Transcript NSF Performance Assessment - NSF-AGEP

Performance Assessment
An NSF Perspective
MJ Suiter
Budget, Finance and Awards
NSF
1
2
Government-Wide Performance Assessments
•Designed to focus on
program performance
• Spreadsheet with
questions on purpose,
planning, management
and performance with
goals
• OMB provides a score
and effectiveness rating
Program
Assessment
Rating Tool
(PART)
Effective
Ineffective
Results Not
Demonstrated
3
NSF PART Results
Government-Wide Results (607
PARTs)
Effective
15%
Moderately
Effective
26%
NSF PART (FY05)
received highest
rating (“Effective”)
Results Not
Demonstrated
29%
Ineffective
4%
Adequate
26%
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pma/nsf.pdf 4
Example: PART Goals (Fundamental
Science & Engineering)
• Percent of award decisions made available to
applicants within six months of proposal receipt or
deadline date, while maintaining a credible and
efficient competitive merit review system, as
evaluated by external experts. (Target: maintain
above 70%)
• Percentage of Fundamental Science and
Engineering proposals received from institutions
not in the top 100. (Target: increase in FY06 from
31% to 32%)
5
Government-Wide Performance Assessments
Government
Performance
and Results
Act (GPRA)
• 5-year Strategic Plan (20032008)
• Annual Performance Plan (in
the budget)
• Annual Performance Report
(45 days after close of FY)
– Performance Highlights
6
Strategic Plan*: Goals and Indicators
MISSION: To promote the progress of science; to advance the national
health, prosperity and welfare; to secure the national defense.
VISION: Enabling the Nation’s future through discovery, learning, and
innovation.
IDEAS
TOOLS
Discoveries and
new knowledge
State-of-the-art
S&E architecture
Contributions
Collaborations
Connections
Underrepresented individuals
and institutions
Identifying new opportunities
Cross-disciplinary
Research on learning and
teaching
Expand access
Next generation
facilities
Cyber-infrastructure
Data collection &
analysis
Instrument technology
PEOPLE
Competitive S&E
workforce
Greater diversity
Global S&E workforce
Continuous learning
Public understanding of
science
ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE
A capable, responsive NSF
*Strategic Plan, NSF 04-201
Quality merit review
Utilize new technologies
Diverse/capable staff
Performance assessment
7
Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance
Assessment (AC/GPA) Reports to the Director
"Nuggets"
Quantitative
Data
Using Annual
Indicators —
Significant
Achievement?
•Transformative
•Quality
•Relevance
COV
Reports
Project
Reports
AC/GPA
Ideas
Tools
People
AC/GPA Report
Business &
Operations
Advisory
Committee
Organizational
Excellence
Made public
(NSF 05-210)
8
GPRA “Nuggets”
What is a nugget?
• An explanation of an NSF investment
shown by outputs and impacts of funded
projects, understandable by a general
audience.
• Shows status of achievement of the
investment (timeframe to fruition, etc.).
• Reflects grant project reporting (annual
and/or final project reports).
9
Developing “Nuggets”
• Put the “news” up front; e.g., impact
statements (quantitative or strong
qualitative outcomes). Lead-in sentence
should engage the reader.
• Provide quantitative or qualitative measures
of the achievement.
• Avoid science jargon and overuse of
acronyms.
• Avoid overly describing bureaucratic or
administrative history.
10
Recommendations from AC/GPA
(June 2005*)
• Broadening Participation
• Multidisciplinary Research
• Merit Review
• COV Process
• Broader Impacts Criterion
• Program Officers
*2005 AC/GPRA Report, NSF 05-210
11
NSF's Strategic Plan for FY 2006
Excerpt from letter from Drs. Arden Bement and
Kathie Olsen, NSF Director and Deputy Director
December, 2005
“The National Science Foundation is asking for your input
at the start of the process to draft the next Strategic Plan.
…Your comments are requested by January 20, 2006
through the website at www.nsf.gov/about/performance/input.cfm.
NSF requests comments on the following questions to
assist us in developing the new plan:
 Does NSF's current Strategic Plan effectively
communicate NSF's roles and responsibilities as part of
the science and engineering (S&E) community? If not,
what is lacking and how can the next plan be improved?
 What broad characteristics of the near- and long-term
environment for S&E research and education should NSF
consider and address in its next Strategic Plan?…”
12
(NSF 06-009)