National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Suggested Citation:"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2001. Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act for Research: A Status Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10106.
×
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2001. Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act for Research: A Status Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10106.
×
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2001. Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act for Research: A Status Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10106.
×
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2001. Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act for Research: A Status Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10106.
×
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2001. Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act for Research: A Status Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10106.
×
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2001. Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act for Research: A Status Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10106.
×
Page 6

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY he Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), enacted by T Congress in 1993, requires that all federal agencies evaluate and report on the results of their activities annually. Evaluating federal research programs in response to GPRA is challenging because we do not know how to measure knowledge while it is being generated, and its practical use might not occur until many years after the research occurs and cannot be predicted. For example, today’s global positioning system is the result of research conducted 50 years ago in atomic physics. In 1999, the National Academies Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) addressed this issue for research pro- grams in its report Evaluating Federal Research Programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results Act. That report indicated that federal research programs could be evaluated by a process it called expert review that makes use of three evaluation criteria: quality, relevance, and leadership. Expert review is more than traditional peer review by scholars in the field. It also includes the users of the research, whether they are in industry, nongovernment organiza- tions, or public health organizations or are other members of the public who can evaluate the relevance of the research to agency goals. This followup report, by the COSEPUP Panel on Research and the Government Performance and Results Act 2000, describes the panel’s analysis of how federal agencies that support science and engineering research are responding to GPRA. The panel decided to focus its work on the five agencies that provide the 1

IMPLEMENTING THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT FOR RESEARCH majority of federal funding for research: National Science Founda- tion (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As it began its examination of the strategic and perfor- mance plans and reports of these agencies, the panel found that, given the preliminary state of change of the agency’s approach to GPRA for its research programs and the different organization and methodology of each, the panel could only conduct a “snapshot” of each agency’s approach. Further, only general, not agency-specific, conclusions and recommendations were appropriate at this time. After a series of focus groups, a workshop, and numerous other communications with agency representatives and oversight bodies,1 the panel reached the following 10 conclusions: Some agencies stated that GPRA compliance has added substantially to the cost of their planning and evaluation activities in the form of staff time and resources. Others report that they have been able to integrate GPRA with their traditional budget and planning processes al- though at some cost of time and effort. These agencies report benefits in strengthening program management and enhancing communication about their programs to the users of research and the general public. The need to do so depends on the goal of that agency and the degree to which there is concern about a given field of research or about new and emerging programs. A few agencies 1Primarily Congress’s General Accounting Office and the White House Office of Management and Budget. 2

Executive Summary found that GPRA requirements added to their reporting workload and are still struggling to adapt to these requirements. Agency approaches to GPRA research programs demonstrate the utility of expert review using the same criteria of quality and relevance as outlined in COSEPUP’s original report. The international leadership criterion is generally not evaluated by most federal agencies at this time, although several are interested in such a measure. However, given the diversity in mission, complexity, culture, and structure of federal agencies that support research, it is not surprising that their approaches to GPRA have varied. One size definitely does not fit all. In particular, oversight bodies expressed a desire for better understanding of the methodology and results of expert review evaluations. Some agencies provide evaluations on a field-specific or program-specific basis; others do so for the research program in its entirety. Aggregating at a high level can make it difficult for oversight bodies to clearly see and understand the method and programs that are the focus of the analyses. 3

IMPLEMENTING THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT FOR RESEARCH When this objective is explicit, it affirms the value of educating young scientists and engineers by involving them in the research programs of their advisers. In addition, such an explicit linkage between research and education makes it easy to show how reduc- tions in research funding can jeopardize the preparation of the scientists and engineers the nation will need in the future. For example, one agency made an effort to tie its GPRA reports more closely to its annual budget, as required in the act, only to be told by a congressional committee to return to a previ- ously used format; another was told the reverse. As a result, the potential benefit of GPRA in providing a mechanism for incorporating performance results of previous years into perfor- mance plans for later years is limited. A longer performance schedule—say, 3 years—would probably provide sufficient timing for most cases. During focus groups, the workshop, and interviews, it was consistently clear that improved communication between these two sectors could reduce the difficulties and misun- derstandings experienced by some agencies. 4

Executive Summary In particular, agencies have not yet seen the use of their reports in the congressional decision-making that determines the size and priorities of their budgets. On the basis of these observations, the panel offers specific recom- mendations in Chapters 2 and 3. They can be summarized in the form of the following four general recommendations: 5

IMPLEMENTING THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT FOR RESEARCH Much has been learned about the procedures of planning, evalua- tion, and management in the last several years, and some value will have been gained by the agencies from their own discussion of accountability. However, one key remaining question is the degree to which oversight groups are using the results of the “results act” for programmatic decision-making. Unless the agency responses to GPRA are useful to Congress in the urgent task of setting priorities and budgeting, the value of the act might not warrant the time and effort it requires of the federal government. But by working more closely than they have in the past, the federal agencies and the oversight bodies can implement the letter and spirit of GPRA in ways that lead to greater efficiency, lower cost, and more-effective research programs that are demonstrably conducted in the national interest. 6

Next: 1 THE CHALLENGE OF EVALUATING RESEARCH »
Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act for Research: A Status Report Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $60.00 Buy Ebook | $47.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

As requested by Congress and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), this report assists federal agencies in crafting plans and reports that are responsive to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), OMB Guidance, and agency missions. Using a case study approach, the report identifies best practices used by individual agencies to evaluate the performance and results of their science and technology programs. The report takes into account individual agencies' missions and how science and technology programs and human resource needs are factored into agency GPRA plans. Specific applications of recommendations are included from COSEPUP's earlier report entitled Evaluating Federal Research Programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results Act.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!