KOSEN 한인과학기술자네트워크

Conclusion 1 : All five agencies have made a goodfaith effort to develop reporting procedures that comply with the requirements of GPRA. Conclusion 2 : Some agencies are using the GPRA process to improve their operations. Conclusion 3 : The most effective technique for evaluating research programs is review by panels fo experts using the criteria of quality, relevance, and, when appropriate, leadership. Conclusion 4 : Oversight bodies and some agencies need clearer procedures to validate and verify agency evaluations. Conclusion 5 : Agencies choose to aggregate their research programs at different levels. Conclusion 6 : The development of human resources as an agency objective sometimes does not receive explicit emphasis or visibility in GPRA plans and reports. Conclusion 7 : Agencies often receive conflicting messages from oversight bodies about the desired format, content, and procedures to be used in GPRA compliance. Concluson 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. Conclusion 9 : Communication between agencies and oversight groups is not sufficiently regular, extensive, or collaborative. Conclusion 10 : The degree to which the results of GPRA reporting of research programs are being used by oversight groups for progrmmatic decision-making is not clear.