National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: A P P E N D I X A COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC POLICY MEMBERS' BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Suggested Citation:"A P P E N D I X A." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1999. Evaluating Federal Research Programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6416.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"A P P E N D I X A." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1999. Evaluating Federal Research Programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results Act. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6416.
×
Page 54

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

APPENDIX B HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE LETTER GEORGE E 8AOWN J11 C•i.lo"' • R1nlongM 1no..1v M1mb<t • SHERWOOD L &OEHLERT N1w Ym• HARRIS W FAWELL 11110011 RALPH M MALL r ... n CO'<STA NCE A MORELLA M1•yl1nd BART GOR DON l11ones ut CURT WELDON fl1nn1yh•1n1i. J AMES A IAAFIC ANT J• On«1 OMllA ROHRABACHER C1l1h:11n1 a TIM ROEMHI l<>d1 1n1 STEVEN SCHIFF New M1•1co U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ROBERT E 18U01 CRAMER J~ A •.1c.1..,;i JAMES A BARCIA Mochu;it n Jct'O.vtTOh tu •• KEN CALVERT C1hlarn1i1 PAUL MCHALE Pennsy1,,,.n1 a ROSCOE G 8AA1'tETl M11yl1ng VEllNON J EHLERS Mic h 1g11· COMMITIEE ON SCIENCE WDtE BEll,.,I CE JOHNSON l1n~ ALCEE l '"' AS TINGS floud ;i l YNN N RIVE.FIS Moch",tan DAVE WELDON F1 a,.da MA n SALMO ... Ar110llil ZOE LOFGFIEN Cahfo,.111 THOMAS M DAVIS "'"9"''• SUITE 2320 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING MICHAEL~ OQVLE Penn s ~•vl"'' ~' oo rcNf t_wf .........._.. u SHEILA JACl<SO N LEE Tun MARK FOlE'I flO••da WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 BIL L LU THEA M 1'ln.no11 THOMAS W EWl"!C lllmoi'I WA L TEA H CAPPS C.a 1lo•n•i CHAIRES W CH1fl• PICKER ING M1s .. n1pp1 12021 225~371 DE BBIE STABE ... OW M •t hoeiJ I~ CHRIS CANNON U11h BOBETHERIOGE ... or111 Ca1olo nB KEVIN 8RADV Ten s TTY: 12021 22&-4410 ~ICK LAMPS ON Tuin MERfULL COOK U 11h DARLENE HOOLEY 0"!110" PHll E NGUSH P1nn,y lvan.1 ELLEN 0 TAUSCHER Calolor" a GEORGE R NET HflKUTT J~ Wnli1n E11 on TOM A COBURN O~laho,,.,a PETE SESSIONS h•as October 23. 1997 Dr Bruce Alberts President National Academy of Sciences 210 I Constitution Avenue. NW Washington, D C 20418 Dear Dr Alberts As you may know. the House Committee on Science is actively involved in the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act) The Act requires federal agencies to develop and provide to Congress three basic reports: overseeing five-year strategic plans due this September; annual performance plans to be presented by the Office of Management and Budget next February; and annual performance reports due each year The Results Act has the potential to provide information necessary to strengthen program management and improve program performance This is a challenge for all agencies and in particular tho e conduc ting research. At a July 30 hearing before the House Committee on cicnce. several science-related agencies testified about their efforts to implement the requirements of the Act. h became clear from thi hearing that the agencies need to work harder at improving interagenc coordination and identifying areas where programs overlap In the world of research. overlap can be producti e and beneficial or it can be duplicative and wasteful -- that is why the agencies must coordinate Vv'e we;e pi.:a~eu to it:am uf your intt:rest in perfurming a siudy 10 assist with the implementation of the Results Act. We endorse a study that would review how science-related agencies may better incorporate their fundamental research activities into strategic plans and performance plans to improve the management and effectiveness of their science programs. Specifically. we would be interested in a cross-agency comparison of similar types of research Of particular interest to us is the development of a thorough interagency coordination process; common outcome-oriented analytic paradigm(s) that could be used across agencies for assessing the results of extramural and intramural fundamental research programs and training and education of the scientific and engineering workforce; and any principles that might assist us in our review of the agencies' performance plans as they relate to research 53

EVALUATING FEDERAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS Dr Bruce Alberts I0/23/97 Page 2 Another area for study would be the agencies' implementation of their performance plans. including how they relate to their trategic goats and missions. focusing on the impact of the Re ults Act on agency programmatic decisions and on the practice of research. the lessons learned from that implementation. and identification of best practices that could be u. ed by other agencies or programs In conducting the study, we hope you take the opportunit to hear from the various stakeholders in the process and work with the research agencies. The ommittee looks forward to reviewing the results of this effort . If you have any question please contact Beth okul of the Majority Staff(225-0585) or Dan Pearson of the Minority Staff(225-4494) Sincerely, ENBRENNER,~~E~~o~''r Ranking Democrat House Committee on Science 54

Next: A P P E N D I X C PROJECT SUMMARY »
Evaluating Federal Research Programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results Act Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $47.00 Buy Ebook | $37.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), passed by Congress in 1993, requires that federal agencies write five-year strategic plans with annual performance goals and produce an annual report that demonstrates whether the goals have been met. The first performance reports are due in March 2000.

Measuring the performance of basic research is particularly challenging because major breakthroughs can be unpredictable and difficult to assess in the short term. This book recommends that federal agencies use an "expert review" method to examine the quality of research they support, the relevance of that research to their mission, and whether the research is at the international forefront of scientific and technological knowledge. It also addresses the issues of matching evaluation measurements to the character of the research performed, improving coordination among agencies when research is in the same field, and including a human resource development component in GPRA strategic and performance plans.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!