KOSEN 한인과학기술자네트워크

The Govenrment Performance and Results Act (GPRA), enacted by Congress in 1993, requires that all federal agencies evaluate and report on the results of that all federal agencies evaluate and report on the results of their activities annually. 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 and engineering research are reponding to GPRA. The panel decided to focus its work on the five agencies that provide the majority of federal funding for research : National Science Foundation (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 performance plans and reprots 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 apnel could only conduct a "snapshot" of each agency's approach. Futher, 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, the panel reached the following 10 conclusions: 1. All five agencies have made a good-faith effort to develop reporting procedures that comply with the requirements of GPRA. 2. Some agencies are using the GPRA process to improve their operations. 3. The most effective technique for evaluating research programs is review by panels of experts using the criteria of quality, relevance, and, when appropriate, leadership. 4. Oversight bodies and some agencies need clearer procedures to validate and verify agency evaluation. 5. Agencies choose to aggregate their research programs at different levels. 6. The development of human resources as an agency objective sometimes does not receive explicit emphasis or visibility in GPRA plans and reports. 7. Agencies often receive conflicting messages from oversight bodies about the desired format, content, and procedures to be used in GPRA compliance. 8. Due to timing requirements built into the legal guidelines of GPRA, agencies find that they must begin work on performance plans before the relevant performance reports are complete. 9. Communication between agencies and oversight groups is not sufficiently regular, extensive, or collaborative. 10. The degree to which the results of GPRA reporting of research programs are being used by oversight groups for programmatic decision-making is not clear.