2. Improve long-term performance measurement aprogress toward long-term goals.(For more information on this program, please see International Assistance Programs chapter in the 

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

135 /14

160/160190/190210/210

135/ 14

160/TBD

200220032004

82%86%91%

82%

2002 Actual

166

2003 Estimate

64

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of State

Program: Anti-Terrorism Assistance

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

71

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

59 Results / Accountability

0 100

202
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Number of secure facilities constructed at high-risk overseas posts to protect employees from terrorists and other security threatsIncludes awarding new capital projects aligned with a long range overseas building plan (based on September 2002 data)Annual Measure:Number of building sites acquired that meet security setback requirements for construction of new embassies (based on September 2002 data)Annual Measure:Number of capital security projects completed within the approved project budget

Program Summary:This program builds or purchases safe, secure and Diplomatic and Consular missions overseas. From 1986-1996, the State Department constructeAfter the 1998 bombings of the US Embassies in Aplaced on building the safest most cost-effective bumethod of construction. Since 1998, three embassi2001 the program was placed under new managemreorganized. The effects of these changes are not ffuture the score for this program should increase bprogram and the planning efforts that are in place program's efficiency, cost and performance. Furthperformance measures are adequate, the State Degoals that more closely link performance to the buinclude:1. The Department is acquiring sufficient data to sbut the results of the most recent evaluations of mavailable.2. The bureau of Overseas Building Operations haplanning tool called the Long Range Overseas Bui6 year plan that lays out projects, priorities and co3. The program has established a system for priorbuildings that are considered not secure based on 4. Overall the program has good planning, purposshould improve significantly over time.In response to these findings:Funding for 2004 includes $120m for a new capitaof which $56 million represents the non-State age5 year phase-in and $64m represents the State shwill be fully implemented in 2005 with all agencieChief of Mission (COM) authority, paying a share construction costs. 

Year

2002200320042005

Target

9989

Actual

3

2002200320042005

68

1010

7

2002200320042005

100%100%100%100%

100%

2002 Actual

866

2003 Estimate

608

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of State

Program: Capital Security Construction Program

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Department of State, activities

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

91

100100

PlanningManagementPurpose

60 Results / Accountability

0 100

203
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Expose current, emerging and future foreign leaders to American values, language, ideas and methods, as measured by the percentage of participants who change behavior and the percentage of participants who facilitate an innovation or benefit in their institution or country(Targets under development)Long-term Measure:Increase knowledge and understanding of international issues and foreign societies and cultures among current, emerging and future American leaders, as measured by percentage of participants who change their behavior as a result of the exchange program(Targets under development)Annual Measure:Percentage of participants who increased their understanding of the host country, as demonstrated by follow-up surveys of participants(Targets under development)

Program Summary:The purpose of the program is to increase mutual people of the United States and the people of Near of educational and cultural exchange. Exchange pof American intellectuals and opinion leaders who values and events in other countries.Findings from the PART assessment include the f1. The program is managed well overall. For examutilizes a number of means to ensure strong finanregularly collects performance data. However, the its strategic planning. Specifically, the long-term established baseline and do not have clear time frato measure annual progress. Furthermore, the prlong-term goals for Near East and South Asia but functional goals (e.g., worldwide Fulbright studen2. Despite scoring high on purpose and managemeresults because of problems in its long-term strateIn response to these findings, 2004 funds will be mState Department's development of an acceptable following:1. For long-term strategic goals and annual perforshould establish measurable time frames and targperformance and define exactly what is being mea2. In order to achieve the U.S. Government's publiin Near East and South Asia, it is critical for exchgeographic regions to identify and reach those proposition to help further this cause. Therefore, the tailor its planning in these regions/countries in ordaudiences and employ those exchange programs thtarget audiences.

Year Target Actual

20012002

70%72%

81%92%

20012002

70%72%

92%91%

2002 Actual

58

2003 Estimate

49

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of State

Program: Educational and Cultural Exchange 

Programs in Near East Asia and South Program Type: Competitive Grants

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Administration of Foreign Affairs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

90

64

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

204
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:The proportion of allied nations that spend at least 2% of GDP on military budgetAnnual Measure:As new NATO military reforms continue, percentage of aspirants making progress achieving NATO-defined and measured, country-specific Membership Action PlansAnnual Measure:Percentage of countries that contribute military capabilities (e.g., equipment, units, and forces) or infrastructure (e.g., airfields) for contingencies when requested by the U.S.

Program Summary:The program provides US military equipment, segovernments of the ten new NATO countries and Erecently offered NATO membership. These includPoland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, RomFindings from the PART Assessment include the f1.The program purpose is very clear, to promote Umilitary and political reform, to promote ties betwthose of receiving nations and, to encourage these security goals and activities.2. Strategic goals for the program are established on Presidential decisions and assistance from the Defense Department, and other agencies. FormallDepartments annually review the annual and midseveral highly structured processes.3. A few management deficiencies have been notedregularly scheduled evaluation of the program's edisinterested parties. Another is that the State andiffer on priorities for the programs which are proby the State Department. State and Defense have which do not produce recommendations simultaneboth departments.4. The review found that program results are posicountries. Most have adopted or plan to develop mincluding force structure and professional developsupport shown for Balkans deployments, the war Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan. Several or shipped arms and equipment to help the U.S. band Afghanistan. Others provide military units to contingencies.In response to this review,1. The budget proposes a funding level that, with ewill allow the program to achieve its 2004 goals.2. State and Defense will press nations that are la3. Continued development of an e-government mamanagers in determining program deficiencies.

Year

2002200320042005

Target

100%100%100%100%

Actual

40%

200220032004

100%100%100%

60%

200220032004

100%100%100%

90%

2002 Actual

93

2003 Estimate

104

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of State

Program: Military Assistance to new NATO and 

NATO Aspirant Nations Program Type: Direct Federal

Rating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Department of State, activities

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

86

57

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

75 Results / Accountability

0 100

205
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Measures under developmentAnnual Measure: Measures under development

Program Summary:This PART evaluated two separate Peacekeeping East Timor programs support the development of system in the fledgling country. Organization for SEurope (OSCE) programs promote regional and suindependent states of the former Soviet Union and Europe.Findings from the PART assessment include the f1. The performance plans for these programs do ntargets and baseline information. Instead, there is be long-term, with associated annual targets, but Mission to the OSCE will address this problem in the OSCE programs. However, this is an agency-w2. Many of the programs' performance goals are ovnumber of factors, which makes it difficult to demspecific program. An example of such a goal is: "Gstate, at peace with its neighbors, free of foreign tr

its borders, citizens and economic interests, and inregional and international economic, security and 3. State program managers require and evaluate a program performance and contract compliance. Horeports is not linked to key performance measures data included in performance plans.4. There is some confusion regarding which prograaccountable for the performance of these programmanagers in the U.S. Mission to the OSCE, the PoEuropean Bureau all have varying degrees of respIn response to these findings:1. Performance plans will be restructured to incluterm goals, targets and baseline information. 2. Performance information will be collected in a sincluded in performance reports that evaluate progoals.3. The division of responsibility for these programthat hold program managers accountable for progrperformance management contracts) will be imple

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

63

2003 Estimate

52

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of State

Program: PKO - including East Timor and OSCE

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Department of State

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

71

29

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

206
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:The refugee admissions ceiling is established based on real assessment of need and thus includes no more than a 5% unallocated reserve by 2005. The USG identifies the regions/countries from where all refugees will be arriving.(New measure)Annual Measure:Percentage of sponsoring agencies (grant recipients) that provide standardized essential services (including decent housing, employment opportunities, and education for children) during the period of refugees' initial resettlement in the U.S.(New measure)Annual Measure:Assist UNHCR to strengthen its capacity to identify appropriate durable solutions (ensuring a safe place to live) including third-country resettlement, for refugees Measured by number of referrals to U.S. government(New measure)

Program Summary:This program provides grants to some non-governprocess refugees for resettlement in the U.S. and trefugees to life in the U.S.Findings from the PART assessment included the 1. The program scored well for planning and manathe Department closely collaborate with grantees effective use of funds.2. Strategic planning would benefit from more maprior performance plans had overly broad goals, suresettlement opportunities to refugees and encourthat made it difficult to measure effectiveness.3. Because of weaknesses in strategic planning, msignificant attention to this area and the draft 200includes more focused and quantifiable goals.4. The low score in the results section is primarily has recently developed new performance measuredata available to measure whether it is meeting it5. The Administration expects performance in this once managers begin managing to the new measudata becomes available.6. The analysis also confirmed an overlap between and another program run by the Department of HIn response to these findings:1. The Budget proposes a funding level that will a2004 goals.2. The Administration will review the relationship Admissions program at the Department and the OHHS.3. The agency will continue its ongoing efforts to iensure that goals are measurable and mission-rela

Year

20022005

Target

5%

Actual

30%

20022003

80%85%

80%

20022005 20,000

5,000

2002 Actual

84

2003 Estimate

130

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of State

Program: Refugee Admissions to the U.S.

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

207
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Percentage of humanitarian migrants that are self-sufficient members of Israeli society (Measured by: 100% of humanitarian migrants receive necessary services to help acclimate them to Israeli society)Annual Measure:Percentage of humanitarian migrants from Ethiopia that are assisted in becoming self-sufficient in Israel through provision of effective vocational training(Measured by: percentage employed within four months of receiving training)(New measure)Annual Measure:Percentage of humanitarian migrants that are assisted in becoming self-sufficient in Israel through provision of effective Hebrew language training by advancing a full grade level (5 mos. for refugees from former Soviet Union, 10 mos. for Ethiopians)

Program Summary:The program provides "assistance for the resettlemmigrants from the former Soviet Union, countries the Near East, and other countries of distress." Ththe United Israel Appeal, which is renegotiated anFindings include the following:1. The program purpose is clear.2. The number of individuals assisted by the progr184,000 in 1990 to 37,070 in 2001.2. The program needs continued focus on strategic are sufficiently ambitious and appear to be easily has made recent progress in its strategic planning significant efforts made in the past year to improv3. The agency has been working with the United IAgency for Israel (the ultimate recipient of U.S. fuperformance goals that meaningfully reflect the pragreement was the first to include annual perform4. Overall, the program is well managed. After a 1with financial management, the Department has bwatching how funds are spent.5. The program is making some progress towards short-term goals, such as providing effective Hebrmigrants and including a greater number of perforagreement.In response to these findings:1. The budget recommendation reflects the progranumber 2 above).2. The State Department has established better loannual goals, with the United Israel Appeal in the 

Year

2002200320042005

Target

100%100%100%100%

Actual

100%

2003 60%2002 80% 90.7%

2002 Actual

60

2003 Estimate

60

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of State

Program: Refugees to Israel

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

6767

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

45 Results / Accountability

0 100

208
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Measures under developmentAnnual Measure: Measures under development

Program Summary:Security assistance programs for Sub-Saharan Afrpeace and stability, develop indigenous African peresponse capabilities, develop more professional Arelationships between US and African militaries.Findings from the PART assessment indicate the 1. The performance plans for these programs do nterm goals, targets and baseline information. Instwhich appear to be long-term, with associated anngoals. As a result, it is difficult to evaluate the proannual basis using the performance plans.2. Many of the programs' goals are overly broad, wachievement of a given goal to a specific program.3. Program managers receive regular reports on pperformance, and this information is used to manainformation in these reports is not linked to key pdata included in performance plans.4. Actual performance information gathered throushould be included in annual performance reports annual and long-term goals to the programs' actua5. These programs do not use performance measurfor holding program managers accountable for achIn response to these findings:1.Performance plans will be restructured to includterm goals, targets and baseline information. Perfcollected in a standardized manner and included ievaluate progress related to key performance goal2. Measures that hold program managers account(such as performance management contracts) will 

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

81

2003 Estimate

70

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of State

Program: Security Assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Department of State

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

57

43

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

209
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Goal: Percentage of consular application forms revised annually as a protective check for the safety of American Citizens who travel and live abroadAnnual Goal: Timely and effective passport issuance with passport document integrity assuredAnnual Measure:Facilitate travel to US by qualified foreigners, immigrants and refugees while preventing entry by those who abuse US immigration laws or threaten national security through the use of electronic tracking and saving of all visa applications in accordance with P.L. 107-173 (Goal of 100% paper in 2002 and 100% electronic thereafter)

Program Summary:Consular Affairs (CA) administers laws, writes regpolicies relating to a broad range of consular serviAmerican citizens (AmCits) abroad. For instance, visas and providing travel advisories. Historicallymore than 9 million visa applications and 5 million in addition to the other citizen services provided. IBorder Security Program is to protect American cisafeguard US borders through improvements in coThe purpose of this program is clear. The program activities work in conjunction with several other fe1. Various portions of the program are frequently 

and consular programs regularly achieve annual tAmericans who travel or live abroad and facilitativisitors. Annual goals and targets do not adequatprovide relevant performance data. There have berelated to visa and consular officers as shown by t

State Department has taken some steps to better overall border security efforts by improving access issuance through the referral of questionable appladdition, CA has imposed a mandatory delay on vinationalities and demographic groups, to permit a review of each application. The Administration wigoals that better reflect what State is actually doinAmericans traveling abroad and non-US citizens tgoals should demonstrate results for this program 2. The Department is collecting adequate financia3. The program is designed to have a significant imof Americans abroad, wishing to travel abroad, anqualified foreigners to travel to the US. In the pasand Border Security Act) have been passed that hrequirements on CA. The bureau has revised its pthose laws to better integrate its planning with othomeland security & counterterrorism.4. Consular Affairs is relatively effective and heavpredominantly by fee collections, therefore fundinbased on this PART analysis.

Year

2000200120022003

Target

100%100%100%100%

Actual

64%76%73%

200120022003

100%100%100%

100%100%

20022003

100%100%

100%

2002 Actual

486

2003 Estimate

664

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of State

Program: Visa and Consular Services

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

8585

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

59 Results / Accountability

0 100

210
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Efficiency measure under development

Program Summary:The purpose of the program is to broadcast accurainformation about the United States and events in in languages spoken in these regions. Findings from the PART assessment include the f1. The program scored well for program and finanagency performing routine Language Service Reviidentify under-performing programs and redirect a review of Arabic broadcasting revealed a low nua redirection of funds away from lower-priority lanArabic service known as the Middle East Radio Ne2. The program scored poorly in strategic planningterm and annual goals are vague and do not inclutargets. For example, the goal "Build out the U.S. System progressively" does not include any time frto measure performance. With the exception of ththe agency does not identify target audiences in thGovernment's strategic objectives and design broathese audiences in order to foster a more informed States and its policies. Also, many of the annual g2004 and do not include targets for each year or deprogress towards the long-term goals.3. The agency has taken steps to improve performrequests to specific goals, and included a newly adwith its 2004 Budget request. However, these goaland vague. For instance, one goal is to "Design ththe 21st century."4. In the past, the agency has not clearly demonstfunding request and the desired outcome. The ageimprove the performance plans to support their fuIn response to these findings:1. The Administration will improve the strategic pspecific, measurable goals and performance target2. As a new television service is launched, budget integrated to improve performance.

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

66

2003 Estimate

45

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Broadcasting Board of Governors

Program: Broadcasting to Near East Asia and 

South Asia Program Type: Direct Federal

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

40

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

17 Results / Accountability

0 100

211
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Financing terms (interest rates and fees) competitive with those terms provided by foreign governments to their exporters (Compet. = Competitive)Annual Measure:Percentage of Long Term Guarantees that involve highrisk markets or high-risk customers(Annual measures under development)

Program Summary:The long-term guarantee program provides repaymsector loans to creditworthy buyers of U.S. exports exports and contribute to the promotion and mainguarantee allows Ex-Im Bank to match financing supported by their governments or to provide finacountries/markets for which private financing is nFindings from the PART assessment include the f1. The long-term guarantee program scored a perfevidenced in part by its ability to collect performanfinancial management practices, to have incentiveand achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness, and requirements of federal credit programs.2. While the program analyzes guarantee applicatexporter faces competition, it needs to strengthen ssesses the availability of private financing for the 3. Overall, the program has demonstrated significmatch financing offers from foreign competitors su4. In 2001, 64% of the program’s total long-term guhigh-risk markets or high-risk customers. Even thprogram's target of 60%, the program has not been 60% as an adequate performance measure, nor haprivate sector financing did not exist for all of thesIn response to these findings:1. The President's Budget fully supports Ex-Im Balending levels and provides appropriate administrsufficient carry-over resources, Ex-Im Bank does nsubsidy in 2004. This lack of credit subsidy, in addadministrative expenses and a large estimated incproduces the negative proposed funding level.2. The Administration will work with the Bank to effective performance measures and to ensure thaundue subsidies to exporters.

Year

2001200220032004

Target

Compet.Compet.Compet.Compet.

Actual

Compet.Compet.

2001200220032004

60%60%60%60%

64%66%

2002 Actual

765

2003 Estimate

597

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Export-Import Bank of the United States

Program: Export Import Bank - Long Term 

Guarantees Program Type: Credit

Rating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

212
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Universal primary education (Ensure that by 2015 children everywhere will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling)Annual Performance Measure:Measles immunization rate(New measure)Indicator of progress in healthAnnual Performance/Efficiency Measure:Reduction in number of days required for business start-up(New measure)Indicator of progress in private sector development

Program Summary:The International Development Association (IDA) provides both long-term zero-interest loans (so-calgrants to the poorest developing countries to finaneducation, sanitation, and infrastructure. The assessment primarily indicates that IDA lackand evaluate overall results. Therefore, it is difficuis having any measurable effect, and this difficulty Accountability/Results score. However, the recentlreplenish the resources of IDA -- the IDA-13 replethe establishment of such a system. The agreemen

and widely-used indicators to serve as annual perfIDA's progress in health, education, and private seAdditional findings include:1. IDA is not the only provider of concessional lenddevelopment banks have very similar programs. 2. The poorest developing countries should not borafford to repay. IDA should provide more grants th3. The World Bank manages the IDA program welsuccessful establishment of the measurable resultits progress in meeting development objectives acrIn response to these findings:1. By signing on to the IDA-13 replenishment agreprovide $850 million annually for the next three yAdministration is also requesting $27 million in 2million in arrears that the U.S. owes IDA.2. The Administration will request an additional $IDA meets specific performance benchmarks and aIDA in 2005 if IDA makes satisfactory progress in and private sector development.3. The Administration will continue to press IDA aamount of grants that IDA provides.

Year

2015

Target

100%

Actual

20022004 60%

58%

20022004 75

81

2002 Actual

792

2003 Estimate

874

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Treasury

Program: International Development Association

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: International Affairs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

71

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

213
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Five-year average of number of jobs generated in host countryAnnual Measure:Five-year average of value of new finance commitments with high developmental impact ($ thousands)

Program Summary:The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPpolitical risk insurance to eligible U.S. companies overseas. The assessment indicates the program generally mthat the program cannot adequately show what reof long-term goals and inadequate annual performfindings include:1. While the program purpose is clear, clients seem development mission.2. While not entirely unique, the program differs ffocusing on U.S. investors and provides financing where little or no private sector financing is availaactions, such as lending to nonprofit organizationsabout the types of projects it supports versus the tprograms support. 3. The program collects and tracks performance inuse it to manage or assess the program.4. The program regularly monitors the credit-wortand OPIC consistently receives a clean audit opini5. The program does not adequately coordinate anthat have complementary missions and an overseaIn response to these findings, the Administration:1. Will establish specific, long-term goals that refleimpacts OPIC is best-suited to achieve.2. Will establish performance measures that captuimpact that OPIC’s programs have on foreign coungrowth, job creation, transfer of skills and technolcitizenship, and infrastructure enhancements.3. Will improve coordination and cooperation betwgovernment agencies.

Year Target Actual

200220012000

3,2123,5793,771

1,9422,603

200220012000

823

1,0441,173

855905991

2002 Actual

-251

2003 Estimate

-227

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Overseas Private Investment Corporation

Program: Overseas Private Investment 

Corporation - Finance Program Type: Credit

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

80

35

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

17 Results / Accountability

0 100

214
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Emergency Food Aid: critical food needs of targeted population met (measured by % of targeted population reached by food aid over 1996-2001 period)Note for all measures shown: Current strategic plan only through 2001 - plan and possibly measures are under revision (Targets unchanged between 2001 and 2003)Annual Measure:Emergency Food Aid: improved and/or maintained nutritional status of targeted groups in specified % of reporting programsAnnual Measure:Development (Non-Emergency) Food Aid: nutritional and other targets achieved in specified % of reporting programs

Program Summary:This program uses U.S. food to feed and improve tpopulations in poor countries.The program is making an impact by feeding peopneed. Additional findings include: 1. Overall changes in the well-being of hungry peoThe impact of development food aid, which consistwell as programs to improve the health, well-being populations, is harder to measure than emergency 2. Emergency food aid, which provides food to prevprotracted famines, has demonstrated adequate pprogram has made progress in implementing resumet some of its objectives but needs to do more.3. The program would be more cost-effective if sevwere eliminated. For example, cargo preference reU.S. flagged vessels which increases delivery cost law that establish minimum amounts of food to be reduce flexibility to direct food to where it may be emergencies. Recent legislative changes such as pand recouping a minimum cost in those cases whethe program less cost effective.4. While the program has developed extensive permeasures need to be improved, particularly for devprogram is currently revising its strategic plan anmeasures. 5. Food aid needs to be more and better integrated Washington and at USAID missions to ensure betIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Implement changes to improve efficiency and comonetization).2. Address flexibility by implementing better contineeds that arise late in a fiscal year.3. Improve performance measures that incorporatprograms by USAID’s non-governmental partnersorganizations (PVOs).

Year

1996200120022003

Target

85%85%85%

Actual

67%

90.7%

1996200120022003

65%65%65%

37%73%

200120022003

90%90%90%

60%

2002 Actual

864

2003 Estimate

1,185

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: United States Agency for International Development

Program: Public Law 480 Title II Food Aid

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

64

86

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

46 Results / Accountability

0 100

215
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Number of countries in which tax administration agencies will initiate substantive changes to reorganize on a functional basis(Better targets under development)Annual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:This program provides technical assistance to devreform the way they budget, tax, enforce financial finances.Findings from the PART Assessment include the f1. The program scored well for program design anmanagers at the Office of Technical Assistance (Oadvisors implementing programs and with countriensure well-designed projects and effective use of 2. Strategic planning is the area most in need of ma limited number of long-term performance goals. linked to measurable achievements, do not identifmanage OTA’s resources, and do not establish a ti3. The absence of quantifiable long-term performafor OTA to justify how a particular funding level w4. While annual performance goals are delineatedlong-term goals makes annual progress difficult siagainst a long-term baseline. Furthermore, annuaambitious, since most are usually achieved by 100 5. The low score in the results section is due primahas not yet developed adequate performance measimpossible to hold the program accountable for achIn response to these findings OTA managers will ideveloping quantifiable annual and long-term perin 2003. 

Year Target Actual

2001 3 3

2002 Actual

7

2003 Estimate

10

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Treasury

Program: Treasury Technical Assistance

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: International Affairs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

86

43

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

25 Results / Accountability

0 100

216
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Cumulative area (hectares) where AID has acted to maintain or increase carbon stocks or reduce their rate of lossAnnual Measure:Annual emissions of carbon dioxide equivalents (million metric tons) avoided due to AID assistance

Program Summary:The climate change program promotes sustainable the associated growth in greenhouse gas emissionclimate change. The program supports activities t

net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by decreasinor increasing GHG sinks; increase developing and in the UN Framework Convention on climate Chaand transition country vulnerability to the threats 1. The program is managed well. The real issue forole in foreign policy.2. AID programs sustainable development projects based on annual funding targets. At the end of eacfunding to all sustainable development programs wmeet its original funding target. AID comments thinterested in assistance with climate as the primaable to plan ahead to meetspecific direct climate o3. Only one of the program’s performance measurecumulative target linked to an outcome (hectares wcarbon stocks or reduced their rate of loss.4. Existing, adequate measures were used for this program would benefit from improved measures. In response to these findings:1. The Administration intends to provide guidance funding should be targeted in the short term: specgeographic and programmatic areas that would suclimate negotiating team. 2. The reason for the decrease in funding from 200requested in AID last year is now being requested 

Year

1999200020012002

Target

5758

59.5

61

Actual

57.4

6693

TBD

1999200020012002

2.92.9

2.952.95

3.88

3.05.8

TBD

2002 Actual

167

2003 Estimate

205

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: United States Agency for International Development

Program: USAID Climate Change

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

73

71

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

217
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Percentage of married women across 54 countries receiving population assistance who use modern contraceptivesAnnual Measure: Percentage of total demand for family planning satisfied among married women across 34 countries receiving population assistance(New measure)Annual Measure:Percentage of first births to women under age 18 among Married women across 34 countries receiving population assistance(New measure)

Program Summary:The USAID Population program supports programcountries that promote healthy reproductive behavpartners, treatment for sexually transmitted diseavoluntary family planning services.The assessment found that the program has been contraceptive use in assisted countries, has taken contribution to improving maternal and child healresources across regions and countries in an optimneed. For example, countries in Africa, with high uthan countries in Latin America, where the level oservices has become widespread. Additional findin1. As program success has increased, the purpose health risks such as HIV/AIDS. This has required integrate its activities with other federal programof HIV/AIDS.2. The program is decentralized, placing most progdecisions in the hands of technical experts in the f3. The program has been successful in preventing prohibited activities such as using abortion as a m4. The program collects useful performance and mcountry and aggregate levels, although no compreprogram by outside evaluators have been done in 5. The most efficient use of funds is not achieved bappropriated for regions with high foreign policy pplanning programs relative to other regions.6. The program has recently adopted new long-termeasures that better reflect the full impacts of the In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Continue to provide resources at the 2003 reque2. Take steps to better align resource allocations wperformance budgeting efforts.(For more information on this program, please see International Assistance Programs chapter in the 

Year

1999200020012007

Target

47.7

Actual

37.740.641.7

2000200120022003

72.073.5

68.970.5

2000200120022003

16.216.0

16.616.4

2002 Actual

425

2003 Estimate

425

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: United States Agency for International Development

Program: USAID Development Assistance - 

Population Program Type: Competitive Grants

Rating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Global Health

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

40

70

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

93 Results / Accountability

0 100

218
219 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

DOT has shown substantial progress in each management agenda area. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

DOT has not yet achieved the majority of its measurable results-driven outcomes. DOT’s 

progress score reflects completion of a detailed Department-wide human capital strategy with 

timelines and specific deliverables, such as the establishment of a Departmental Human Capital 

Planning Council. 

Competitive Sourcing 

DOT did not meet the President’s annual competitive sourcing goal for 2002 but did develop a 

comprehensive plan that identifies the positions to be evaluated for outsourcing. DOT will 

begin subjecting positions to competition to the private sector by late 2003. 

Financial Performance 

DOT’s current financial management systems do not meet Federal financial system 

requirements. DOT is in the process of implementing a new accounting system – Delphi – which 

will be set up by the Spring of 2003. DOT received a clean audit opinion in February 2002. In 

addition, DOT is implementing a recovery auditing program to collect and reduce erroneous 

contract payments. 

Expanding E-Government 

DOT developed an IT security program to decrease cyber vulnerabilities by 75%. However, DOT 

remains red in status because major DOT IT projects remain over-budget and behind schedule, 

and it has yet to complete a department-wide IT enterprise architecture. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

DOT issued performance-based 2004 Budget justifications for a number of agencies, and senior 

management has started using performance data in allocating resources. DOT is continuing to 

refine its measures to better connect spending to outcomes. Its mission will change significantly 

with the migration of components to DHS. 

Program Assessments 

Programs reviewed perform above average, in large part because DOT’s programs have 

meaningful performance measures and real data. Results vary among programs, however. The 

analyses reveal that management weaknesses across programs need addressing. 

R G

R G

R G

R G

Y G
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Eliminate airport conditions that cause aircraft accidents and security breaches (Such conditions include safe runways and taxiways that meet standards. The long-term target is to bring all 520 runway safety areas to standard by 2007. The annual target is to bring 65 runway safety areas to standard each year.)Long-term Measure:Reduce the number of people exposed to high levels of noise by 50,000 over 5 years (The annual target is a reduction of 10,000 people exposed a year.)Long-term and Annual Measure:Maintain at least 93% of active airfield pavement in fair or better condition (The 93% figure was selected because 5-7% of all runways are undergoing major repairs each year.)

Program Summary:The Airport Improvement program (AIP) provides infrastructure improvements such as safety, securThe assessment indicates the overall purpose of thperformance goals are clearly defined and achieva1. The program is working to improve its overall cthrough greater use of automated systems and gre2. The structure of the program combined with the ability to quickly respond to new situations and ev3. The program has a number of long and short telinked together. Headquarters and regional office seriously. The Department's 2004 budget proposagoals to create linkages within the AIP program.4. Dependence on the Federal government's assistairports' location, size and financial resources. Laron Federal funds because of their ability to access as landing fees.In response to these findings, the Administration possibly restructure the AIP program. To change tthat funds will be primarily targeted to medium adependent on Federal assistance. AIP will continuand major capacity projects at airports that providnational system.(For more information on this program, please see Transportation chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2000200120022003

Target

65656565

Actual

7168

2000200120022003

10,00010,00010,00010,000

13,50118,813

1999200020012002

93%93%93%93%

95 %

94.5%

2002 Actual

3,475

2003 Estimate

3,400

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Transportation

Program: FAA Grants-in-Aid for Airports (Airport 

Improvement Program) Program Type: Competitive Grants

Rating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Federal Aviation Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

64

71

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

80 Results / Accountability

0 100

220
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Number per 100 million commercial Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) of fatalities in crashes involving large trucksAnnual Measure:Number per 100 million commercial Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) of injured persons in crashes involving large trucks

Program Summary:The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrationawards grants to states to continue aggressive stacommercial motor vehicle regulations. But, workicommercial motor vehicles are in compliance with FMCSA is able to reduce large truck related fatalithrough Commercial Drivers License regulation, seducation and outreach.1. The assessment indicated that the grant prograalignment with the agency's mission of saving livepreventing truck and bus crashes. 2. Unlike many federal programs, this program hperformance measures. Through its strategic planadopting a limited number of specific, ambitious loperformance goals to assess progress toward achie3. Although FMCSA has worked to align managemstates performance, FMCSA is not pro-active in deresults from its partners. FMCSA also does not coevaluations aimed at identifying and remedying m4. After declining for a number of years, the rate oinvolving large trucks is not decreasing, and, in faperformance is below the annual safety stretch taritself. In response to these findings, the Administration Propose a budget increase and legislative improvegrant program to address management deficienciewith Federal goals through awards of incentive grreauthorization of surface transportation legislatiaccountable for motor carrier safety by linking stagrant awards. (For more information on this program, please see Transportation chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2000200120022003

Target

4,9344,8304,7104,540

Actual

5,2825,0824,984

200020012002

125122121

140142131

2002 Actual

206

2003 Estimate

190

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Transportation

Program: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration Grant Program Program Type: Block/Formula Grants

Rating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

67

86

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

47 Results / Accountability

0 100

221
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Reduce the rate of highway-related crashes and their vehicle miles traveledAnnual Measure:Slow the growth of the percent of travel under congested conditionsAnnual Measure:Increase the percent of vehicle miles traveled on highway pavements with acceptable ride quality, based on an International Roughness Index less than or equal to 170 inches per mile

Program Summary:This program provides funding and technical assismaintain highways. It includes the Interstate MaSystem, Bridge, and Surface Transportation progrThe assessment indicates that the purpose of the fprogram is clear and is unique. Additional finding1. The highway infrastructure program has ambitprimarily to safety and mobility and has made adegoals. Each year, these goals and measures have b2. Although the program has worked in recent yearole and has expanded financial management and particularly for very large projects, the program daccountability from its State partners.3. While independent evaluations of the program anot have regularly-scheduled, independent evaluacomprehensive assessments of program results in measures.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Propose budget and legislative changes to this preauthorization of surface transportation legislatioto more effectively and efficiently meet its perform2. Prepare a draft plan by April 2003 of how the pprogram and project oversight of States.3. Recommend that resources be directed to more activities, particularly on the State project level.(For more information on this program, please see Transportation chapter in the Budget volume.)(Amounts shown represent the entire Federal-aid 

Year

2000200120022003

Target

1.51.51.41.4

Actual

1.51.5

2000200120022003

33.433.734.0

33.133.6

2000200120022003

91.091.592.092.5

90.990.9

2002 Actual

31,799

2003 Estimate

27,574

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Transportation

Program: FHWA Highway Infrastructure

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Federal Highway Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

222
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles of travel (VMT)Annual Measure:Injured persons per 100 million vehicle-miles of travelAnnual Measure:Percentage of front occupants using seat belts

Program Summary:The Highway Traffic Safety Grant program providterritory and Indian nations to fund a wide range State highway safety programs are funded with OGrants, Safety Incentive grants for Primary Seat BGrants, Emergency Medical Services Grants, amoThe assessment shows that the program is in close mission of saving lives and reducing injuries by prassessment also found that NHTSA was successfugoals to decrease the fatality rate and has a good r1. NHTSA manages the grant program through thmaintains funding efficiencies.2. NHTSA has shown measurable progress toward goals. The rate of highway fatalities has been declinception of the state and community safety grant Continued success depends in large part on the prstates, local jurisdictions, private sector and safety 

In response to these findings, the Administration Propose to streamline and focus grants to address direct appropriation of funds for the grant programreceiving grants that creates links between perforincentive grants to states.(For more information on this program, please see Transportation chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

1999200020012002

Target

1.61.51.51.4

Actual

1.61.51.51.5

1999200020012002

127116113111

120116109

N/A

1999200020012002

80%85%86%75%

67%71%73%75%

2002 Actual

223

2003 Estimate

225

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Transportation

Program: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration Grant Program Program Type: Block/Formula Grants

Rating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

89

71

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

74 Results / Accountability

0 100

223

225 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Treasury is making progress improving its performance across the five management 

initiatives, but significant barriers remain. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

Treasury has made good use of the Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework 

to build a more thorough and functional human capital strategy. It has designated officials, set 

timelines, and progressed in developing measures and an accountability system. 

Competitive Sourcing 

Treasury is exploring competition of more than 5,000 commercial positions to determine the best 

means of delivering services such as IRS tax form distribution (500 positions), IRS building 

maintenance (100 positions), and Mint customer services (48 positions). These competitions 

should begin to yield results in 2003 and 2004. 

Financial Performance 

Treasury can now produce accurate financial reports within three days after the end of each 

month. In 2001 it took an average of 20 days to close the books. Treasury met its goal to 

produce audited financial statements by November 15th, two years ahead of the Administration’s 

goal to require agency financial statements 45 days after the end of the fiscal year. However, 

despite these accomplishments, the Department will not be able to correct significant 

weaknesses in IRS’s tax accounting systems until late 2006. 

Expanding E-Government 

The Department has expanded and enhanced the services it provides over the internet, such as 

free electronic tax filing. However, it must improve its ability to manage its critical technology 

investment programs. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

IRS is developing outcome measures and working to rationalize its budget structure. These 

efforts, and other improvements in performance measures, will make it easier to manage 

Treasury’s programs to yield maximum results. 

Program Assessments 

Program assessments for eight Treasury programs are presented below. Ratings range from 

“effective” for the Mint and Treasury’s bank regulators to “results not demonstrated” for IRS’s 

collection program. The assessments show significant opportunities for Treasury to improve its 

outcome measures to better understand and monitor program effectiveness. 

R G

R G

R G

R Y

R G
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:The percentage of Certificate of Label Approvals issued, by initiating electronic application and approval procedures(New measure for 2004)Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:This program protects the public against contaminthis by verifying the content of alcohol products anproduct labels. Under the provisions of the Homeconsumer product safety activities and alcohol and the ATF are being removed from the ATF and estaTobacco Tax and Trade Bureau in the DepartmenThe program assessment indicates the overall purthe program has demonstrated results based on itmeasures. However, the current measures do not of the program's performance on public safety. In response to these findings the Alcohol and Toba1. Refine performance measures to more accuratelachievements of the program.2. Establish clear guidelines and procedures to insEstablish written guidelines and supporting docum

Year program. 

20032008

Target

10%75%

Actual

2002 Actual

21

2003 Estimate

23

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Treasury

Program: ATF Consumer Product Safety Activities

Program Type: RegulatoryRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

93

71

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

47 Results / Accountability

0 100

226
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Jobs in underserved communities created or maintained by businesses financed by BEA Program applicants(New measure adopted in 2003)Long-term Measure: Commercial real-estate properties financed by BEA Program applicants that provide access to essential community products and services in underserved communities(New measure adopted in 2003)Annual Measure: Number of affordable housing units in underserved communities whose development or rehabilitation is financed by BEA Program applicants(New measure adopted in 2003)

Program Summary:The Bank Enterprise Awards (BEA) Program offerthat participate in community development activitsupporting community development financial insthousing and economic development projects, and tThe assessment indicates that while there is some use awards to reinvest in community development hard to measure because it cannot be determined the absence of the program. Additional findings in1. The program purpose is clear, but design limitaeffectiveness. Under the current structure, it cannparticipate in community development activities brequirements (under the Community Reinvestmenprovided by the awards program. Thus, the resultdetermined until the Fund collects additional data2. In the last year, the program has developed new has taken steps to collect additional data on prograward is for past performance, there are no prospeon how awardees spend award funds. This prevenprogram awardees commit to the long-term goals 3. The program is efficiently managed.In response to these findings, the Budget proposes 1. Reduce the funding for the BEA until statutory legislation are made that would clearly distinguish mandates of the Community Reinvestment Act anfunds are spent on community development activi

Year

20032004

Target

4,9304,930

Actual

20032004

612612

20032004

391391

2002 Actual

23

2003 Estimate

17

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Treasury

Program: Bank Enterprise Award

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Departmental Offices

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

78

71

40

PlanningManagementPurpose

40 Results / Accountability

0 100

227
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Reduction in the controllable costs of circulating coinage from a 1997 baseline of $10.27 per 1000 coinsControllable costs exclude the costs of metals which vary considerably with market conditions.(Targets being refined)Long-term Measure:Federal Reserve Board Customer Satisfaction survey(Average rating out of one hundred, based on surveys of Federal Reserve officials)Long-term Measure:Conversion costs per 1,000 coin equivalentsThis measures production cost efficiency.

Program Summary:The United States Mint makes coins for use as legThis assessment of the Mint found that the Mint hmeasures focused on customer satisfaction and imAdditional findings include:1. The Mint needs to improve customer satisfactio2. The Mint has shown some efficiency improvememanufacturing costs (19 percent reduction since 1The Mint is implementing a series of reforms to adreforms include:1. Reducing the maintenance down time of coin m2. Competing customer service and order mailing could handle these functions more efficiently.3. Establishing a performance target to reduce the materials into finished goods.

Year

20012005

Target

15%

Actual

19%

20012002

85%85%

200220032004

$11.00$10.25

$9.75

$8.69

2002 Actual

827

2003 Estimate

946

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Treasury

Program: Coin Production

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: United States Mint

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

71

95

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

82 Results / Accountability

0 100

228
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Percent of EITC dollars paid that should not have been paidThis means that more than one dollar in four paid under EITC should not have been paid.(Targets under development)Annual Measure:Revenue protected, i.e., dollars incorrectly claimed by taxpayers that IRS either did not pay or later recovered ($ in billions)(Targets under development)Annual Measure:EITC returns audited

Program Summary:The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Compliancerroneous payments of the Earned Income Tax CrRevenue Service (IRS).This assessment indicates the EITC compliance inEITC erroneous payments to acceptable levels.1. IRS has a strong planning process closely linked not yet used this outcome information to set perfordemonstrate results.2. While IRS prevents roughly $1 billion in erroneannual data reveals that 27 to 32 percent of all EIerror in tax year 1999. The magnitude of this erro"ineffective."3. IRS has made numerous management improvemits financial management systems remain weak.Treasury formed a Task Force in the spring of 200EITC high error rate. The Budget provides a $100 following initiatives recommended by the Task Fo1. IRS will require high-risk EITC applicants to prclaimed on their return are really qualifying childclaimed qualifying children have been a major souapplicants will be identified through databases su(information on child custody) and by focusing on linked to high error rates in compliance studies (ewho claim a child for EITC purposes). 2. IRS will delay refunds on returns deemed to be income errors while agents take action to resolve cidentified by researching taxpayer historical compinformation on EITC returns. Note these initiatives will reduce EITC audits as rcorrecting errors earlier in the process.

Year

19971999

Target Actual

24 to 26%27 to 32%

2001 $1.1692001200220032004

413,331349,000364,000

453,947437,799

2002 Actual

146

2003 Estimate

146

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Treasury

Program: Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) 

Compliance Program Type: Direct Federal

Rating: Ineffective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Internal Revenue Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

69

60

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

10 Results / Accountability

0 100

229
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measure under developmentAnnual Measure:Taxpayer Delinquent Accounts case closures (field cases) These are cases where taxpayers have not paid known tax debts.Annual Measure:Field Collection Quality (Percent of cases meeting strict standards for process and treatment of taxpayers)

Program Summary:The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Collection protaxpayer liabilities (tax debts). This is distinct from how much a taxpayer owes. Collection agents contphone calls and personal visits to secure paymentscan use liens, levies or seizures, or refer taxpayers Tax revenue is necessary to finance government oprogram is necessary to the success of tax enforcemindicates that the Collection program needs improinclude: 1. Collection yields substantial revenue ($18 billionot work enough collection cases with its current rtechnology to ensure fair tax enforcement. Each ydollars worth of collection cases.2. IRS has made numerous management improvem

including implementing good output measures. Homanagement systems remain weak.3. IRS has a strong planning process closely linked it has not yet developed collection outcome measurThe Administration is working on several efforts tperformance.1. The Budget includes a legislative proposal to alcontractors to secure payment in some cases. The taxpayer rights protections. The contractors will bactual collections.2. The Budget includes funding for 537 new collec3. Reengineering and technology modernization efrisk-based approaches to target specific taxpayers collection procedure (i.e., notice, phone call, or fiel(For more information on this program, please see Treasury chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

846,800804,085714,000769,000

757,392724,430

2001200220032004

86%85%87%89%

84%84%

2002 Actual

923

2003 Estimate

967

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Treasury

Program: IRS Tax Collection

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Internal Revenue Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

68

80

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

17 Results / Accountability

0 100

230
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Percentage of National banks with high ratings according to industry standards (composite CAMELS rating of 1 or 2) (Performance measure was adopted in 2002)Annual Measure: Percent of problem banks rehabilitated, as measured by industry standards(Performance measure was adopted in 2002)Annual Measure: Percent of national banks that are well capitalized(Performance measure was adopted in 2002)

Program Summary:The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCand sound and competitive national banking systeprimary federal regulator of national banks. It is rfinancial records of banks and for maintaining the Fund (FDIC deposit insurance). The assessment indicates that the program contrisoundness of the banking industry. For example, a shows that more than 95% of banks regulated by t2002 which incorporate measures for: capital, assecompetence, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to as CAMELS. Additional findings include:1. The program purpose is clear.2. The program goals are outcome-oriented and pr

3. The program is efficiently and effectively manag4. The program is not unique in that other agencieSupervision (OTS), the Federal Deposit Insurance Credit Union Administration (NCUA) and the Fedperform similar types of regulatory functions in thIn response to these findings:1. Federal banking regulatory agencies, including the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC, will work togerelated measures to allow for greater comparison oindustry.

Year

2001200220032004

Target

90%90%90%90%

Actual

94%95%

2001200220032004

40%40%40%40%

44%47%

2001200220032004

95%95%95%95%

98%99%

2002 Actual

413

2003 Estimate

435

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Treasury

Program: OCC Bank Supervision

Program Type: RegulatoryRating: Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Comptroller of the Currency

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

85

100

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

93 Results / Accountability

0 100

231
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Timely development of trade sanction programs(New measure, targets under development)Annual Measure:Compliance with US trade sanctions(New measure, targets under development)

Program Summary:Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFACeconomic and trade sanctions against targeted forsponsoring organizations and international narcotOFAC and our Allies were responsible for blocking assets worldwide since September 2001.The assessment indicates the overall purpose of thmeasures are lacking. Additional findings include1. OFAC lacks long-term performance goals with sdifficult to determine whether or not outcome goal2. The program has not yet instituted annual perfeffectiveness of OFAC sanctions. The program is implementing a series of reforms dfindings. These reforms include:1. Developing long-term performance goals with sp2. Adopting annual performance goals and alignin

Year Target Actual performance goals.

2002 Actual

26

2003 Estimate

22

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Treasury

Program: Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Departmental Offices

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

7070

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

40 Results / Accountability

0 100

232
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Percentage of thrifts with high ratings according to industry standards (composite CAMELS ratings of 1 or 2)(Performance measure was adopted in 2003)Long-term Measure: Thrifts with consumer compliance ratings of 1 or 2(Performance measure was adopted in 2003)Annual Measure: Percent of thrifts that are well capitalized(Performance measure was adopted in 2003)

Program Summary:The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) charters, exregulates thrift institutions and savings associatioThe assessment indicates that the program contrisoundness of the banking industry. For example, a shows that more than 90% of banks regulated by t2002 which incorporates measures for: capital, asscompetence, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to as CAMELS. Additional findings include:1. The program purpose is clear.2. The program recently developed new goals that program measurements which are clear.3. The program is efficiently and effectively manag4. The program is not unique in that other agencieComptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal D(FDIC), National Credit Union Administration (NBank (FRB), perform similar types of regulatory fuIn response to these findings:1. Federal banking regulatory agencies, including the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC, will work togerelated measures to allow for greater comparison oindustry.2. The OTS will evaluate the efficiency and effectifor both Safety and Soundness and Compliance fu3. The OTS will take steps to examine long-term s

Year

200220032004

Target

90%90%90%

Actual

90%

200220032004

90%90%90%

92%

200220032004

95%95%95%

98%

2002 Actual

163

2003 Estimate

168

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of the Treasury

Program: OTS Thrift Supervision

Program Type: RegulatoryRating: Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Thrift Supervision

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

92

100

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

93 Results / Accountability

0 100

233

235 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

One in every six federal non-Defense employees works for VA. These employees perform 

functions as varied as cemetery operations, benefits claims processing, and direct health care. 

VA’s overall performance on the President’s Management Agenda has been one marked by steady 

improvement. 

President’s Management Agenda

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

VA delivered a workforce restructuring plan, as well as a workforce planning recruitment and 

marketing plan. VA also launched a new recruitment web-site. These will assist VA in 

addressing identified human capital shortages. 

Competitive Sourcing 

VA completed a plan to compete 52,000 jobs over the next five years, such as laundry, food and 

sanitation services. This will result in an estimated savings of as much as $3 billion over 5 

years. 

Financial Performance 

VA initiated the first of two building phases for its new financial management system. In 

addition, it plans to resolve four of the six material weaknesses reported in its 2001 audit. 

Expanding E-Government 

VA has made a good business case for all information technology efforts, addressed concerns 

with its Enterprise Architecture, and expanded its participation in E-Gov initiatives. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

VA submitted its 2004 budget on time, and completed a comprehensive budget restructuring. 

VA needs to improve its ability to make long-term budget projections of its entitlement programs 

and their relationship to discretionary administrative needs. 

Department of Defense (DoD)/ VA Sharing 

This is a high priority for DoD and VA, and both recently created a joint Executive Council to 

coordinate information technology, human resources, business practices, facilities, and 

equipment sharing. 

R G

R G

R G

Y G

Y G

Y G
236 

Program Assessments 

Veterans' needs are always in the forefront of VA's management decisions, as it strives to 

perfect service, access, and quality of benefits. Three of VA's major programs were evaluated and 

it has demonstrated good management practices in all of them. Medical care and disability 

compensation were rated “results not demonstrated” mainly because neither have a clear mission 

nor a process to ensure that services and benefits support the mission. The burial program's 

mission is well defined. However, the program received a moderately effective rating because it 

needs to perfect strategic planning. 
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Percent of veterans served by a burial option within a reasonable distance (75 miles) of their residenceLong-term and Annual Measure: Percent of respondents who rate the quality of service provided by the national cemeteries as excellentLong-term and Annual Measure: Percent of respondents who rate national cemetery appearance as excellent

Program Summary:The purpose of this program is to honor veterans wlasting memorials that commemorate their service of this program is the system of 124 national VA cheadstones, markers, and monetary benefits to veburial costs; and awards grants to states to build vThe assessment indicates that the program providand eligible family members in an efficient manne1. The program purpose is very clear and common2. The program meets key long-term and annual phas received $25 million in additional funding ovethe appearance of cemeteries to those befitting nadefine and measure national shrine commitment nMeasures also do not yet exist for state cemetery g3. The program uses performance information to ioutcomes. Even so, the Department is working to budget, performance, and accountability.4. Recent evaluations by an independent contractoprogram performs well. VA continues to improve shelp visitors locate grave sites.In response to these findings, the Administration:1. Proposes a 4.8 percent increase in discretionary 2. Will adopt more performance measures to addrenational shrine commitment; and3. Will strengthen methods to link performance, b(For more information on this program, please see Affairs chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

1999200020012002

Target

76.375.175.873.9

Actual

67

72.672.673.9

1999200020012002

88889093

84889291

1999200020012002

80828896

79829697

2002 Actual

386

2003 Estimate

410

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs

Program: Burial Benefits

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Department of Veterans Affairs

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

71

86

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

73 Results / Accountability

0 100

237
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Targets under developmentLong-term Measure: Targets under developmentLong-term Measure:Targets under development

Program Summary:The VA disability compensation program provides veterans who suffer diseases or disabilities related Disabled veterans are assumed to earn less in cividisabled veterans. The VA pays this difference in 

The assessment revealed that, while the program workers' compensation program for the military wthe income loss associated with a specific disabilitAs such, it is unclear whether the benefits paymenmeeting their "purpose" -- the reason for the score findings:1. The list of covered disabilities has grown over thcovered disabilities are usually not associated with acne scars, hemorrhoids, high blood pressure, and 2. The program has both goals and measures for pmeasures about how disability payments affect thveterans. The program also lacks cost-efficiency myears since a study has been done to determine whprogram is being met. VA has not been able to devmeasures related to its purpose. This is the reasorating on both planning and results/accountability3. Program management has significantly improvesupervisors are subject to increasing accountabilitResources are now distributed among offices based performance.In response to these findings, the Administration:1. Will maintain current staffing level for the prog2. Will initiate a program evaluation in 2004; and3. Will develop long-term and cost-efficiency meas(For more information on this program, please see Affairs chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

23,375

2003 Estimate

26,140

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs

Program: Disability Compensation

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Veterans Benefits Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

57

0

20

PlanningManagementPurpose

0 Results / Accountability

0 100

238
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Chronic Disease Index II Metric measuring the effectiveness of health providers in treating conditions including heart disease, hypertension diabetes, depression, smoking cessation, and others Components of this index are currently used by the private sector (hospitals and accrediting agencies).Annual Measure: Waiting Times for Primary CarePercentage of patients seen within 30 days of their desired appointment dateAnnual Measure: Patient Satisfaction Measures (outpatient)Percentage of patients who responded that they were pleased with the care received during their visit through a mailed survey following an appointment

Program Summary:The VA medical care program provides health carmillion veteran patients. Veterans may receive hemedical centers, 800 clinics, nursing homes and otexpense. The benefit package includes primary, spnursing home and non-institutional long-term carservices.Findings and determinations:1. The score is low mainly because there is no cleaof the Congress, the Administration, and the publHistorically and legislatively, the core mission is tveterans (those with service-connected disabilitieswith special needs); however, VA has been providito non-disabled, higher income veterans since eligdisabled wealthier veterans have grown from 2 peenrollees in 2002.2. The growth in the enrollment of non-disabled wcontributed to VA's long waiting lists for appointmattention away from caring for higher priority vet3. VA has made progress in meeting most of its lonrelated to quality. The annual key performance mmeeting long-term goals. Improved long-term planinfrastructure, long-term care, DoD coordination, needy veterans.4. VA is collecting data to measure efficiency and t2003.In response to these findings:1. The Budget assumes that in early 2003, VA will veterans by limiting enrollment. There will be no by lower-priority veterans who have not yet sough2. The Budget proposes increased cost sharing for 3. VA will provide institutional long-term care for 

of 70 percent or greater (no affect on current instit(For more information on this program, please see Affairs chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

20012002

Target

77%78%

Actual

77%80%

2002 88% 89%1999200020012002

79%67%67%67%

65%64%65%71%

2002 Actual

21,515

2003 Estimate

22,815

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs

Program: Medical Care

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Veterans Health Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

50

40

15

PlanningManagementPurpose

60 Results / Accountability

0 100

239

241 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is assessing its workforce with the objective of 

eliminating many non-core functions. Unfortunately, the Corps will not meet the President’s goal 

for public-private competitions until 2008. Although the Corps is on track to produce audited 

financial statements, it needs to improve its management of information technology projects and 

the quality of its performance measurement. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

The Corps is rated green for progress because the agency’s top leadership has recognized the 

need to focus efforts in this area on improving the capability of the Corps in skills needed to 

accomplish its core mission. The Corps will use recruitment tools – like a website advertising 

Corps employment opportunities – to address impending employee departures. 

Competitive Sourcing 

The current Corps plan indicates it does not intend to meet the 50 percent competitive sourcing 

goal but suggests it will compete 37 percent by 2008. The current plan should expand the 

number of positions that would be subject to competition. 

Financial Performance 

The Corps did not receive a clean audit opinion for 2001. It now is actively working with the 

DOD OIG to resolve problem issues, including confirming the construction-in-progress balances, 

which would allow for a clean audit opinion for 2003. 

Expanding E-Government 

The Corps lacks an IT modernization blueprint. The Corps is developing a blueprint and sound 

business cases for its major IT investments. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

The Corps has not developed acceptable performance data for its program evaluations. It is 

working with OMB to identify suitable performance measures, as a first step toward collecting 

the outcome-based data needed to inform budget decisions. 

Program Assessments 

Five PART analyses covering programs were completed that account for over 50 percent of the 

Corps budget. While program management generally is effective, the Corps needs to improve the 

long-term and short-term measures for many of its programs. 

R G

R R

R G

R Y

R Y
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Percent of time hydropower facilities are out of service due to forced outagesAnnual Measure:Other annual measures, including efficiency measures such as operating cost per megawatt of electricity generated, are under development.

Program Summary:The Corps generates power at 75 existing Federal authorized purposes of these dams such as flood dnavigation. It produces about two percent of the nsignificant source of peaking power in some regionThe assessment shows the following:1. Overall program performance is less than it wapower equipment is approaching the end of its deshave an overall asset management strategy. Each plan for the maintenance, major rehabilitation, an2. Generally, program management is strong. The condition of its facilities to manage its hydropower effecive solutions to equipment problems.3. In the Pacific Northwest, under a direct financiBonneville Power Administration, the Corps is maimprove power efficiency without evaluating whetincrementally in national economic terms.4. The Corps has not evaluated how power producmight change in the future, or whether it should c5. The score on "results" reflects: the need to develmeasures; the relatively high forced outage rate; t

program evaluation; and the failure to complete mtime frames established in project planning documIn response to these findings:1. The Corps will set priorities among potential inperspective, and determine when it should propos2. To reduce the amount of time that power facilitforced outages, and to better align user requiremeBudget proposes that the Congress authorize the Sand Western Area Power Administrations to finanoperating and maintaining the Corps facilities tha3. The Corps periodically will seek public commenoperational rules that its project managers follow offs between power production and other project p

Year Target Actual

200020012002

2.3%2.3%2.3%

3.7%2.3%3.7%

2002 Actual

185

2003 Estimate

245

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Army Corps of Engineers

Program: Corps Hydropower

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Civil Works

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

56

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

28 Results / Accountability

0 100

242
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: New long- term measures are under development.Annual Measure:Percent of identified levee deficiences that are corrected prior to next flood season(New measure, 2002 data under development)Annual Measure:Outcome measure under development that will be based on an assessment of actual responses to emergencies

Program Summary:The Corps Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies component of its emergency management activity. personnel for flood and storm damage disasters, tainstance, it contracts for emergency supplies and cresponds to impending floods and storms (sandbaimmediate post-flood responses, repairs damaged provides emergency water to communities due to dsources. The assessment shows the following:1. The purpose of this program is very clear. The pgovernments when they encounter emergency situresponse capability and assists with levee repairs 2. Planning for flood and storm disasters is integraterm and annual operational goals, but they are vpart, they do not emphasize quantitative measureemphasize readiness capability, inspecting facilitiorganizations, but they do not include measuring r3. The program uses contracts for supplies and assto improve time and cost efficiency. 4. During an emergency, the Flood Control and Comay have to borrow funds from other Corps progrprograms and is not conducive to business-like operesponse program.5. Program managers are constantly reviewing anthe program lacks an outcome measure tied to thi6. Long-term and short-term measures need impropartners and clients were pleased with Corps perfMidwest floods of 93 and 95; the California Floods Mississippi and Ohio River Floods of 97 and 02. Feffective" rating is appropriate. As a result of these findings, the Administration:1. Proposes funding this program at $70 million, itof doing business in order to reduce the risk of havprograms. (In 2002, Congress rescinded $25 millibalances.)

Year Target Actual

2002 90%

2002 Actual

-25

2003 Estimate

20

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Army Corps of Engineers

Program: Emergency Management

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Civil Works

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

86

57

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

80 Results / Accountability

0 100

243
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Percent of time that Corps owned flood protection infrastructure functioned properlyAnnual Measure:Additional measures are being modified or developed

Program Summary:The Corps Flood Damage Reduction Program is dethrough structural projects (building levees and mstructural projects, such as buying and removing bthrough technical assistance to states. Today, mothe Corps are owned and operated by local commularge federally owned projects that were built manThe assessment shows the following:1. The program’s long-term goal is to reduce flood flood reduction target. Also, the Corps is completidamages to specific areas, but annual flood damag2. There are annual measures and targets relatinconstruction. The Corps attempts to measure outcthat Corps’s owned levees carry out their designed measure to better reflect the occurrence and extenlocations each year. Other measures need improvmeasure is the percent of time project construction to maintain a projected benefit-cost ratio. This meas benefits are sufficient to cover the increment. Cwhen they exceed a fairly liberal authorization cei3. Although the program is generally well managresults due to the lack of long-term outcome measAs a result of these findings, the Administration w1. Broaden the Corps approach flood damage reducoordinating this program with the other Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Mitigation for the Corps to be more pro-active in preventing fto them.2. Develop additional outcome oriented performan(For more information on this program, please see in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

200120022003

95%95%95%

100%

2002 Actual

1,398

2003 Estimate

1,099

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Army Corps of Engineers

Program: Flood Damage Reduction

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Civil Works

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

67

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

244
Key Performance Measures

Long- term Measure:Measures that reflect outcomes are under development.Annual Measure: Percent of the time the Inland Waterways segments (locks, dams and channels) with high commercial activity are available when customers want to use themAnnual Measure: Additional annual measures are under development.

Program Summary:The Corps Inland Waterways Navigation program upgrades the 11,000 mile Inland Waterway Navigwater transportation. The assessment shows the following:1. The purpose of the program is clear. The progrnavigation locks by proposing expansions, but doetools such as traffic scheduling, congestion fees, anoperate its system more efficiently. 2. While the Corps has considerable experience in National Academy of Sciences concluded that it is economic model to evaluate the benefits of potentithe Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.3. The Corps, for the most part, employs modern f4. The Corps made investments to upgrade/rehaband has kept the entire system in running order. key facilities since current projects are delayed. Cbecause the Corps has had to spread its constructiincreasing number of projects.5. In recent years, it has become difficult for the Ccommercial use segments that provide national bethat provide primarily local benefits.6. The score for program results is low because cofacilities and because the program needs new outcforward. For example, the Corps has proposed as ratio of breakdown maintenance to preventative mis not an outcome measure.As a result of these findings,1. The Corps will develop a new economic model sproperly the benefits of a range of possible improvMississippi and Illinois Rivers. 2. The Budget places priority on maintaining high

proposes that the Inland Waterways Trust Fund boperation and maintenance expenditures.3. Well develop additional performance measures

Year Target Actual

20002001

90%90%

96%

93.5%

2002 Actual

639

2003 Estimate

617

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Army Corps of Engineers

Program: Inland Waterways Navigation

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Civil Works

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

73

78

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

28 Results / Accountability

0 100

245
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measures:Measures under developmentAnnual Measures:Measures under development

Program Summary:This assessment covers Corps efforts to establish, enhance, or protect/maintain wetlands through Coworking to improve the natural functions and valucreate additional wetlands in: (1) projects whose prestoration, (2) projects that involve a requiremen(3) wetlands areas created by the formation and op(4) projects operated or maintained by the Corps twetlands within their boundaries. The assessment shows the following:1. While some Corps projects have led to large weincreasingly is involved in projects whose purpose wetlands. Neither the Corps nor any outside partcomprehensive evaluation of the long-term ecologiwetlands restoration projects or of the other Corps 2. The cost to establish an acre of wetlands can vaappears to be higher for Corps ecosystem restoratiprojects undertaken by other Federal agencies.3. The Corps often does not seek out the best oppowetlands restoration. Instead, it tries to develop aspecific water resources problem in the area identauthorization.4. The score on "results" reflects: the need to deveabsence of a process for tracking the cost-effectiveactions over time; the high cost per acre for some psystematic program evaluation; and the failure to mitigation work in the time frames established in In response to the findings, the Administration wi1. Develop ecological and cost criteria for determiinvestment is justified. 2. Focus more broadly on identifying where, and hcontribute to the overall national wetlands effort. 3. Provide a high level of funding in the Budget fothat are nationally significant: restoring Florida’s channel system of the Upper Mississippi, and re-calong the lower Missouri River.

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

230

2003 Estimate

187

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Army Corps of Engineers

Program: Non-regulatory Wetlands Activities

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Civil Works

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

64

44

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

17 Results / Accountability

0 100

246
247 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

EPA’s management challenges are to strengthen its reputation for unbiased, sound science and 

to focus on health-based program results. As can be seen by across-the-board green progress 

ratings, EPA is making progress on all five management initiatives. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

EPA has continued the innovative Senior Executive Service mobility program, which allows 

managers to rotate to different jobs in the agency, improving program knowledge and skill sets. 

EPA remains red in status because its human capital strategy is not aligned with the agency’s 

strategic plan. 

Competitive Sourcing 

EPA has not yet met the competitive sourcing goal of 15 percent to get to yellow. To get to 

green, EPA must meet a 50 percent goal. However, EPA’s progress is green as it has exceeded 

its 2002 goal, and is on target to meet the 2003 goal. Competitions are underway for scientific 

and technical functions that perform risk assessment and analysis. 

Financial Performance 

EPA has corrected all material weaknesses, begun implementation of grants competition, and 

reviewed its State Revolving Fund erroneous payments. 

Expanding E-Government 

EPA was recently chosen to be the managing partner for the online rulemaking initiative. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

The absence of valid outcome performance data has hindered EPA in evaluating the impacts of 

its programs on the environment and public health. 

Program Assessments 

Eleven EPA programs were reviewed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The 

programs included four grant programs, six direct federal programs and one regulatory program. 

The purpose of each of the eleven programs is clear and most are well designed. Program 

management is generally good. However, the lack of measured results and appropriate outcome 

measures pulls overall ratings down. In terms of patterns within this sample, strategic planning 

is much stronger for direct federal programs than it is for the grant programs. But insufficient 

performance measures affected all programs about the same. As with many other agencies, to 

improve accountability further work will continue to focus on developing outcome-oriented 

performance measures, including efficiency metrics. 

R G

R G

Y G

Y G

Y G
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Percent of U.S. population free from unacceptable risks of cancer and other significant health problems from air toxic emissionsAnnual Measure:Percentage reduction in nationwide air toxics emissions from stationary and mobile sources combined (actual data available later in 2003)Efficiency Measure:Measure under development

Program Summary:The Air Toxics program is designed to reduce emispollutants (HAPs), such as hexane and benzene, frfactories, and from vehicles.The program's purpose is clearly laid out in the stand unacceptable health risk from HAPs. The assmanagement is generally good. However, EPA haflexibilities when implementing parts of the progrcancer reduction goal is clearly outcome-related, "defined, the relation between emissions changes anot known, and there are no efficiency measures. 1. There is a clear purpose and design for the prog2. The program has not shown it is maximizing nemost cost effective regulations. 3. There are inadequate linkages between annual goals that prevent it from demonstrating its impa4. There are large data gaps for toxicity and on actIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Increase funding for toxic air pollutant programfor monitoring to help fill data gaps.2. Focus on maximizing programmatic net benefitdeleterious health effect avoided.3. Establish better performance measures (includimeasure).(For more information on this program, please see Agency chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2020

Target

95

Actual

2002200120001999

553

12

2002 Actual

115

2003 Estimate

118

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Program: Air Toxics

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Environmental Protection Agency

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

77

75

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

20 Results / Accountability

0 100

248
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Measure under developmentAnnual Measure:Millions of pounds of pollutants reduced by eliminating discharges through enforcement activitiesEfficiency Measure:Dollars negotiated per workyear from polluters for Supplemental Environmental Projects that restore, protect or improve the environment

Program Summary:EPA's civil enforcement program enforces federal human health and the environment by ensuring thwith these laws. EPA's management of their federincludes direct federal action (inspections, investigand incentives) as well as assisting and overseeing in achieving compliance to protect human health aFindings from the PART assessment include the f1. The program lacks adequate outcome oriented pimpacts both program planning and results. With measures, program planning could be adjusted to 2. Outside evaluators have criticized the program workload analysis to support existing staffing and quality data to accurately determine compliance aenforcement activities.In response to these findings the Administration w1. Fund $5 million for an improved compliance dat2. Revise EPA's strategic plan with a focus on defirole and appropriate outcome performance measu

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

350300300350

660

199920002001

17,00027,000

2002 Actual

433

2003 Estimate

439

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Program: Civil Enforcement

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Environmental Protection Agency

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

71

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

249
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Percent of population served by community water systems in compliance with health-based drinking water standardsAnnual Measure:Measure under developmentEfficiency Measure: Measure under development

Program Summary:The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund prograloan funds that finance infrastructure improvemeother activities that support state drinking water health protection. Most of the money has gone to The PART indicated that the Drinking Water SRF national financial resource for state infrastructure with health-based drinking water standards. A chWater SRF program is to develop measurable longgoals that link the program to its public health miinclude:1. The program purpose is clear and it is designed a well identified need, although, there are other feresources available to address the problem.2. Evaluation of public health impacts from infrasdifficult, in part because states provide only aggreIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Continue capitalization of the Drinking Water SBudget level because, although target revolving lereached, continued federal support will close the rcapital infrastructure needs for the next twenty yeproposed in the President's 2004 Budget is expecteloans and assistance through the State Drinking Wover 21,000 new projects.2. Develop new performance measures to be includbetter demonstrate the impact of the program.(For more information on this program, please see Agency chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

200120032005

Target

919295

Actual

91

2002 Actual

850

2003 Estimate

850

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Program: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Environmental Protection Agency, activities

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

76

43

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

22 Results / Accountability

0 100

250
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measure under developmentAnnual Measure:Percent reduction in current year production-adjusted Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) chemical risk based index (New measure)Efficiency Measure:Measure under development

Program Summary:EPA reviews and regulates chemical substances ahuman health or the environment. EPA’s Existin62,000 chemicals that were already in commerce wSubstances Control Act, including testing, regulatThe assessment found:1. The program has strong purpose and managemlacks strategic planning. 2. The program cannot demonstrate any long-term does not focus on outcomes and lacks a baseline anprogram also does not have an efficiency measure3. The program has demonstrated few results. EPtwo percent of existing chemicals. GAO found thathese chemicals.4. The law requires that EPA compile industry daconsuming. 5. EPA's current annual performance goals cannot not available until two years into the future. In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Provide $1 million above the 2003 President's Bchemical guidelines (AEGLs). AEGLs are importaresponse, recovery, and preparedness. AEGLs repeffects (discomfort, disability, death) for five exposless). This funding will help EPA to obtain more ito humans and the environment from chemicals, w

achieve a higher level of accountability and result2. Establish better performance measures, includi

Year Target Actual

200220032004

342

2002 Actual

11

2003 Estimate

12

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Program: Existing Chemicals

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Environmental Protection Agency

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

86

43

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

8 Results / Accountability

0 100

251
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measure under developmentAnnual Measure:Leaking underground storage tank cleanups completedNew annual outcome measures being developedEfficiency Measure: Measure under development

Program Summary:The purpose of the Leaking Underground Storage leaking underground petroleum tanks. The assessment showed that:1. The program purpose, to clean up leaking undedefined and is understood by states and other stak2. The program is well managed, but would benefievaluations and a systematic process to review str3. Strategic planning is particularly critical to this achieved its current long term goal and has no new program managers. EPA may finish the backlog onext decade. In the future, a smaller program malesser number of new releases that occur every ye4. The program appears to be successful, as evidenauthorizing legislation: cleanup of releases and upprogram scores poorly on the results section since performance metrics that demonstrate an impact In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Continue to clean storage tank sites at a rapid p2. Develop outcome measures that will test the linprogram and the impact on human health and the 

Year Target Actual

2000200120022003

21,00021,00021,00020,000

20,83419,074

2002 Actual

73

2003 Estimate

72

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Program: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Environmental Protection Agency

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

89

43

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

45 Results / Accountability

0 100

252
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Reduction of hazardous substances from products and processes in millions of pounds(Targets under development)Annual Performance Goal:Annual quantity of hazardous substances eliminated through the Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program from 1996 levels, in millions of poundsEfficiency Measure:Measure under development

Program Summary:EPA’s New Chemicals program reviews new chemcommerce (manufactured or imported) to prevent environment. The assessment found:1. The program has very strong purpose and mana2. The program collaborates with the Department controls and has a cooperative agreement with Floand develop improved environmental indicators anmeasures. 3. While the program has to some extent shown relack of adequate long-term measures. The measurhave clear targets and do not include at least one 4. The PART exercise, however, has resulted in seto develop long-term goals for the program that cahuman health and/or the environment. In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Maintain funding at the 2003 President’s Budge2. Recommend improvement of the program’s straindependent evaluation of the program, which can improvement of program results.3. Establish more outcome-oriented measures inclmeasure.(For more information on this program, please see Agency chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2007

Target

250

Actual

20012004 150

150

2002 Actual

14

2003 Estimate

15

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Program: New Chemicals

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Adequate

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Environmental Protection Agency

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

71

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

32 Results / Accountability

0 100

253
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Current measure achievedNew measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Measures under developmentEfficiency Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:EPA's nonpoint source grants program, authorized Water Act, gives money to States to reduce water source runoff.The analysis found that:1. The program purpose is clear and agreed upon b2. The program has not collected sufficient performwhether it has had a significant effect on pollution3. The program's greatest weaknesses are strategimeasurable program results. Consequently, the prterm, annual, and efficiency measures. Existing an"Number of states reporting on progress in implemprograms" do not provide useful, results-based perprogram's previous long-term goal has been met, adeveloped a new one.4. The program is in the process of developing new focus on outcomes and efficiency.5. EPA has made significant improvements to progseveral years, which will assist in their efforts to dmeasures. For example, in 2002 EPA implemented with additional reporting requirements. Through able to see the estimated reductions in sediment awith each project implementation, as well as proj6. The program overlaps with others in rural areaAgriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives PConservation Reserve Program.In response to these findings, and to reduce overlaAgriculture programs that received significant fun(EQIP goes from $200 million in 2002 to $800 millproposes to:1. Shift the program's focus in agricultural waterspollution reduction projects to planning, monitorincoordination and implementation of watershed-bathreatened waters.2. Establish more outcome-focused measures and 

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

237

2003 Estimate

238

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Program: Nonpoint Source Grants

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Environmental Protection Agency

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

67

29

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

0 Results / Accountability

0 100

254
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measure under developmentAnnual Measure: Number of new reduced risk active ingredients registeredLong-term Efficiency Measure: Measure under development

Program Summary:The Pesticide Registration program at EPA evaluathem for use in the United States. EPA examines how it will be used, as well as storage and disposaused properly, the pesticide will not have any adveenvironment.The assessment indicates that the program addresinterest and that further work is needed in the aremeasurement. Specific findings include:1. The program has a clear mission and statutory the safe use of pesticides on a nationwide basis. 2. The program has established long-term goals bbecause the goals lack quantified baselines and/or need to be more outcome-focused. 3. The program regularly reviews overall progresmake management decisions to address issues tha4. The program does not use efficiency or cost effeprogram management or performance.5. Generally the program has met its annual goalthese annual targets leads to quantifiable progresterm goals. One new long-term efficiency goal thamaking time has been proposed for this program bneeded to finalize the goal and to develop approprit. In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Implement appropriate long-term measures.2. Develop adequate efficiency and cost effectivenprogram performance and goal-setting. (For more information on this program, please see Agency chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

11101313

1115

2002 Actual

45

2003 Estimate

44

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Program: Pesticide Registration

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Environmental Protection Agency

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

86

71

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

255
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measure under developmentAnnual Measure:Percent of Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) completed A RED document summarizes the reregistration conclusions and outlines any risk reduction measures necessary for the pesticide to continue to be registered in the U.S.Efficiency Measure: Measure under development

Program Summary:The Pesticide Reregistration program reviews pesEPA to make sure they meet current scientific and reregistration process considers the human health pesticides and can result in changes to existing reare of concern. The assessment indicates that the program addresquantifiable need and that further work is needed evaluation and performance measurement. Specif1. The program is the only entity that reviews exi

keep pace with advancing safety standards. The p

statutory authority.2. The program has established long-term goals bbecause the goals lack quantified baselines and/or to be more outcome-focused.3. The program regularly reviews progress toward management decisions to address issues that impedoes not use efficiency or cost effectiveness measumanagement and performance.4. EPA has proposed a long-term efficiency goal foreductions in decision-making time but further woand to develop appropriate annual targets to supp5. The program has met statutory deadlines but dgoals and it is unclear how achieving annual targetoward the program's long-term goals. Progress torequire additional work on antimicrobial pesticideAs a result of this review, the Administration:1. Recommends providing an additional $1.0 milliand $0.5 million for inerts reregistration activities2. Will implement appropriate long-term performannual targets, and adequate long and short term (For more information on this program, please see Agency chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

72.476.4

8388

71.672.7

2002 Actual

45

2003 Estimate

48

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Program: Pesticide Reregistration

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Environmental Protection Agency, activities

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

86

71

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

22 Results / Accountability

0 100

256
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measure under developmentAnnual Measure:Number of removals completedEfficiency Measure:Measure under development

Program Summary:Superfund's Removal Program is a short term cleaemergency and non-emergency situations in two yThe assessment showed that:1. The program's purpose, to perform emergency is very clearly defined and understood by states an2. The program would benefit from regular indepesystematic process to review strategic planning. 3. The program meets its targets for number of remeasure. However, the program scores poorly on section since it has no outcome based performance extent of the impact on public health and the envi4. There are no efficiency measures and the devesignificant data issues, namely, poor historic data Comprehensive Environmental Response, CompenInformation System (CERCLIS) database.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Propose funding at the 2003 President's Budge2. Develop outcome oriented measures that test thactivities and the impact on human health and th3. Improve data quality in the CERCLIS database(For more information on this program, please see Agency chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

300275350350

302426

2002 Actual

203

2003 Estimate

203

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Program: Superfund Removal

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Environmental Protection Agency

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

71

57

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

44 Results / Accountability

0 100

257
Key Performance Measures

Long term Measure:Measure under developmentAnnual Measure:Percent of tribes with delegated and non-delegated environmental programs(New measure, targets under development)Efficiency Measure:Measure under development

Program Summary:The Indian Environmental General Assistance Pr

federally recognized Native American tribes and eimprove their ability to administer environmental The analysis found that:1. The program's purpose is very clear and agreed 

all tribes currently have the financial resources anand implement Federal environmental programs o2. Strategic planning is the program's weakest areearlier had weak performance goals that focused oenvironmental outcomes.3. In recognition of these weaknesses, EPA has beterm goals and efficiency measures.4. The program also adopted new annual performaaccurately reflect the program's purpose and activ5. GAP has improved its program management ova new grants management system which provides activities, and it also developed a tribal database wcultural, and administrative information on each oAs a result of these findings, the Administration r1. Increasing GAP funding to $62.5 million, $5 miBudget level of $57 million, in recognition that pro2. That EPA use the new information from the recmanagement system to further improve the progrmanagement, including the development of long-tmeasures.

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

52

2003 Estimate

57

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Program: Tribal General Assistance

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Environmental Protection Agency

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

56

29

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

258
259 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Setting priorities among its different research activities is a major management challenge for 

NASA, as is controlling the costs of its supporting capabilities, such as the Space Shuttle and 

Space Station. NASA is a government-wide leader in the human capital and budget and 

performance integration initiatives, and is making substantial progress in competitive sourcing. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

NASA’s status has improved to yellow because it is implementing a strategic human capital 

plan. A key element of this plan is a human capital tracking system, which allows NASA to 

identify workforce deficiencies across the agency and undertake corrective actions. 

Competitive Sourcing 

In competitive sourcing, NASA has achieved the government-wide goal by contracting out 15 

percent of its commercial positions but still has not conducted a competition or finalized a plan 

to achieve the long-term 50 percent goal. 

Financial Performance 

NASA’s received a disclaimer of opinion on its 2001 audit. However, NASA has addressed the 

issues from the audit, and it could improve from a red to a yellow rating if it earns an 

unqualified opinion on its 2002 audit. NASA also has begun implementing a common, agencywide financial management system. 

Expanding E-Government 

NASA’s progress rating is green due to recent actions to improve its information technology (IT) 

architecture and its reporting on IT security and project justifications. NASA’s status rating 

could improve if its new processes yield improved architectures, IT security, and project 

justifications. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

NASA’s status improved to yellow because the agency budgets for the full cost of its programs, 

including workforce, facilities, and overhead, and has integrated its budget and performance 

reports. 

Program Assessments 

NASA’s three program assessments demonstrate a wide range of performance, from the Mars 

Exploration Program, which was rated effective for its planning and execution since the loss of two 

Mars missions in the late 1990s, to the Space Station program, which was rated adequate because 

it is still recovering from recent cost overruns. All NASA programs must improve performance 

measures so that the annual and long-term results of multi-year investments in NASA research 

are made clearer. 

Y G

R G

R G

R G

Y G
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Determine if life exists or has ever existed on Mars by: 1) exploring a high priority site on the Martian surface for definitive signs of organic molecules, and 2) mapping potential biosignatures from Mars orbit and the Martian surface(New measure)Annual Measure:Percentage cost overrun on spacecraft missionsAnnual Measure:Percentage of budget allocated through open, peerreviewed competition

Program Summary:The Mars Exploration Program (MEP) conducts scMars, focusing on the search for water and evidentechnologies, builds, launches, and operates robotiresearch to better understand Mars and its past aThis assessment indicates that the MEP is a very program that ties directly to NASA's mission. In tspacecraft to mission failures. This assessment indrecovered well since that time and is yielding qualAdditional findings include:1. The success of the next mission to Mars, the Mais important to validating NASA's revamped Mars 2. Scientific and educational returns could be incrcommunications technologies, such as optical comMEP.3. Advance planning for the next decade of Mars munderstanding what technologies the MEP should 4. Large Mars missions must be planned carefully times as much as smaller Mars missions.5. Although annual MEP performance measures qoutputs, long-term MEP performance lacks quantioutputs and outcomes. R&D programs like MEP hdifficulty quantifying long-term outcomes because to predict.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Demonstrate new optical communications techndata rate, deep space communications. This demMars Mobile Laboratory mission.2. Develop options for the next decade of Mars missmall missions, to help guide MEP technology inve3. Develop long-term, quantitative, outcome orient[For more information on this program, please see Space Administration chapter in the Budget volumNASA's change to full cost budgeting and is not diyears.]

Year

2011

Target

2 

milestone

Actual

200220032004

<+10%<+10%<+10%

-1% to 

+14%

200220032004

>75%>75%>75%

70%

2002 Actual

457

2003 Estimate

496

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Program: Mars Exploration

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

89

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

89 Results / Accountability

0 100

260
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Average number of potential flight safety problems (anomalies) per flightAnnual Measure:Percentage of flight objectives achievedFlight objectives include activities such as spacewalks completed or delivery of crew to the Space Station.

Program Summary:The Space Shuttle program is primarily responsiband cargo to and from the Space Station. The Shumaintains the fleet of Space Shuttles.The assessment indicates that day-to-day Shuttle managed but the Shuttle program suffers from inaplanning. Additional findings include:1. The program collects timely and credible informcontinuously assesses and manages risks for safe 2. Under NASA's new Integrated Space Transportreplacement will take longer to develop than origiShuttle will operate longer than expected.3. Shuttle operational costs are rising.4. While the Shuttle program has good measures fShuttle operations, there is no clear, measurable rinvestments in the Space Shuttle and improvemeflight safety, or facilities conditions. The Shuttle one or more clear efficiency measures.5. Several major Shuttle investments have been cagrowth. Projected cost growth can sometimes reacIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Make investments to extend the Space Shuttle's 2. Incorporate the Space Shuttle in the President's Initiative and make adjustments in the Shuttle incost growth in Shuttle operations.3. Develop outcome oriented, long-term performanperformance of Shuttle investments and efficiency operations.4. Develop outcome oriented, long-term performanmeasures.(For more information on this program, please see Space Administration chapter in the Budget volumNASA's change to full cost budgeting and is not diyears.]

Year Target Actual

200220032004

<8<8<8

6

200220032004

100%100%100%

100%

2002 Actual

3,270

2003 Estimate

3,208

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Program: Space Shuttle

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

64

33

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

80 Results / Accountability

0 100

261
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Percentage of mission objectives completed as plannedAnnual Measure:Percentage of planned Station resources available for research

Program Summary:The Space Station program builds and operates thto International Space Station. The Space Station Station resources like power, research space, and programs manage the actual research conducted oTwo years ago, NASA projected a 50 percent overrcomplete the Space Station. To keep the Station wAdministration scaled it down. It also set specific must meet before any further additions to the StaThis assessment indicates that the Space Station controls but also indicates that it is still too early treforms will continue to be successful. Additional 1. FY 2002 was the first year that the Space Statioreducing its funding reserves, a key indicator of im2. The Space Station program still has a full year finish building the core Station.3. To help manage risks as the Station transitions operations, independent cost estimates show that likely need additional budget reserves in future ye4. Space Station performance measures reflect pro

do not measure efficiency, and provide no long-teris not yet able to demonstrate results.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Continue building the core Space Station and mperformance to see if management reforms are suc2. Increase budget reserves for the Space Station iconsistent with independent Station cost reviews.3. Develop outcome-oriented, long-term performanmeasures.(For more information on this program, please see Space Administration chapter in the Budget volumNASA's change to full cost budgeting and is not diyears.)

Year Target Actual

200220032004

90%90%90%

>90%

200220032004

80%80%80%

>80%

2002 Actual

1,721

2003 Estimate

1,492

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Program: Space Station

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

73

78

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

39 Results / Accountability

0 100

262
263 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is taking a systemic view of the management agenda, 

understanding that the five management initiatives are intrinsically linked. NSF is the 

government-wide leader in Financial Management and Expanding E-Government and is making 

progress in Human Capital. However, its performance in the Competitive Sourcing and Budget 

and Performance Integration lags behind its other efforts. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

NSF has made significant progress in the Human Capital initiative. It established the NSF 

Academy for ongoing staff training and issued revised senior executive performance 

management objectives to measure executives’ performance against the goals set out in NSF’s 

strategic plan. 

Competitive Sourcing 

NSF has made no progress in Competitive Sourcing. The agency has decided not to compete any 

of its commercial positions at this time and has not developed a competitive sourcing plan. 

Financial Performance 

NSF continues to be the agency leader in financial performance. NSF has conducted 15 pilot 

reviews of its research grant awards as part of its new grant monitoring activity to ensure that 

NSF funds are used for their intended purposes. 

Expanding E-Government 

NSF achieved green status in E-Gov, joining its green status for financial performance. It did so 

by making significant progress in fixing identified information security problems. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

NSF has been slow in addressing the Budget and Performance Integration initiative. The 

agency has only recently submitted a draft plan on how to implement this initiative. The first 

significant step will be to revise its strategic plan by March 2003. 

Program Assessments 

Two NSF programs were reviewed using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART): one for 

activities under NSF’s “Tools” strategic goal and one for its Geosciences directorate. These reviews 

showed that NSF programs have a very clear purpose and good management practices, but that 

their annual goals may not be that useful in measuring performance. For this year, the PART 

score reflects acceptance of the performance measures and the results they indicate. The 

Administration will develop better annual goals for the 2005 Budget. 

R G

R R

G G

G G

R Y
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Discovery across the frontier of science and engineering connected to learning, innovation, and service to society Independent, external committees regularly assess NSF programs and the results of the awards made.Annual Measure:Partnerships connecting discovery to innovation, learning, and societal advancementIndependent, external committees assess whether programs succeed in meeting goals based on a retrospective review of program awards and the results from those awards.Annual Measure:Percentage of program announcements available at least three months prior to proposal deadline

Program Summary:Geosciences is a directorate at NSF that funds basfacilities, and education in the atmospheric, earthThe assessment indicates that the overall purpose but that NSF's annual goals, applied to Geosciencbroad to be useful in tracking how the program wiunderstanding and its application. Additional find1. The program is the principal source of Federal fbasic research in the geosciences, providing over harea.2. The program conducts independent evaluations needed program improvements and evaluate effec3. The program uses a competitive process using pefficient and effective management process.4. Although annual external reviews indicate that its goals, there is limited information about the crmake those determinations.5. The program's budget is not aligned with goals determine the impact of funding on performance.6. The definition of the Geosciences directorate as making budget decisions, because such decisions wFor this year, the PART score reflects acceptance and the results they indicate. It is particularly diffannual performance measures for basic research. process to measure its progress in achieving its lonIndependent, external committees regularly assesof the awards made. In response to these findings:1. The Administration will develop better annual gof the agency's revision of its strategic plan and ththe 2005 Budget.2. The Administration will likely not use the "Geoprogram for future assessments.[2003 funding includes $74 million in transferred 2004.] 

Year

2001200220032004

Target

SuccessSuccessSuccessSuccess

Actual

SuccessSuccess

2001200220032004

SuccessSuccessSuccessSuccess

SuccessSuccess

2001200220032004

95%95%95%95%

100%

94%

2002 Actual

609

2003 Estimate

691

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: National Science Foundation

Program: Geosciences Directorate

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

88

70

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

73 Results / Accountability

0 100

264
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:NSF provision of broadly accessible, state-of-the-art research and education toolsIndependent, external committees annually assess the significance and results of NSF awards for "Tools".Annual Measure:Percent of facility projects in which construction and upgrade cost and schedule are kept within 10 percent of project plan (replaces existing cost-based measure)Annual Measure:Percent of facilities in which operating time lost due to unscheduled downtime is less than 10 percent of the total scheduled operating time

Program Summary:"Tools" is one of NSF's three strategic mission catefunding for research equipment and for constructiresearch facilities. Just under 25 percent of NSF's portfolio.The assessment indicates the overall purpose of thprogram is meeting the majority of its annual goal1. The program conducts independent and quality to support program improvements and to evaluate 2. The program uses a competitive process using pThis is an efficient and effective management proc3. The program's budget is not aligned with goals determine the impact of funding on performance.4. NSF's priority setting process for large facility ctransparent, making it difficult to discern the prog5. Although "Tools" received a positive assessmentlower levels within the "Tools" portfolio, limiting tassessment and budget decisions.For this year, the PART score reflects acceptance and the results they indicate. It is particularly diffannual performance measures for basic research. to assess progress toward its long-term and annuaexternal committees annually assess the significanfor "Tools." In response to these findings:1. NSF will provide with the budget a rank orderinconstruction projects and a discussion of how thesapproved, and prioritized.2. For future budgets, the Administration may sepat least three subcategories and undertake prograbetter link those assessments with budget decision(For more information on this program, please see Foundation chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year

2001200220032004

Target

SuccessSuccessSuccessSuccess

Actual

SuccessSuccess

2001200220032004

90%90%90%90%

96%93%

2001200220032004

90%90%90%90%

86%84%

2002 Actual

1,112

2003 Estimate

1,122

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: National Science Foundation

Program: NSF Research Tools

Program Type: Research and DevelopmentRating: Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

93

83

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

88 Results / Accountability

0 100

265

267 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

SBA recently began to address long-standing financial management problems, but is out in 

front with its on-line site – BusinessLaw.gov -- to help small businesses comply with federal 

regulations. 

President’s Management Agenda 

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

The agency will retrain its staff and pursue policies to more effectively reach out to America’s 25 

million small businesses. SBA’s goals are to provide field offices with greater flexibility to 

manage programs based upon the needs of the local community and to centralize loan processing 

to improve customer service. SBA has assessed the skills of its staff, committed funds to 

training them in marketing and outreach, and developed new performance standards to hold 

staff accountable for their service to SBA customers. 

Competitive Sourcing 

SBA has conducted an inventory and identified staff positions that should be subjected to a 

public-private should competition in 2003. 

Financial Performance 

SBA deteriorated in this initiative because it has encountered significant challenges in 

accounting for loan asset sales, meeting accounting performance standards, and measuring risk 

in its loan portfolio more accurately. 

Expanding E-Government 

SBA, in partnership with federal agencies and state governments has developed the Business 

Compliance One-Stop, part of the BusinessLaw.gov on-line system to help entrepreneurs easily 

find, understand, and comply with the myriad of regulations that affect their businesses. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

SBA is strong in some areas of budget performance and integration, however, it needs to develop 

outcome measures for technical assistance programs and make funding decisions according to 

expectations of program performance. 

Program Assessments 

The Program Assessment Rating Tool was applied to four of the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) programs. The assessment of these programs revealed some duplication in 

the provision of technical assistance and business loans. Across the board, the agency lacks 

measures that demonstrate program effectiveness in achieving outcomes. Generally, the assessed 

programs achieved an “above average” rating in the area of management and “average” ratings for 

planning and results. 

R G

R G

R R

Y G

Y G
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Customer Satisfaction rateAnnual Measure:Cost of providing services per client(Targets under development)

Program Summary:SBA provides grant to 80 existing Business Informsmall businesses, particularly, start-up businessesaccess to resources and technology. The assessment found that the program lacks a clmeasure performance. Additional findings include1. There are no data to show that the program has to small businesses.2. There are no evaluations to assess the agency's Based on SBA's preliminary cost allocation data, t$12 million in 2002 to manage and support $500,0direct administrative funds would significantly increducing efficiency.3. Surveys of recipients of BIC services show a hig4. Planning is significantly lacking. SBA does not long-term goals.In response to these findings, the Administration 1. Develop outcome-oriented annual and long-term 2. Undertake an evaluation of the program's effectduplicates other federal and non-federal mentorin3. Revisit the cost allocation methodology to determaccurately represent true program related expend(For more information on this program, please see Administration chapter in the Budget volume.)Note: Program funding levels: $500,000 in 2002, $in 2004.

Year Target Actual

20012003 91-93%

93%

20012002

$85.35$88.51

2002 Actual

0

2003 Estimate

0

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Small Business Administration

Program: Business Information Centers

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

86

43

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

17 Results / Accountability

0 100

268
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Job creationAnnual Measure:Number of loans to start-up firms

Program Summary:The Small Business Administration's (SBA) SectioCompany Loan program provides long-term, fixedfor fixed assets such as land, buildings, and large designed to stimulate private sector investment, ceconomic development of communities.The PART findings indicate that the program purPART revealed the following:1. While SBA’s 504 loans are unique in structure aBusiness loans, the programs are duplicative in thterm financing for fixed assets (land, buildings, an2. The agency lacks a strategic plan and has not apolicy objectives of the 504 program.3. SBA needs to increase the availability of loan inprogram to improve customer access to loans. Addavailability of 504 loan intermediaries will enable SBA’s loan programs (504 or 7(a)) best meet their The PART findings will be addressed in the follow1. The 2004 Budget proposes to increase program factors that affect both demand and performance i2. The proposed funding for evaluations would als504, private sector, and 7(a) loans.3. Through a proposed regulation, SBA will solicit long-term goals for its strategic plan and increasin7(a) loans.[Note: The Section 504 program is self-financed thappropriation. The 2004 Budget supports a loan v(For more information on this program, please see Administration chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

200220032004

83,91880,75980,759

116,048

200220032004

1,0001,000

989

2002 Actual

0

2003 Estimate

0

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Small Business Administration

Program: Section 504 Certified Development 

Company Loan Program Program Type: Credit

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

70

57

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

60 Results / Accountability

0 100

269
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measure under developmentAnnual Measure:Number of clients counseled or trainedAnnual Measure:Cost of providing services per client

Program Summary:The Service Corp of Retired Executives (SCORE) mexecutives, who volunteer their time, to counsel anare currently 389 SCORE locations. About 10,500 1.1 million hours in 2002.The assessment found that the program's purpose client was relatively low relative to similar progra1. The program has successfully brought together for mentoring.2. Based on SBA's preliminary cost allocation datamillion in 2002 to manage and support $5 million 3. There are no data to show that the program has to recipients. SBA does not have outcome-based anIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Develop outcome-oriented annual and long-term 2. Undertake an evaluation of the program's effectduplicates other federal and non-federal mentorin3. Revisit the cost allocation methodology to determaccurately represent true program related expend(For more information on this program, please see Administration chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

406,300399,576462,257510,000

387,938440,293

20012002 $29.19

$30.57$30.87

2002 Actual

5

2003 Estimate

5

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Small Business Administration

Program: Service Corps of Retired Executives

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

67

57

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

47 Results / Accountability

0 100

270
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measure under developmentAnnual Measure:Cost of providing services to clients(Targets under development)Annual Measure:The number of small businesses counseled or trained(Revised targets under development)

Program Summary:Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) proto current and prospective business owners. These the federal government. State and private sources counsel over 600,000 clients annually. While the assessment found that the program's pumeaningful annual and long-term goals necessary performance. Additional findings include:1. An independent evaluation of the program indiccounseling resulted in $2.78 in tax revenue.2. There are no evaluations from which to assess tprogram. Based on preliminary cost allocation daapproximately $13 million to manage and support 3. Funds are allocated to SBDCs based on formulaaddition, the hourly cost of counseling services varwithout any evidence that the quality of services oIn response to these findings, the Administration 1. Develop outcome-oriented annual and long-term program performance.2. Undertake an evaluation of the program's effectduplicates other federal and non-federal mentorin3. Revisit SBA's cost allocation methodology to detestimates accurately represent true program relat(For more information on this program, please see Administration chapter in the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

20012002

$164.57$154.43

2001200220032004

631,349627,935634,214653,240

609,646651,421

2002 Actual

88

2003 Estimate

88

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Small Business Administration

Program: Small Business Development Centers

Program Type: Block/Formula GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

89

57

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

271

273 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

SSA has made strong progress in the President’s Management Agenda, especially in Budget 

and Performance Integration. In competitive sourcing, however, SSA is progressing more slowly 

than planned. 

President’s Management Agenda

Status Progress 

Human Capital 

SSA is yellow for status because it has not implemented an agency-wide performance appraisal 

system that differentiates between high and low performers. However, SSA continues to 

improve through a new performance appraisal system for its senior executives. SSA also has 

increased productivity and has been moving workers to front-line positions, which, in turn, 

should improve service to customers. 

Competitive Sourcing 

SSA is red for status because it has not competed or directly converted 15 percent of its 

commercial jobs. While SSA has the competitive sourcing infrastructure in place and has taken 

initial steps, it only recently announced its studies. 

Financial Performance 

SSA’s status is yellow because its financial and performance management systems are not yet 

integrated. Still, SSA continues to make progress. It produced audited financial statements 45 

days after the end of the fiscal year, beating an accelerated annual deadline by two years. Also, 

SSA received a clean opinion on its financial statements for the ninth consecutive year and 

cleared its one remaining financial management material weakness. 

Expanding E-Government 

SSA’s status is yellow because it is developing but has not yet achieved a one-stop, integrated 

customer service delivery across the Internet, call centers, and field offices. SSA makes business 

cases for all its major IT investments, and the agency’s enterprise architecture and capital 

planning processes have improved. 

Budget and Performance Integration 

SSA’s status is yellow because the cost of outputs is not directly integrated with performance 

outcomes. However, SSA has strengthened the linkage in some cases, and is developing a new 

budget formulation system. 

Program Assessments 

The assessments suggest that SSA uses strong financial management and accountability 

practices in administering these programs. The programs have adequate long-term and annual 

performance measures, many of which have been met. 

Y G

R Y

Y G

Y G

Y G
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Initial disability claims average processing time (days)This is the number of days from the filing of an application to the date processing is complete.Annual Measure:Percent of initial disability denials correctly processedAnnual Measure:Number of hearings cases processed per workyear (includes all hearings, not just initial disability)

Program Summary:The Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) progwho are unable to earn a living due to a disabilitys lifetime average earnings. The program also proThe assessment indicates that the DI program purspecific need. Of those employees covered by the Demployer-provided long-term disability policy. Add1. The DI program is not optimally designed to mewith disabilities. Enacted in 1956, the program hachanging medical technology, vocational options, adisabled that allow more people with disabilities t2. While funding to run the program directly affecprecise relationship between resources and outcomoutcomes, such as the percent of claims processed time.3. To improve cost effectiveness, SSA periodically ensure that only those who remain disabled contin4. SSA’s financial management is sound. For examconsecutive unqualified opinion on its financial sta5. SSA exceeded its targets for average initial procmet its annual goals for the percent of initial disab6. SSA did not make sufficient progress in hearingproductivity improved in 2002, it remains below tprocessed per workyear. 7. Reports from the General Accounting Office and Board have repeatedly noted that program improvto improve productivity and processing times. SSA make improvements without significant success.To address these findings, the SSA will:1. Better connect DI beneficiaries with expanding individuals with disabilities.2. More closely line up DI administrative resource3. Improve the disability claims process, in part, beliminate the need to store, locate, and mail millio

Year

1999200020012004

Target

100115120103

Actual

105102106

1999200020012002

93.5%93.5%

93.0%92.4%92.0%92.4%

1999200020012002

103

91

98978797

2002 Actual

65,783

2003 Estimate

75,138

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Social Security Administration

Program: Disability Insurance

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Social Security Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

86

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

50 Results / Accountability

0 100

274
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Number of SSI Aged claims processed per workyear by the field offices(Internal Measure prior to 2003)Annual Measure:Percent of SSI aged claims processed within 2 weeks of the application being filedAnnual Measure:Percent of SSI payments made to the correct individuals in the correct amounts without overpayments (for the SSI program overall)

Program Summary:The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the Aneedy individuals aged 65 years or older who have Aged is one component of the broader SSI programdisabled individuals. The assessment indicates thaaddresses a specific need since it provides paymenare not met from other sources, such as Social Secpensions. Over 435,000 individuals receiving SSI oincome.Additional findings include:1. This federal program provides national uniform supplemental income in comparison to the patchwreplaced in 1974.2. While the funding to run the program directly aprecise relationship between resources and outcomoutcomes, such as the percent of payments correcttime.3. SSA has established strong financial managemeFor example, SSA's accounting system allows it to program, including all administrative costs and ov4. Each year, SSA has become more efficient and pAged claims. SSA set 2003 and 2004 targets for thexceeded them in 2002.5. Beginning in 2000, SSA exceeded its annual aveSSI Aged claims.6. The targets for the percent of SSI payments maoverpayments, which are for the overall SSI progrcomponent, have not been achieved. SSA uses severrors. These methods also detect payment errors, measured performance against these targets.To address these findings, the SSA will:1. Better match up SSI administrative resources w2. Address payment accuracy issues by aggressivein its SSI Corrective Action plan, such as simplifyrequirements.

Year

1999200220032004

Target

497502

Actual

322515

1999200020012002

66.0%66.0%66.0%70.0%

63.5%74.4%79.9%82.6%

1999200020012002

95.0%94.7%94.0%

94.3%93.6%92.8%

2002 Actual

4,577

2003 Estimate

4,739

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Social Security Administration

Program: Supplemental Security Income for the 

Aged Program Type: Direct Federal

Rating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Social Security Administration

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

84

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

275

277 

OTHER AGENCIES 

President’s Management Agenda 

Human 

Capital

Competitive 

Sourcing

Financial 

Performance

EGovernment

Budget and 

Performance 

Integration

General Services Administration 

Status 

Progress 

Office of Personnel Management 

Status 

Progress 

Smithsonian Institution 

Status 

Progress 

General Services Administration 

GSA made significant progress in several areas. GSA successfully replaced its core accounting 

system to improve the management of funds. GSA is now focusing its efforts to move other 

financial systems into one agency-wide system. GSA also successfully converted 398 jobs (or five 

percent overall) during 2002, and is expected to convert 15 percent of its commercial inventory by 

the end of 2003. GSA’s major challenges in improving its status on these initiatives include: 

purchasing IT systems that work for the entire agency, rather than parts of it; improving 

management and execution of its human capital strategy; and developing long-range performance 

goals and the budgets needed to achieve those goals. 

R R Y R R

R G G Y Y

Y R Y Y R

G G G G G

R R R Y R

Y Y Y G Y
278 

Office of Personnel Management 

OPM is making good progress towards meeting each of the initiative’s standards for success. It 

is reorganizing its workforce to better help federal agencies put effective human resource 

management practices into effect that, in turn, will improve agency performance. Last year OPM 

competitively sourced 82 full-time job slots, and has plans to contract or compete another 202 in 

2003. OPM received a clean audit on its 2001 consolidated financial statement, and used its new 

COTS financial management system to close its accounts within the same year. OPM leads five eGov initiatives, including consolidation of federal civilian payroll service providers from 22 to four. 

A new web site, www.GoLearn.gov, is one of the world’s most active online training sites, with over 

35 million hits to date and 20,000 registered users. OPM is developing a zero-based budget and 

an annual performance plan that adjusts to the goals of the reorganization. It also has kicked off a 

project to create an agency-wide program evaluation and performance measurement program. 

Smithsonian Institution 

While the Smithsonian Institution is making some progress in addressing the President’s 

Management Agenda, it still has a long way to go before its status ratings will improve. The 

Smithsonian has produced successful business cases for all of its IT projects, but must address the 

22 material weaknesses discovered in its IT security system. The Smithsonian also began to 

implement a new financial management system designed to improve its management information 

and decision-making abilities. The first components of this system were introduced in October 

2002, with overall completion scheduled for spring 2005 The Smithsonian also has committed to 

competing positions for facilities, custodial, and grounds maintenance at its newest aviation and 

space artifacts museum, the Udvar Hazy Center at Dulles Airport. Finally, the Smithsonian 2004 

Budget submission marks the Institution’s first attempt at having budget and performance 

measures complement one another. The Smithsonian will work to ensure that full budgetary costs 

are charged to all mission activities in upcoming budgets. 

Program Assessments 

Eleven program assessments were conducted for programs in smaller agencies, including the 

General Services Administration, Office of Personnel Management, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Corporation for National and Community Service, and the Tennessee Valley 

Authority. The budgets for these programs range from $59 million to $53 billion. 

As with other programs, much of the effort in completing ratings involved developing 

informative, useful performance measures. For instance, OPM’s Federal Employees’ Group Life 

Insurance (FEGLI) and Retirement programs are well-administered benefit programs and both 

use annual performance measures to improve service delivery and increase efficiency. However 

neither program has any long-term measures that relate to identifying and evaluating the role 

these benefits play in helping the government, as an employer, attract and keep a high-quality 

workforce. A similar lack of long-term outcome goals was identified in five GSA programs and in 

others that follow. 
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:The rate of death in the U.S. from fire related causes(measured per million people)(New targets will be developed by March 2003)Long-term Measure:The rate of death in the U.S. from electrocutions(measured per 10 million people)(New targets will be developed by March 2003)Annual Measure:Recalls initiated within 20 days under the Fast TrackProduct Recall program(New targets will be developed by March 2003)

Program Summary:CPSC works to reduce the unreasonable risk of injwith consumer products through voluntary and mcompliance with those standards, consumer informvoluntary efforts with manufacturers.The assessment found that despite overall strong demonstrate results due to a lack of long-term outinclude:1. CPSC has a clear and unique Federal role.2. CPSC has addressed its data problems by deveprocedures for data collection. This will enable thgoals.3. CPSC's annual performance goals are discrete, and directly support the agency's mission.4. CPSC currently conducts cost-benefit analyses substantive regulations except Poison Prevention regulations and those regulations directed by Conrequirements for cost-benefit analysis.5. CPSC routinely uses performance data to recom6. CPSC has shown positive trends in meeting its however, current targets are set below already achambitious. 7. CPSC does a limited review of its current regulamong all regulations in accomplishing program gTo address these findings, the agency will:1. Develop more ambitious long-term strategic gostrategic plan and setting new targets.)2. Review the conduct of cost-benefit analyses on these regulations are conducted in a more comprethorough manner, and propose legislative change 3. Develop a plan to systematically review its currconsistency among all regulations in accomplishin(For more information on this program, please see the Budget volume.)

Year

199519971999

Target

10.310.310.3

Actual

11.410.3

9.8

199419961998

7.17.17.1

8.87.27.4

199920002001

80%90%90%

95%94%95%

2002 Actual

55

2003 Estimate

57

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Consumer Product Safety Commission

Program: Consumer Product Safety Commission

Program Type: RegulatoryRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Consumer Product Safety Commission

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

80

91

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

75 Results / Accountability

0 100

279
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Measures under developmentAnnual Measure: Measures under developmentAnnual Measure: Measures under development

Program Summary:The AmeriCorps program makes competitive granorganizations to support people to provide commuinclude tutoring children, responding to natural dexpanding neighborhood safety patrols, and buildithe homeless. Participants are eligible to receive a each year of full-time service completed to help paback student loans.Key PART findings include:1. The PART identified that while AmeriCorps macommunity needs for volunteer services, AmeriCordemonstrate results. Its current focus is on the amas opposed to the impact on the community or par2. The program has limited data to show progress current CNCS goals are neither specific nor measuCommunity Needs" is one of the program's long-teCNCS does not provide a numerical target or baseachieve this goal, it is difficult to determine what CNCS acknowledges the need to improve its perfoto adopt new goals and indicators in 2003.3. CNCS has made significant improvements in admanagement problems. In 2001, the agency receivsecond consecutive year, with no material weaknehas found weaknesses in recording education awa

positions in excess of budgeted levels. CNCS is implan to address these issues.4. AmeriCorps does not have a limited number of demonstrate progress toward achieving its long-teadopt quantifiable goals by which performance ouIn response to these findings, CNCS will:1. Continue to work on strengthening performance 2. Establish new financial management procedurehas timely and accurate information on AmeriCorbudgeted levels and properly records education aw3. Develop more outcome-oriented long-term and afor the 2005 Budget.

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

240

2003 Estimate

403

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service

Program: AmeriCorps

Program Type: Competitive GrantsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Corporation for National and Community Service

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

27

71

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

20 Results / Accountability

0 100

280
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Percentage of space not producing revenue in the government-owned inventoryAnnual Measure:Percentage of repair and alteration projects completed on schedule

Program Summary:GSA's real property asset management program mspace. (This does not include GSA's new constructThe assessment found the program purpose, housithat meets their needs, to be relatively clear. Howvision for managing Federally-owned real property measure long-term success. Additional findings in1. GSA has solid annual performance measures, mbenchmarks.2. To a large extent, GSA met its annual performamanagement of Federally-owned property in 2001 targets do not appear to be stretch goals, such as cprojects on time. 3. GSA has displayed solid management of its Fedprogram by holding senior managers and associatFor example, GSA’s "Linking Budget to Performanfor meeting or exceeding performance targets, sucalteration projects on time and within budget. 4. GSA's financial performance is strong in the aresignificant concern exist with its Rent billing and In response to these findings, the agency will:1. Develop adequate long-term measures.2. Develop annual stretch goals that are linked to 3. Continue efforts to assess the condition (financiinventory and to restructure its real estate portfolproducing properties. 

Year Target Actual

1998200220032004

Baseline

12.2%11.5%10.4%

16%

11.8%

1997200220032004

Baseline

82%83%84%

91%87%

2002 Actual

2,001

2003 Estimate

2,278

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: General Services Administration

Program: Asset Management of Federally-Owned 

Real Property Program Type: Capital Assets

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Federal Property Resources Activities

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

73

67

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

50 Results / Accountability

0 100

281
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure.Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Percent of schedule contracts awarded to small and minority-owned businessesAnnual Measure:Operating cost per $100 of sales

Program Summary:GSA's Multiple Awards Schedules program managthat provide federal agencies with a simple ways tdiscount prices.The assessment found that the agencies achieve tiestablished procurement contracts verses renegotisame goods and services. Additional findings inclu1. The program's long-term goals are not measuraassessment.2. GSA has several solid annual performance meameasure, which GSA typically meets or exceeds. Hvery low (at or below the baseline level) for severaannual goals were not linked to the achievement o3. GSA monitors business performance on an on-gactions when necessary, including reassigning stacommitment, and realigning resources. 4. The program’s one-percent administrative fee deven. GSA has realized significant surpluses over 5. There are redundancies in the areas of IT, salesofferings. GSA is working to address this problemIn response to these findings, the agency will:1. Adjust administrative fee to .75 percent and devthe effect of this adjustment on program.2. Develop adequate long-term, measurable goals. 3. Develop annual goals that are ambitious, meanachievement of long-term outcome goals.4. Improve training to help agencies achieve best vprocurements.

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

77%77%77%77%

78.1%78.4%

2001200220032004

$0.73$0.75$0.72$0.69

$0.65$0.66

2002 Actual

142

2003 Estimate

164

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: General Services Administration

Program: Multiple Award Schedules

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Supply and Technology Activities

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

86

33

70

PlanningManagementPurpose

50 Results / Accountability

0 100

282
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Percent of goods and services procured from small and minority-owned businessesAnnual Measure:Operating cost per $100 sales

Program Summary:GSA's Stock and Special Order program provides 

efficient method to acquire goods from the blind, sprisons, and small businesses. The assessment found that the program makes thagencies’ meet: demands for mission-critical and drequirements to purchase from disabled groups, febusinesses. Additional findings include:1. The program's long-term goals are not measurato allow for future assessment.2. GSA has several good annual performance meameasure. However, the threshold for success was measures and the annual goals were not linked to goals.3. GSA holds senior managers and associates acco4. There are redundancies in the number/type of pinefficiencies in the delivery mechanisms employecould be shipped directly to the agency instead of 5. It is difficult to access the impact of funding, poprogram performance.In response to these findings, the agency will:1. Develop adequate long-term measures.2. Develop aggressive annual goals that support thoutcome goals.3. Evaluate the program to identify opportunities effectiveness by ensuring that redundancy with coand delivery models are standardized and/or conso

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

26.6%26.6%

33.29%33.29%

26.63%

29.9%

2001200220032004

$18.53$18.53$24.13$24.03

$20.67$16.54

2002 Actual

1,125

2003 Estimate

1,143

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: General Services Administration

Program: Supply Depots and Special Order

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Supply and Technology Activities

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

82

75

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

33 Results / Accountability

0 100

283
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Average savings over vehicle manufacturers' invoice prices for seven top-selling vehicle typesAnnual Measure:Program operating costs per $100 of business volume

Program Summary:GSA's Vehicle Acquisition program buys cars and for federal agencies.The assessment found that the program to has a cfindings include:1. This program has annual targets but no correspare measurable. Its annual efficiency and other finbased more on financial trends than setting aggreoperating cost to business volume target on financto reduce this ratio over time. Also, there is no indprogram is projected based on the achievement of 2. The program is well-managed. The program's mannually to review ways to improve program procemanagers at all levels are held accountable for concompleting all program initiatives within target d3. Although GSA has always exceeded its annual tor below 20% of manufacturers' list prices, it has noperating cost and customer satisfaction goals.In response to these findings, GSA will:1. Develop long-term, measurable goals for this primprovement (i.e., stretch goals) and are consisten2. Develop annual goals that support the achievemare supported by the budget request.3. Modify its internal budget guidance to require a relationship between its budget projections and thcorresponding annual performance goals.

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

20%20%20%20%

22%27%

2001200220032004

$0.52$0.52$0.55$0.58

$0.53$0.52

2002 Actual

1,215

2003 Estimate

1,284

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: General Services Administration

Program: Vehicle Acquisition

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Supply and Technology Activities

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

73

50

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

42 Results / Accountability

0 100

284
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Annual increase in GSA leasing rates compared to the increase in commercial leasing rates caused by inflationAnnual Measure:Average vehicle operating cost per mile

Program Summary:GSA's Vehicle Leasing program leases cars and trThe assessment found the program well-managed somewhat lacking in long-range vision. Additional 1. The program has annual targets that address ehas no corresponding long-range goals that are meuse the main internal efficiency goal used by its paoperating costs per $100 of business volume. Its anaverage vehicle operating cost per mile, appear to trends than on setting aggressive goals, such as remile by some percentage. Finally, there is no indicfor this program was developed to achieve specific 2. The program has sound internal management paccountable for results.3. The program has traditionally taken a "one size vehicles to Federal agencies, i.e., give the agencies fuel costs built into the standard mileage rates. Heffort to expand its offerings to meet a wider range needs. For example, offering dry leases, which are 

maintenance included, to agencies with their own contracts.In response to these findings, GSA will:1. Develop long-term, measurable goals for this primprovement (i.e., stretch goals) and are consisten2. Develop annual goals that support the achievemwhere possible, match similar annual FSS goals.3. Modify its internal budget guidance to link morto the achievement of annual performance goals.4. Accelerate the development and deployment of faddress additional agency fleet management need

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

3.45%5.25%4.63%2.09%

1.5%1.7%

2001200220032004

$0.36$0.36$0.37$0.37

$0.35$0.37

2002 Actual

1,045

2003 Estimate

1,030

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: General Services Administration

Program: Vehicle Leasing

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Supply and Technology Activities

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

64

44

65

PlanningManagementPurpose

50 Results / Accountability

0 100

285
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure: Measures under development

Program Summary:The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTestablish and operate multijurisdictional drug tascriteria, including that the "drug-related activities harmful impact in other areas of the country." Thoperational and strategic control of these task forcState, and local agencies and the Executive CouncThe assessment found that: 1. The HIDTA program has not established satisfgoals or annual goals. Variants of three goals have National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Howeverprocess goals (e.g., "establishing sound fiscal/progrsecond ("disruption of drug trafficking organizatioONDCP as not useful, and data reflecting progres("reduction in drug-related crime") has not been syanalyzed. 2. The program has not been subjected to an indepevaluation of its performance. 3. The HIDTA program appears to have lost its focestablished in 1990 and still meet the statutory cradditional HIDTAs have been designated, and HIDthe 50 States. The magnitude of this expansion shintent of the statute, to focus on the Nation's very 4. The expansion of the program has taken place dsystematic assessment of its effectiveness; [b] a crmeasures; or [c] a strategy to ensure the most efficIn response to these findings, recommended action1. implementation of a performance measurement program outcome goals; 2. development of a process to ensure funding for iperformance of that HIDTA; and 3. seeking no funding increases for the program unare implemented and the resulting data can be ev

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

206

2003 Estimate

206

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Office of National Drug Control Policy

Program: High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 

(HIDTA) Program Type: Competitive Grants

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of National Drug Control Policy, activities

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

44

29

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

0 Results / Accountability

0 100

286
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure: Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Measures under development

Program Summary:The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign uand broadcast) to reduce drug abuse among the yoThe assessment found:1. The overall purpose of the Campaign is clear ana significant and unique fashion. 2. Although the most recent semi-annual report on found that most youth and parents surveyed recalads every week and the ads appear to be having a is no evidence of direct effect on youth behavior. 3. Until recently, the Campaign has suffered from performance planning and management. Program established measurable, long term goals nor clear broadly-stated outcomes. Annual goals were typicawere frequently changed without being used to asFor example, one measure was to ensure that suffto reach 90 percent of the target audience with fouOffice of National Drug Control Policy is devoting correcting these problems. Recommended actions include: 1. Continued emphasis on developing acceptable pgoals; 2. Allowing sufficient time for the effects of recent before pursuing major changes to the program; 3. Seeking no funding increases for the program; 4. Making 2005 funding contingent upon improve

Year Target Actual

2002 Actual

180

2003 Estimate

180

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Office of National Drug Control Policy

Program: Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

36

33

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

0 Results / Accountability

0 100

287
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Timeliness of Life Insurance claims payments (in days)Annual Measure:Accuracy of Life Insurance claims payments (as apercentage of claims paid)

Program Summary:The Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance proinsurance policies to federal employees.The assessment found that the program has no amidentify and evaluate the role that this employmengovernment to recruit, retain and manage its workfound that:1. The program is well managed and administered cited by internal or independent audits.2. Annual performance measures, though not very program operations.3. FEGLI does not routinely collect information to program design.To assure that the government’s overall compensacontemporary, the agency will:1. Develop measures and conduct program evaluacompensation and benefit offerings enable the govattract, retain and manage a high-performing wor2. Establish ambitious long-term goals that meanithe program.3. Revise unambitious annual performance goals improvement. 

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

10101010

5.76.0

2001200220032004

99.5%99.5%99.5%99.5%

99.6%99.7%

2002 Actual

1,961

2003 Estimate

2,170

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Office of Personnel Management

Program: Federal Employees Group Life Insurance 

(FEGLI) Program Type: Direct Federal

Rating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Personnel Management, activities

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

20

50

PlanningManagementPurpose

37 Results / Accountability

0 100

288
Key Performance Measures

Long-term Measure:Measures under developmentAnnual Measure:Retirement claims payment accuracy (as a percentage of claims paid)Annual Measure:Unit cost for processing retirement claims*New unified efficiency measure. Prior to 2002, performance metrics for the current program and modernization effort did not use the same inputs.**Actual performance for current program only.

Program Summary:The purpose of the federal civilian retirement progfederal workers and their families after they retireThe assessment found the program currently has identifying and evaluating the role the pension beretaining a desirable workforce. Additional finding1. The purpose of the program is clear. Retiremenan employee compensation package; employment-well over one-half of all wage and salary workers.2. The defined-benefit component of the program iadministered, and annual performance measures, improve delivery of program products and services3. Because the program does not routinely collect effectiveness of program design, it cannot demonsfederal workforce.To address these findings, the agency will:1. Develop measures and conduct program evaluacompensation and benefits offerings enable the goattract and keep a high-quality workforce.2. Establish ambitious long-term measures that re3. Develop more aggressive annual performance gcontinual improvement.

Year Target Actual

2001200220032004

93%93%94%96%

93.6%

92%

2001200220032004

$85.00

$100.00*

$98.00$89.00

$83.71

$89.53**

2002 Actual

48,970

2003 Estimate

50,991

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Office of Personnel Management

Program: Federal Employees Retirement Program

Program Type: Direct FederalRating: Results Not Demonstra

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau: Office of Personnel Management, activities

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

100

35

100

PlanningManagementPurpose

52 Results / Accountability

0 100

289
Key Performance Measures

Long-term and Annual Measures:The Administration is establishing a debt reduction goal with annual targets for achieving these goals.Annual Measure:Cost of TVA's delivered powerMetric is presented in cents/KWH. Metric also will be developed to account for financial advantages the federal government provides TVA (such as access to capital at AAA bond rates and no payments to the federal government in lieu of taxes).Other measures are under development. The PART assessment gives TVA solid ratings for its operations but the agency needs to develop improved performance measures and complete its strategic plan together with useful goals for the plan.

Program Summary:The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is the fifth country, generating power at 48 coal-fired, hydropplants the federal agency operates to meet the elecpeople (3 percent of the U.S. market).The assessment gave TVA's power program mixed following findings:1. TVA does an excellent job generating power at idecade ago TVA's nuclear power plants posed seriproblems. TVA has overcome these problems and plants set industry standards. 2. TVA lacks a strategic plan. This makes it hard billions of dollars on additional power plants and t3. TVA lacks a debt reduction plan, and has a high of its potential competitors in the electricity industraditional notes and bonds and equivalent long-telease/leaseback arrangements.The high level of deand compromises its competitive position in a restIn response to these findings the Administration p1. TVA develop a strategic plan which should help proposed investments in new power plants and tra2. TVA develop and adopt a debt reduction plan an2003, to bring the agency's debt level into a range utilities. The Budget proposes legislation that maarrangements are treated as equivalent to traditiobonds under TVA's $30 billion "debt cap."(For more information on this program, please see the Budget volume.)

Year Target Actual

2000200120022003

3.904.004.254.00

4.004.054.11

2002 Actual

6,756

2003 Estimate

7,069

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Tennessee Valley Authority

Program: TVA Power

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Moderately Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

91

78

60

PlanningManagementPurpose

67 Results / Accountability

0 100

290
Key Performance Measures

Annual and Long-term Measure: Number of watershed units (out of a total of 611) in the Tennessee River system that are in good or fair condition, according to state water standards(Targets are under further development.)Annual and Long-term Measure:The ratio of TVA's actual water storage compared to storage potentially available80% is seen as the appropriate target in years of normal rainfall. TVA will do further work to develop this metric since it is dependent in part on rainfall in the region.Other measures are under development. The PART assessment gives TVA solid ratings for the agency's operation of its resource stewardship (non-power) program but TVA needs to further develop the annual and long-term measures for this program.

Program Summary:TVA's natural resource stewardship program coveprograms, including flood control, navigation, watprotection and recreation activities.The assessment indicates TVA does an effective joMore specifically:1. TVA's system of dams and reserviors reduces thdamage in the Tennessee Valley by an estimated $2. TVA's commercial navigation system of nine mathe Tennessee River from Knoxville to the Ohio Ria drop in altitude of 513 feet. This water transportan estimated $400 million per year.3. TVA has direct responsibility for managing 293miles of shoreline, and 650,000 acres of lakes, riveprovide recreation activities for millions of visitors 4. TVA provides these and other related services aTVA expects to spend $83 million to support this p5. TVA's non-power "river management" program benefits for every doillar TVA spends to implemenper year in transportation benefits plus $150 millibenefits plus non-quantified recreation and tourismillion in annual TVA expenditures for these progIn response to these findings, the Administration:1. Is encouraging TVA's Board, management and program better and to continue to be responsive to 

Year

2000200120022003

Target Actual

491492526

2000200120022003

80%80%80%80%

92.6%88.7%

2002 Actual

43

2003 Estimate

43

Program Funding Level (in mi

Agency: Tennessee Valley Authority

Program: TVA Resource Stewardship (Non-Power)

Program Type: Capital AssetsRating: Effective

Measures AdequateNew Measures Needed

Bureau:

Results AchievedResults Not Demonstrated

91

89

80

PlanningManagementPurpose

83 Results / Accountability

0 100

291

Rating Page

Army Corps of Engineers

Corps Hydropower.................................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 242

Emergency Management......................................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 243

Flood Damage Reduction......................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 244

Inland Waterways Navigation................................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 245

Non-regulatory Wetlands Activities........................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 246

Broadcasting Board of Governors

Broadcasting to Near East Asia and South Asia.................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 211

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Consumer Product Safety Commission................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 279

Corporation for National and Community Service

AmeriCorps............................................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 280

Department of Agriculture

Animal Welfare.........................................................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 18

Crop Insurance......................................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 19

Direct Crop Payments.............................................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 20

Farmland Protection Program................................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 21

Food Aid Programs................................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 22

Food Safety and Inspection Service.........................................................................................Adequate..................................... 23

Multifamily Housing Direct Loans and Rental Assistance.................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 24

National Forest Improvement and Maintenance................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 25

National School Lunch............................................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 26

Rural Electric Utility Loans and Guarantees......................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 27

Rural Water and Wastewater Grants and Loans................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 28

USDA Wildland Fire Management......................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 29

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program...................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 30

Department of Commerce

Advanced Technology Program................................................................................................Adequate..................................... 32

Bureau of Economic Analysis.................................................................................................. Effective...................................... 33

Economic Development Administration..................................................................................Moderately Effective.................. 34

Manufacturing Extension Partnership................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 35

Minority Business Development Agency.................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 36

National Marine Fisheries Service.......................................................................................... Adequate..................................... 37

National Weather Service........................................................................................................ Effective...................................... 38

Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 39

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Patents.......................................................................... Adequate..................................... 40

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Trademarks.................................................................. Moderately Effective.................. 41

Department of Defense--Military

Air Combat Program................................................................................................................ Moderately Effective.................. 45

Airlift Program......................................................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 46

Basic Research.......................................................................................................................... Effective...................................... 47

Chemical Demilitarization....................................................................................................... Ineffective................................... 48

Communications Infrastructure.............................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 49

Defense Health......................................................................................................................... Adequate..................................... 50

Energy Conservation Improvement........................................................................................ Effective...................................... 51

Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, Modernization, and Demolition.................................. Adequate..................................... 52

Housing..................................................................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 53

Missile Defense......................................................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 54

Recruiting................................................................................................................................. Moderately Effective.................. 55

Shipbuilding..............................................................................................................................Adequate..................................... 56

INDEX

293
Rating Page

Department of Education

Adult Education State Grants................................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 58

Comprehensive School Reform................................................................................................ Adequate..................................... 59

Even Start................................................................................................................................. Ineffective................................... 60

Federal Pell Grants.................................................................................................................. Moderately Effective.................. 61

IDEA Grants for Infants and Families....................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 62

IDEA Grants to States............................................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 63

IDEA Preschool Grants............................................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 64

National Assessment................................................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 65

National Center for Education Statistics................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 66

Occupational and Employment Information...........................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 67

Safe and Drug Free Schools State Grants.............................................................................. Ineffective................................... 68

Student Aid Administration.................................................................................................... Adequate..................................... 69

Tech-Prep Education State Grants..........................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 70

Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational and Technical Institutions...........................Results Not Demonstrated........ 71

TRIO Student Support Services.............................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 72

TRIO Upward Bound............................................................................................................... Ineffective................................... 73

Vocational Education State Grants......................................................................................... Ineffective................................... 74

Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants.................................................................................. Adequate..................................... 75

Department of Energy

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative................................................................................................Moderately Effective.................. 78

Advanced Scientific Computing Research...............................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 79

Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASCI)........................................................................ Effective...................................... 80

Basic Energy Sciences.............................................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 81

Biological and Environmental Research................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 82

Bonneville Power Administration........................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 83

Building Technologies.............................................................................................................. Adequate..................................... 84

Clean Coal Research Initiative................................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 85

Environmental Management (Cleanup)..................................................................................Ineffective................................... 86

Environmental Management (R&D)....................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 87

Facilities and Infrastructure................................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 88

Fuel Cells (Stationary)............................................................................................................. Adequate..................................... 89

Fusion Energy Sciences............................................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 90

Gas Exploration and Production............................................................................................. Ineffective................................... 91

Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative................................................................ Moderately Effective.................. 92

Geothermal Technology............................................................................................................Adequate..................................... 93

High Energy Physics................................................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 94

Hydrogen Technology............................................................................................................... Adequate..................................... 95

International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation............................................... Effective...................................... 96

Methane Hydrates.................................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 97

Nuclear Energy Research Initiative........................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 98

Nuclear Physics........................................................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 99

Nuclear Power 2010................................................................................................................. Moderately Effective.................. 100

Oil Exploration and Production............................................................................................... Ineffective................................... 101

Safeguards and Security.......................................................................................................... Adequate..................................... 102

Solar Energy............................................................................................................................. Moderately Effective.................. 103

Southeastern Power Administration....................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 104

Southwestern Power Administration...................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 105

Weatherization Assistance.......................................................................................................Moderately Effective.................. 106

Western Area Power Administration...................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 107

Wind Energy............................................................................................................................. Moderately Effective.................. 108

294
Rating Page

Department of Health and Human Services

317 Immunization Program..................................................................................................... Adequate..................................... 111

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research....................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 112

Center for Devices and Radiologic Health.............................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 113

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research..............................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 114

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition........................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 115

Center for Veterinary Medicine............................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 116

Childrens Mental Health Services.......................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 117

Chronic Disease - Breast and Cervical Cancer....................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 118

Chronic Disease - Diabetes...................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 119

Data Collection and Dissemination......................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 120

Domestic HIV/AIDS Prevention.............................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 121

Foster Care............................................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 122

Head Start.................................................................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 123

Health Alert Network...............................................................................................................Adequate..................................... 124

Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control (HCFAC)...................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 125

Health Centers......................................................................................................................... Effective...................................... 126

Health Professions....................................................................................................................Ineffective................................... 127

IHS Federally-Administered Activities................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 128

IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 129

Maternal and Child Health Block Grant (MCHBG)...............................................................Moderately Effective.................. 130

Medicare Integrity Program (HCFAC)....................................................................................Effective...................................... 131

National Health Service Corps................................................................................................ Moderately Effective.................. 132

Nursing Education Loan Repayment and Scholarship Program...........................................Adequate..................................... 133

Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness..................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 134

Refugee and Entrant Assistance............................................................................................. Adequate..................................... 135

Ryan White............................................................................................................................... Adequate..................................... 136

State and Community-Based Services Programs on Aging................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 137

State Childrens Health Insurance Program........................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 138

Substance Abuse Treatment Programs of Regional and National Significance................... Adequate..................................... 139

Translating Research into Practice......................................................................................... Adequate..................................... 140

Department of Homeland Security

Aids to Navigation.................................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 142

Disaster Relief Fund - Public Assistance................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 143

Drug Interdiction......................................................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 144

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center............................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 145

Hazard Mitigation Grant......................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 146

Immigration Services............................................................................................................... Adequate..................................... 147

Metropolitan Medical Response System................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 148

National Flood Insurance.........................................................................................................Moderately Effective.................. 149

Search and Rescue....................................................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 150

Department of Housing and Urban Development

HOME Investment Partnerships Program............................................................................. Moderately Effective.................. 153

Housing for the Elderly............................................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 154

Housing for Persons with Disabilities..................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 155

Housing Vouchers.....................................................................................................................Moderately Effective.................. 156

Native American Housing Block Grants................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 157

Project-Based Rental Assistance............................................................................................. Ineffective................................... 158

Department of the Interior

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation....................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 160

DOI Wildland Fire Management............................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 161

Habitat Restoration Activities................................................................................................. Moderately Effective.................. 162

Indian School Construction......................................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 163

295
Rating Page

Department of the Interior -- Continued

Indian School Operations.........................................................................................................Adequate..................................... 164

National Fish Hatchery System.............................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 165

National Mapping.....................................................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 166

National Park Service Facility Management..........................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 167

National Park Service Natural Resource Challenge.............................................................. Moderately Effective.................. 168

Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Studies................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 169

Partners for Fish and Wildlife................................................................................................. Adequate..................................... 170

Reclamation Hydropower.........................................................................................................Moderately Effective.................. 171

Rural Water Supply Projects................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 172

Title XVI Water Reuse and Recycling..................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 173

Tribal Land Consolidation....................................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 174

Department of Justice

Bureau of Prisons..................................................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 177

Community Oriented Policing Services...................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 178

Cybercrime................................................................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 179

Drug Courts.............................................................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 180

Drug Enforcement Administration..........................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 181

Juvenile Accountability Block Grants..................................................................................... Ineffective................................... 182

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 183

Weed and Seed..........................................................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 184

White Collar Crime.................................................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 185

Department of Labor

Bureau of Labor Statistics....................................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 189

Community Service Employment for Older Americans......................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 190

Dislocated Worker Assistance................................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 191

Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA)...................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 192

Occupational Safety and Health Administration................................................................... Adequate..................................... 193

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 194

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA).........................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 195

Trade Adjustment Assistance.................................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 196

Youth Activities........................................................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 197

Department of State

Anti-Terrorism Assistance....................................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 202

Capital Security Construction Program..................................................................................Moderately Effective.................. 203

Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs in Near East Asia and

 South Asia............................................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 204

Military Assistance to new NATO and NATO Aspirant Nations.......................................... Moderately Effective.................. 205

PKO - including East Timor and OSCE.................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 206

Refugee Admissions to the U.S................................................................................................ Adequate..................................... 207

Refugees to Israel..................................................................................................................... Adequate..................................... 208

Security Assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa............................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 209

Visa and Consular Services..................................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 210

Department of Transportation

FAA Grants-in-Aid for Airports (Airport Improvement Program)........................................ Moderately Effective.................. 220

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Grant Program............................................. Adequate..................................... 221

FHWA Highway Infrastructure...............................................................................................Moderately Effective.................. 222

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Grant Program........................................Moderately Effective.................. 223

Department of the Treasury

ATF Consumer Product Safety Activities............................................................................... Adequate..................................... 226

Bank Enterprise Award........................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 227

Coin Production........................................................................................................................ Effective...................................... 228

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Compliance...................................................................... Ineffective................................... 229

296
Rating Page

Department of the Treasury -- Continued

International Development Association.................................................................................. Adequate..................................... 213

IRS Tax Collection.................................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 230

OCC Bank Supervision............................................................................................................ Effective...................................... 231

Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 232

OTS Thrift Supervision............................................................................................................ Effective...................................... 233

Treasury Technical Assistance................................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 216

Department of Veterans Affairs

Burial Benefits..........................................................................................................................Moderately Effective.................. 237

Disability Compensation.......................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 238

Medical Care............................................................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 239

Environmental Protection Agency

Air Toxics.................................................................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 248

Civil Enforcement.....................................................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 249

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 250

Existing Chemicals...................................................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 251

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks..................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 252

New Chemicals......................................................................................................................... Adequate..................................... 253

Nonpoint Source Grants...........................................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 254

Pesticide Registration.............................................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 255

Pesticide Reregistration........................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 256

Superfund Removal.................................................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 257

Tribal General Assistance........................................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 258

Export Import Bank of the United States

Export Import Bank - Long Term Guarantees....................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 212

General Services Administration

Asset Management of Federally-Owned Real Property......................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 281

Multiple Award Schedules....................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 282

Supply Depots and Special Order............................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 283

Vehicle Acquisition................................................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 284

Vehicle Leasing.........................................................................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 285

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Mars Exploration......................................................................................................................Effective...................................... 260

Space Shuttle............................................................................................................................ Moderately Effective.................. 261

Space Station............................................................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 262

National Science Foundation

Geosciences Directorate........................................................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 264

NSF Research Tools................................................................................................................. Effective...................................... 265

Office of National Drug Control Policy

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA)..................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 286

Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign......................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 287

Office of Personnel Management

Federal Employees Group Life Insurance (FEGLI)................................................................Results Not Demonstrated........ 288

Federal Employees Retirement Program................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 289

Overseas Private Investment Corporation

Overseas Private Investment Corporation - Finance............................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 214

Small Business Administration

Business Information Centers................................................................................................. Results Not Demonstrated........ 268

Section 504 Certified Development Company Guaranteed Loan Program...........................Results Not Demonstrated........ 269

Service Corps of Retired Executives........................................................................................ Results Not Demonstrated........ 270

Small Business Development Centers.................................................................................... Results Not Demonstrated........ 271

297
Rating Page

Social Security Administration

Disability Insurance................................................................................................................. Moderately Effective.................. 274

Supplemental Security Income for the Aged.......................................................................... Moderately Effective.................. 275

Tennessee Valley Authority

TVA Power................................................................................................................................ Moderately Effective.................. 290

TVA Resource Stewardship (Non-Power)................................................................................Effective...................................... 291

United States Agency for International Development

Public Law 480 Title II Food Aid.............................................................................................Adequate..................................... 215

USAID Climate Change........................................................................................................... Adequate..................................... 217

USAID Development Assistance - Population........................................................................ Moderately Effective.................. 218

298
Need Additional Copies ???

Copies of the Budget and related Office of Management and Budget documents may be purchased

at any of the GPO bookstores listed below. (Paper copies only.)

GPO BOOKSTORES

CALIFORNIA

ARCO Plaza, C-Level

505 South Flower Street

Los Angeles, California 90071

(213) 239-9844

FAX (213) 239-9848

COLORADO

Suite 130

1660 Wynkoop Street

Denver, Colorado 80202

(303) 844-3964

FAX (303) 844-4000

Norwest Banks Building

201 West 8th Street

Pueblo, Colorado 81003

(719) 544-3142

FAX (719) 544-6719

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

U.S. Government Printing Office

710 North Capitol Street, NW

Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-0132

FAX (202) 512-1355

FLORIDA

100 W. Bay Street

Suite 100

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

(904) 353-0569

FAX (904) 353-1280

GEORGIA

First Union Plaza

999 Peachtree Street, NE

Suite 120

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

(404) 347-1900

FAX (404) 347-1897

MARYLAND

Retail Sales Outlet

8660 Cherry Lane

Laurel, Maryland 20707

(301) 953-7974

FAX (301) 498-8995

MICHIGAN

Suite 160, Federal Building

477 Michigan Avenue

Detroit, Michigan 48226

(313) 226-7816

FAX (313) 226-4698

MISSOURI

120 Bannister Mall

5600 E. Bannister Road

Kansas City, Missouri 64137

(816) 767-8225

FAX (816) 767-8233

NEW YORK

Federal Building, Room 2-120

26 Federal Plaza

New York, New York 10278

(212) 264-3825/2922

FAX (212) 264-9318

OREGON

1305 SW. First Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97201

(503) 221-6217

FAX (503) 225-0563

Room 118, Federal Building

1000 Liberty Avenue

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

(412) 395-5021

FAX (412) 395-4547

TEXAS

Texas Crude Building

801 Travis Street

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 228-1187

FAX (713) 228-1186

WASHINGTON

Room 194, Federal Building

915 Second Avenue

Seattle, Washington 98174

(206) 553-4270

FAX (206) 553-6717

WISCONSIN

The Reuss Federal Plaza,

STE 150W

310 West Wisconsin Avenue

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203

(414) 297-1304

FAX (414) 297-1300

There is a 25% discount on all orders for 100 or more copies of a single title mailed to a

single address. No discount is allowed if such orders are mailed to multiple addresses.

Superintendent of Documents Publications Order Form

Order Processing Code: *8163

All prices include regular domestic postage and handling and are good through August 2003. After this date, please call the

Order and Information Desk toll free at (866) 512–1800 or phone (202) 512–1800 to verify prices. To fax your orders and

inquiries—(202) 512–2250.

Qty. Stock Number Title Price

Each

Total

Price

041-001-00585-4 Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2004 $65.00

041-001-00586-2 Appendix, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2004 $67.00

041-001-00587-1 Analytical Perspectives, Fiscal Year 2004 $59.00

041-001-00588-9 Historical Tables, Fiscal Year 2004 $41.00

041-001-00590-1 Performance and Management Assessments, Fiscal Year 2004 $44.00

041-001-00589-7 The Budget on CD-ROM, Fiscal Year 2004 $20.00

(International customers—please add an additional 25%.) Total for Publications

Please Print or Type

(Company or personal name)

(Additional address/attention line)

(Street address)

(City, State, ZIP Code)

(Daytime phone—including area code)

Mail To: Superintendent of Documents

Mail To: Government Printing Office,

Mail To: Washington, DC 20402–9325

Please choose method of payment:

Check payable to the Superintendent of Documents

GPO Deposit Account

VISA, MasterCard, or American Express Account

(Credit card expiration date)

(Signature)

–

Thank you for your order!