ing, for example, how they select expert reviewers and choose to aggregate research programs for review.
The agencies examined have devoted considerable effort to developing reporting procedures that comply with the requirements of GPRA and are congruent with their internal planning procedures. However, some expressed a need for new processes. It was clear from the panel's discussions with agencies that compliance methods are still very much “works in progress” and that further work is needed if agencies are to both fulfill the intent of the law and provide benefits to the agencies.
Testimony during the focus groups indicated that the three criteria (especially quality and relevance), as described by COSEPUP, had proved useful in approaching the requirements of GPRA. In particular, the panel was able to verify the usefulness of the criteria to the agencies themselves. The panel concluded that the criteria of quality, relevance, and leadership are more effective than quantitative performance indicators for evaluating research programs.