Program AccountabilityProgram Accountability

Budget and Performance Budget and Performance IntegrationIntegration

Program AccountabilityProgram Accountability

Budget and Performance Budget and Performance IntegrationIntegration

DOI Annual Business Conference March 2006DOI Annual Business Conference March 2006

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

Drivers and VehiclesDrivers and Vehicles

ScienceScienceRequirementsRequirements

CongressCongressDrivenDriven

AdministrationAdministrationDrivenDriven

ScienceScienceDrivenDriven

CustomerCustomerDrivenDriven

Partnerships InteragencyInteragencyCrosscuts & InitiativesCrosscuts & Initiatives

Earmarks & Earmarks & Legislative Legislative MandatesMandates

PARTPART

GPRAGPRAStrategicStrategic

PlanPlan

CPICCPIC

President’sPresident’sBudgetBudget

5-Year5-YearPlansPlans

Approp.Approp.BillBill

PMAPMA

Program Performance ReportingProgram Performance Reporting

CyclicCyclic AnnualAnnual QuarterlyQuarterly ContinuousContinuous

ManagemeManagement Control nt Control Reviews Reviews (MCRs)(MCRs)

IG/GAO IG/GAO ReviewsReviews

External External Program Program

EvaluationsEvaluations

Internal Internal Program Program ReviewsReviews

Director’s Director’s Assurance Assurance StatementStatement

USGS USGS AccountabilitAccountabilit

yy Report Report

DOI DOI AccountabilitAccountabilit

yy Report Report

CPIC Cost / CPIC Cost / MilestonesMilestones

GPRA GPRA PerformanPerforman

cece

PART PART PerformanPerforman

cece

ABC/MABC/M

Employee Employee PerformancPerformance Appraisale Appraisal

T&AT&A

FFSFFS

PMA PMA ScorecardsScorecards

PART PART MilestonesMilestones

GPRA &GPRA &DOI and USGS Strategic PlansDOI and USGS Strategic PlansGPRA &GPRA &DOI and USGS Strategic PlansDOI and USGS Strategic Plans

PARTNERSHIPS

MANAGEMENT

Resource Protection

• Improve the Health of Watersheds, Landscapes, and Marine Resources that are DOI Managed or Influenced in a Manner Consistent with Obligations Regarding the Allocation and Use of Water

• Sustain Biological Communities on DOI Managed and Influenced Lands and Waters in a Manner Consistent with Obligations Regarding the Allocation and Use of Water

• Protect Cultural and Natural Heritage Resources

Resource Use

• Manage or Influence Resource Use to Enhance Public Benefit, Promote Responsible Use, and Ensure Optimal Value: Energy, Minerals, Forage, Forest Products

• Deliver Water and Generate Hydropower, Consistent with Applicable Federal and State Law, in an Environmentally Responsible and Cost Efficient Manner

Recreation

• Provide for a Quality Recreation Experience, Including Access and Enjoyment of Natural and Cultural Resources on DOI Managed and Partnered Lands and Waters

• Provide for and Receive Fair Value in Recreation

Serving Communities

• Protect Lives, Resources and Property

• Advance Knowledge Through Scientific Leadership and Inform Decisions Through the Applications of Science

• Fulfill Indian Fiduciary Trust Responsibilities

• Advance Quality Communities for Tribes and Alaska Natives

• Increase Economic Self-Sufficiency of Insular Areas

SCIENCE

Department of the InteriorMISSION AREAS AND OUTCOME GOALS

DOI Strategic PlanDOI Strategic Plan“Guardians of the Past; Stewards of the Future”“Guardians of the Past; Stewards of the Future”

USGS goals

DOI Strategic Plan – DOI Science

• Science is presented as the foundation for informed resource management decisions

• Includes all Bureaus

• Outcome Oriented at Department Level

• Output Oriented at Bureau Level

• Links Costs and Outputs to

– End Outcome Goals

– DOI focus is shifting to costing measures

OMB’s Business Reference Model

Systematic analyses and investigations delivered to customers Long-term data collections maintained

% of customers for whom energy data meet their needs

USGS Program 5-Year Science Plan

Average cost of a systematic analysis or investigation

Number of formal workshops or training provided to customers

Number of systematic analyses and investigations delivered to customers

% of targeted analyses/investigations delivered which are cited by identified partners within 3-years of delivery

PART

President’s Business Reference Model: Mode of Delivery Business Area

Government Services Delivery: Knowledge Creation and Management

Knowledge DisseminationAdvising & ConsultingGeneral Purpose Data & StatisticsResearch & Development

Mission Area

USGS Strategic Plan

DOI Strategic Plan

Program Assessment Rating Tool Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)(PART)Program Assessment Rating Tool Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)(PART)

PARTPARTPARTPARTPART SectionsPART Sections Program Purpose and Design Program Purpose and Design (20%)

To assess whether the program design and purpose are clear and To assess whether the program design and purpose are clear and defendabledefendable

Strategic Planning Strategic Planning (10%) To assess whether the agency sets valid annual and long-term To assess whether the agency sets valid annual and long-term

goals for the programgoals for the program Program Management Program Management (20%)

To rate agency management of the program, including financial To rate agency management of the program, including financial oversight and program improvement effortsoversight and program improvement efforts

Program Results Program Results (50%) To rate program performance on goals reviewed in the strategic To rate program performance on goals reviewed in the strategic

planning section and through other evaluationsplanning section and through other evaluations

Activity Based Costing (ABC)Activity Based Costing (ABC)Tool for Budget and Performance Tool for Budget and Performance IntegrationIntegration

Activity Based Costing (ABC)Activity Based Costing (ABC)Tool for Budget and Performance Tool for Budget and Performance IntegrationIntegration

Performance Model

Work

Output

Outcome

Strategic Goal

Mission

ABC and Strategic Plan InterfaceABC and Strategic Plan InterfaceABC and Strategic Plan InterfaceABC and Strategic Plan Interface

STRATEGIC PLAN GOALi.e., Resource Use

STRATEGY Intermediate Outcome i.e., Improve Information Base resource mgmt.

$$//OUTPUTOUTPUT

WORK ACTIVITIES

ABC ABC ABC

OUTPUT(…are costed and unique to this strategy)

OUTPUT(…are costed and unique to this strategy)

OUTPUT(…are costed and unique to this strategy)

1:1 1:1 1:1

WORK ACTIVITIES

WORK ACTIVITIES

ABC: Expenditures by Mission AreaABC: Expenditures by Mission Area

FY 2005 ($1,410,151,709)

FY 2005 ($1,410,151,709)

Serving CommunitiesServing Communities

Resource ProtectionResource Protection

Resource UseResource Use

1,101,952,129.68 (78%)1,101,952,129.68 (78%)

80,140,676.27 (6%)80,140,676.27 (6%)

228,058,902.59 (16%)228,058,902.59 (16%)

USGS ABC ActivitiesFY 2004 vs. FY 2005USGS ABC ActivitiesFY 2004 vs. FY 2005

$0$0$200,000,000$200,000,000$400,000,000$400,000,000

$600,000,000$600,000,000$800,000,000$800,000,000

$1,000,000,000$1,000,000,000$1,200,000,000$1,200,000,000

ServingCommunities

ServingCommunities

ResourceProtectionResourceProtection

ResourceUse

ResourceUseFY 2004FY 2004

FY 2005FY 2005

ABC: Expenditures by Work ActivityABC: Expenditures by Work ActivityFY 2005

Total Expenditures ($1,410,151,709) FY 2005

Total Expenditures ($1,410,151,709)

CONDUCT ASSESSMENTSCONDUCT ASSESSMENTS

CONDUCT RESEARCHCONDUCT RESEARCH

DATA COLLECTIONDATA COLLECTION

MANAGE & DISTRIBUTE DATAMANAGE & DISTRIBUTE DATA

PLAN/EVALUATEPLAN/EVALUATE

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCETECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

SUPPORT (Science Management)SUPPORT (Science Management)

SUPPORT (Sustain Org.—excluding IT)SUPPORT (Sustain Org.—excluding IT)

SUPPORT (Indirect IT)SUPPORT (Indirect IT)

SUPPORT (Sustain Org.—No ABC)SUPPORT (Sustain Org.—No ABC)

CONDUCT EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTIVITIESCONDUCT EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTIVITIES

75,992.62 (0%) 75,992.62 (0%)

237,116,076.20 (17%)237,116,076.20 (17%)

100,787,652.47 (7%)100,787,652.47 (7%)

33,466,648.65 (2%) 33,466,648.65 (2%)

58,524,995.25 (4%)58,524,995.25 (4%)

92,208,564.25 (7%)92,208,564.25 (7%)

242,317,043.13 (17%)242,317,043.13 (17%)

43,547,060.46 (3%) 43,547,060.46 (3%)

204,825,839.77 (15%)204,825,839.77 (15%)

397,281,835.74 (28%)397,281,835.74 (28%)

0.00 (0%)0.00 (0%)

USGS by ABC ActivitiesFY 2004 vs. FY 2005

USGS by ABC ActivitiesFY 2004 vs. FY 2005

FY 2004FY 2004 FY 2005FY 2005

$0$0

$50,000,000$50,000,000

$100,000,000$100,000,000

$150,000,000$150,000,000

$200,000,000$200,000,000

$250,000,000$250,000,000

$300,000,000$300,000,000

$350,000,000$350,000,000

$400,000,000$400,000,000

ConductAssessments

ConductAssessments

ConductResearchConduct

ResearchData

CollectionData

CollectionManage &

Distribute DataManage &

Distribute DataPlan/EvaluatePlan/Evaluate Technical

AssistanceTechnical

AssistanceSupport

(Science Mgmt.)Support

(Science Mgmt.)Support

(Sustain Org.,excluding IT)

Support(Sustain Org.,excluding IT)

Support(Indirect IT)Support

(Indirect IT)Conduct

EmergencyResponseActivities

ConductEmergencyResponseActivities

12%

28%

15%

28%

15%

17%

6%7%

2% 2%

4% 4%

23%

17%

8%7%

2%3%

0% 0%

Performance Budgeting Performance Budgeting Impacts & ExpectationsImpacts & ExpectationsPerformance Budgeting Performance Budgeting Impacts & ExpectationsImpacts & Expectations

Impact

• “Science” is not enough

• Positive outcomes are not enough

• Strategic planning, science objective setting, and performance management are necessary to demonstrate why your program is a good investment

Great Expectations – DOIGreat Expectations – DOI

• Constant scrutiny on performance in all aspects of business and mission delivery

• Continuous improvement

• Drive to consistency across the Department

• Focus on unit cost of performance and marginal cost of change (ABC/M + GPRA = performance budget)

• Document costing methodology, unit and total cost of performance in the FY 2008 Budget

Great Expectations – OMBGreat Expectations – OMB

• PART role increasing on all counts – continuous program improvement plans

• FY 2007 PART and other program evaluations were used to justify new $$

• FY 2008 PART, PMA, cost analysis, and demonstrate an intent to implement governmentwide line of business for budget and performance integration

• Increased scrutiny guaranteed

• Increased pressure to get to Green on PMA s and R&D scorecard

Great Expectations – OMBGreat Expectations – OMB PART: the gift that keeps on giving

Every program that has been PARTed has a set of follow-up actions (also known as an improvement plan) it is taking to address PART findings and improve program performance. The improvement plan is a key element of the PART summary. Implementation of improvement plans will be tracked for all agencies and will be considered in the Budget and Performance Integration scorecard for the major agencies. OMB staff and agencies should give particular focus this year to developing aggressive follow-up actions that will improve performance. Programs that were assessed in earlier years should be adding new follow-up actions to their improvement plans as they complete old ones. These new actions may be logical next steps to completed actions or new actions relating to PART findings that have not been addressed yet.

Robert Shea, Counselor to OMB Deputy Director for Management, October 2005 memo

Great Expectations – CongressGreat Expectations – Congress

A focus on results, as envisioned by GPRA, implies that federal programs contributing to the same or similar results should collaborate to ensure that goals are consistent and, as appropriate, program efforts are mutually reinforcing. Federal agencies can use their strategic and annual performance plans as tools to drive collaboration with other agencies and partners and establish complementary goals and strategies for achieving results. Such plans can also reinforce accountability for the collaboration by aligning agency goals and strategies with those of the collaborative efforts. Accountability for collaboration is reinforced through public reporting of agency results.

RESULTS-ORIENTED GOVERNMENT Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies October 2005 Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on GAO Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of

Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. SenateGAO-06-15

Great Expectations – CongressGreat Expectations – Congress

As a first step in reinforcing individual accountability for collaborative efforts, agencies set expectations for senior executives for collaboration within and across organizational boundaries in their individual performance plans.

For example, as part of its Senior Executive Service (SES) performance management system, Interior, one of the agencies involved in wildland fire management, requires all of its senior executives to incorporate in their individual performance plans a competency related to collaboration—“Building Collaboration and Partnerships with customers/Partners/ Stakeholders.” Specifically, for this competency, senior executives are to communicate, consult, and cooperate with customers, partners, and stakeholders to ensure that Interior’s missions and programs effectively empower citizens in the support of conservation. According to an Interior official, Interior’s bureaus have the flexibility to cascade the required senior executive competency related to collaboration to their non-SES employees’ individual performance plans.

RESULTS-ORIENTED GOVERNMENT Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies October 2005 Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on GAO Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. SenateGAO-06-15

Where’s USGS??Where’s USGS??Implementation StatusImplementation StatusWhere’s USGS??Where’s USGS??Implementation StatusImplementation Status

Where’s USGS – Performance??

• Performance Data V&V for “all” measures (not just key) using DOI methodology

• 9 Programs PARTed using R&D criteria – 1 effective– 8 moderately effective, – no RND

• PART Efficiency Measures for all PARTed Programs (in DOI MITS system)

• PART Improvement Plan Milestones for all PARTed Programs (in DOI MITS system)

• Shared performance measures developed with other Bureaus and Agencies in the PART process

Where’s USGS – Performance Review??

• DOI Quarterly Review Status of Performance and Funding Investment and PMA Scorecards

• USGS Quarterly Status of Funds and Performance Reviews instituted in FY 2005– status of performance measures– high level cost data for senior managers– over 550 different views (pie charts) of ABC cost data for goals,

regions, programs, activities, etc. compiled and posted on Intranet for managers’

• Database of GPRA measure targets, PART measure targets and improvement milestones, Secretarial MBOs, Congressional directives, OMB passback directives, budget commitments, etc created for SES/SL and employee performance plans in progress

Where’s USGS – ABC Progress??

• Laying groundwork to– Maintain the correct balance of monitoring, assessment, data

management and research for the long-term viability of the programs

– Monitor long term trends and define regional patterns for the kinds of work partners need

– Monitor operations to mitigate the effect of erosion of buying power on priorities

– Identify efficiencies in operations to increase funding for new priorities

• Continuing to verify and validate data application• Several years of implementation will be needed to identify trends

in the data that can lead to programmatic decisions

Where’s USGS – ABC Costing Process??

• Budget and Science Information System (BASIS+) – used forproject planning and ABC coding

• FFS reports ABC expenditures

• Common GPRA output measures/ABC Activity Outputs derived in workshops FY 2004

• Analysis of ABC data led to process change in FY 2006 – coding at task rather than project level to gain granularity

Where’s USGS – ABC Costing Status??

• Outputs are “costed” using ABC – Some are true annual costs (ex. data collection, data management )– some are surrogate annual cost (systematic analyses, assessments)

• Costing aggregates to end outcome goals

• All budgetary resources – direct and reimbursable– cost to end outcome goals

• Statement of net cost segment reporting to end outcome goals

• Costing to performance measures is problematic

Where’s USGS ??Performance Measure Costing Challenges

• Strategic Plan was not designed to cover all of the budget

• Non-linear Strategic Plan – no direct line from output to intermediate to end outcome

• Only 2 of 6 end outcome goals have relevant end outcome measures for USGS – USGS does not manage land or resources so focuses on

intermediate outcomes for Resource Protection and Resource Use

– Serving Communities has relevant end outcome measures

Where’s USGS ?? Performance Measure Costing Challenges

• Many measures are not budget sensitive and not costed

• Performance measures are not mutually exclusive, may measure different aspects of the same work

• Costing methodologies meaningful for programs and field applications are not standardized across the organization

• ABC’s annual capture of expenditures – requires use of surrogate costs for multi-year outputs – does not support some PART efficiency measures that will

continue to be costed manually

Program Performance PracticumProgram Performance PracticumProgram Performance PracticumProgram Performance Practicum

Energy Resources Program

provides reliable, impartial scientific information and comprehensive analyses – Nation’s & World’s resources

Oil and Natural Gas

Gas Hydrates

Coal and Coalbed Methane

Geo

ther

mal

Heavy OilNatural Bitumen

Oil ShaleUranium

• The Nation faces simultaneous challenges:increasing demand for energygrowing dependence imported resources need to minimize environmental effects

• The ERP addresses these challenges by promoting and supporting scientific investigations of geologically based energy resources (research on the geology of oil, gas, and coal resources, emerging resources such as gas hydrates, underutilized resources such as geothermal, and research on the effects associated with energy resource occurrence, production, and (or) utilization)

• The results provide impartial, robust scientific information about energy resources and directly support the U.S. Department of Interior’s Mission of protecting and responsibly managing the Nation’s natural resources

Mission of the Energy Resources Program

(1) To understand the processes critical to theformation, accumulation, occurrence, and alteration of geologically based energy resources;

(2) To conduct scientifically robust assessments of those resources; and

(3) To study the impact of energy resource occurrence and (or) production and use on both environmental and human health.

Seven long-term goals improve the understanding of:

1. the oil and natural gas endowment of the U.S. and World;2. the coal endowment of the U.S;3. the occurrence and distribution of, and conduct research in

support of, making natural gas hydrates a technically producible resource;

4. the distribution and resource base of other geologically based energy resources, such as geothermal resources;

5. the environmental and human health effects of energy resource occurrence and utilization;

6. Maintain state-of-the-art data management and distribution systems; and

7. Partner with other organizations, including donor organizations, to address domestic and international issues regarding geologically based energy resources.

framework of resource occurrence

processes yielding resource accumulations

economic, technical, and environmental factors affecting resource availability and recoverability

Geology-based understanding of:

Products (Outputs) Include:

>60,000 analyses

Energy Resource Assessments

ERP—Metrics and Our Mission• Research, Characterization, Assessments

• Energy Policy Act Amendments of 2000

• Energy Policy Act of 2005

• Science support for other agencies

• PART

• GPRA and project productivity

• Efficiency measurements and efficiencies

ERPAnnual Planning, Review and Budget• Annual guidance

– Program Council– Interactive, on-going basis

• BASIS work plans—a contract

• Review (internal and external)

• Budget allocation based in part on performance

• End of year fiscal analysis

ERP—PART and Performance• Recasting our science in another language to

another audience

• Engaging our partners

• Focusing on outcomes

• Better understanding of program– Strengths– Weaknesses– Suggestions for improvements

ERP—Performance and Perspective

• Proactive vs. Reactive Management– Critical partnerships– Long-range vision

• Taking ownership – Outputs vs. Outcomes

• Leveraging– Roles, Responsibilities and Money

ABC/M – Granularity in Coding

FY 2005 Landslide Hazards ProgramABC by Task

Bureau/Discipline Costs

Plan/Evaluate Programs

Collect Data

Conduct Research

Provide Tech. Assistance

Conduct Assessments

$117,449 (4%)

$44,541 (1%)

$1,846,777 (61%)

$452,999 (15%)

$317,017 (10%)

$264,345 (9%)

FY 2005 Landslide Hazards ProgramABC by Project

Bureau/Discipline Costs Plan/Evaluate Programs Collect Data

$2,461,766 (81%)

$264,345 (9%)

$317,017 (10%)

ABC’s – Programmatic Challenges

• PART efficiency measures – ABC’s

• Project focus and ABC costing, e.g.:::

National andInternationalOil and Gas

Assessments

WOGA project•Assessments•Research•Technical assistance

Seismic processing

DatabasesGeochemistry

laboratories

NOGA project•Assessments•Research•Technical assistance

ABC’s Programmatic Payout

A Work in Progress