![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
Archived Information
Demonstrating Results, An Introduction to Government Performance and Results Act, Spring 1999
In its effort to manage for results, HEP needs the assistance of its grantees – those closest to the delivery of program services – to provide the objective information and data necessary to demonstrate results. This outreach holds the promise of a transformation in the way HEP and its grantees do business, as both parties will be evaluated by the extent to which they contribute to clear, tangible results.
If GPRA truly is to be effective in enhancing the performance of government programs, there must be a candid assessment of how the programs, and, in turn, the projects they support, are performing. This can best be provided by the grantees, who have first-hand experience about the efficacy of the performance goals, evidence of the various levels of performance, knowledge of the availability and ease of obtaining certain categories of data, and insights into additional outcomes of their activities. In this sense, the requirement that performance information be obtained from those closest to the outcomes has the potential to provide relevant insight into education programs that will greatly benefit everyone.
Performance measures can serve not only as a means to assess a program's or project's success and report on its results, but also as a tool to guide the development and operation of the program or project. With the information obtained, HEP managers and project directors can reassess their approaches and make more informed decisions on modifying their strategies, improving their processes, redesigning their organizational structures, enhancing customer service delivery, and generally engaging in continuous improvement activities to improve the overall performance of their programs and projects.
Grantees can be of assistance in this process by working with HEP program staff to identify the most important factors that are truly critical to a program's success, identify the appropriate level of annual performance for each output, suggest ways to reformulate the performance indicators when needed, and provide the qualitative and quantitative evidence of their individual project's achievements. This information, which will be collected on a project basis and used as such to improve project performance, will be aggregated and reported to Congress and the public on a program level.
The focus of the dialogue between HEP staff and its grantees must be on how to achieve and demonstrate results. Grantees have the responsibility to decide how to structure their own projects and what emphasis to place on various elements of their strategies. Each grantee, however, must also be able to provide evidence that a working, effective approach is in place and that their project is achieving what it purports to do.
Over the next five years, those programs that can show a continual increase in program performance while maintaining control over resources will clearly be more valued by both Department and congressional decision makers. In like manner, to the extent that a grantee can develop innovative approaches that improve performance, or can identify methods of significantly controlling costs, or a combination of both, the project is certain to receive a more favorable evaluation than one that continues to allocate dollars at a constant or increasing rate, despite varying levels of performance. In this environment, increased success will come to those grantees that are able to maintain control over resource utilization, continually improve implementation strategies, and demonstrate that their project's performance is contributing to the performance goal of the overall program.
The requirements of GPRA necessitate that HEP create an annual performance plan for its programs, in which it specifies the outcomes to be achieved, the indicators of success and the strategies to be followed, as well as provide an annual performance report to the Congress. These requirements create a basis for a dialogue between HEP and its grantees about performance, accountability and demonstrating the achievements that will improve their projects and programs and greatly benefit the students they serve.
The dialogue will be taken up by HEP managers and program officers. With differences in statutory authorities, purposes, constituents, regulations, and histories of past developments among the many programs for which HEP has stewardship, the requirements and ways in which HEP staff and grantees can work together no doubt will vary from program to program.
-###-
[Conclusion]