FY 2003 Performance Reporting Improvements

FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report
Bureau of Resource Management
December 2003

Seven Areas of Improvement

The FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) incorporates six major improvements that enhance the Report's usefulness for the Department's leadership as well as for external stakeholders.

1) Results Presented in Concise Strategic Goal Chapters: The Department provides a robust analysis of its FY 2003 performance within strategic goal chapters which are presented in eight sub-sections:

Sub-sections Used for Strategic Goal Performance Analysis
Sub-Section Purpose
Public Benefit A concise narrative describing how pursuit of the goal benefits America and the world.
Selected Performance Trends Graphs that show key performance trends specific to each goal.
Strategic Context A table depicting the various components (programs, lead bureaus and external partners) that contributes to accomplishment of a given goal.
Performance Summary A graphic summary of results achieved for a goal showing both this year's and last year's results.
Resources Invested A summary of resources (dollars and people) devoted to pursuit of the goal for both the current reporting period (FY 2003) and the previous reporting period (FY 2002). The results chart and resource investment are shown on a single page so as to provide the reader with a concise snapshot of performance and resources as related to a given strategic goal.
Illustrative Example An example of a key FY 2003 achievement that is typical of the Department's work in support of the goal.
Performance Results Results history/trend, together with the current rating and a short impact statement pertaining to each of the FY 2003 results achieved.
Program Evaluations and
PART Reviews
Summaries of evaluations and reviews conducted on the programs cirtical to activities related to a given strategic goal.

2) Initiatives and Programs (I/Ps): The Department seeks to achieve outcomes described by performance and strategic goals. Work or activities which contribute to these goals are grouped within specific, coherent functional and/or policy areas or processes termed Initiatives/Programs. I/Ps provide greater clarity and better linkage in terms of how specific performance indicators and performance targets relate to given policies or functions.

3) Improved Performance Indicators and Targets: During FY 2003, the Department continued to evaluate and improve its performance indicators and targets. Over time, the Department has and will continue to replace weak indicators and targets with ones that measure more accurately progress on issues, provide a better measurement of success, and focus on where resources are spent. In many cases, targets and indicators have been modified or clarified, but more work needs to be done in this area. In future years, the Department will be able to present more of its performance results in quantifiable terms using outcome-oriented indicators.

This year to enable the reader to better assess and understand what is being measured, the Department has identified each of its indicators as being one of four types:

  • Input: Measures the amount of financial or human resources being devoted to a particular activity. Inputs can take the form of skills, technology and methods.
  • Output: Measures what is produced as a result of resources expended, (i.e., the input level). Outputs can take the form of products or services.
  • Outcome: Measures the result or outcome that the inputs and outputs produce.
  • Efficiency: Measures the efficiency of the result(s) achieved. Input divided by output, taking into account the level of input variables as compared to the output(s) produced.

4) Performance Rating System: Last year, the Department implemented a rating tool to assist program managers with evaluating performance results compared to targets. This analytical tool includes specific instructions and objective performance assessment parameters for program managers to use when assigning a rating for a given result. Based on these parameters, managers assign a performance rating that reflects the extent to which a given target was achieved. Since the tool is being used for the second year, the Department developed aggregate-level trend information by performance and strategic goal. This trend information is depicted in various sections of the report.

5) Redesigned Results Appendix: Results information is included in the Management Discussion and Analysis and in the strategic goal chapters in the Performance Section. However, the Report also includes a detailed and re-designed results appendix (see Additional Details on FY 2003 Performance Results Appendix) that provides, where applicable, for each reported 2003 result:

  • Initial and revised targets
  • Information about data reliability and data availability
  • A description of the nature and depth of collaboration with other agencies

6) Assessments of Program Performance: In any given fiscal year, outside organizations perform in-depth assessments of the Department's programs. These assessments benefit the Department because they provide managers with an objective assessment of performance and specific recommendations for improvement. Moreover, these data will help the Department determine whether program managers have incorporated the recommendations for improvement into their strategies for achieving performance targets. In turn, this increases program manager accountability for attaining desired performance levels.

This report contains summaries of these assessments as shown in the following appendices:

  • Completed Program Evaluations for FY 2003 Appendix: Completed Program Evaluations (PEs) during FY 2003 by the General Accounting Office, the Department's Inspector General or other entities.
  • OMB PART Summaries for FY 2004 Budget Year by Strategic Goal Appendix: Summaries of OMB's FY 2004 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) results.

7) Use of the Department's New Strategic Planning Framework and Goal Structure: The new framework, a product of many months of high-level collaboration between USAID and the Department, represents a more coherent, concise and logical reflection of how this Department and USAID organize their work towards given results/outcomes. The Department's performance reporting platform for FY 2003 and onwards, as reflected in the report, uses the new planning framework and goal structure. FY 2003 targets developed within the previous framework have been reorganized to conform to the new framework. As required, this report addresses all FY 2003 targets.