Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

A few thoughts to include in the letter on the highlights report


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

A few thoughts to include in the letter on the highlights report

  1. 1. US Department of the Interior Performance Management Improvement Plan FY2009 September 4, 2009
  2. 2. Table of Contents Purpose of This Document.............................................................................................................. 2 Performance Management Goals.................................................................................................... 3 Roles and Responsibilities .............................................................................................................. 3 Governing Documentation.............................................................................................................. 4 Implementation Approach .............................................................................................................. 5 Performance Background............................................................................................................ 5 FY2009 Improvement Projects ................................................................................................... 9 Performance Issues and Challenges........................................................................................ 9 Improvement Projects for FY2009 ....................................................................................... 10 Future Performance Improvement Projects .............................................................................. 13 Appendix A: Performance Assessment Hierarchy(based on 2007-2012 Strategic Plan) ........... 14 1
  3. 3. Purpose of This Document This plan focuses on developing the methods by which the Department of the Interior can review and determine how to improve upon programmatic performance, particularly in response to Executive Order # 13450: Improving Government Program Performance, November 13, 2007. Created by this executive order, the Agency Performance Improvement Officer is responsible for supervising the performance management activities of the agency, developing the agency’s strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports as required by law; assessing and improving the performance of each program administered in whole or in part by the agency; and assisting the head of the agency in the development and use of performance measures in personnel performance appraisals and, as appropriate, other agency personnel and planning processes. As the Deputy Performance Improvement Officer, the Director, Office of Planning and Performance Management has the day to day responsibility for implementing this plan. In order to fulfill the responsibilities detailed by E.O. 13450, the Department of the Interior has created this annual plan to serve as the road map for performance management activities throughout the Department. It outlines the general approach to be used for improving performance management and identifies the specific initiatives to be undertaken to address the performance challenges and issues identified in the annual Performance Accountability Report. This annual performance management improvement planning process has been incorporated into the Office of Planning and Performance Management’s existing performance management process (see figure 1). The new performance management improvement planning process identifies performance management goals and provides a mechanism for the office to analyze the performance issues and challenges on an annual basis and to develop specific initiatives to address these issues and challenges. Strategic Planning (GPRA and other) Annual Issues/Needs/Goals Triennial Performance Measures Plan Validation/Execution Annual Planning/Funding Strategic (issues/needs/goals) Performance Budgets Annual (modify programs; Spending Requests adjust funding; prioritize initiatives Performance Projections Governance E.O. 13450 / PIC / PMC Performance Analysis Performance Measurement Performance “As Is” vs. “To Be” State Quarterly Reviews Revise Annual Improvement Plan Program Evaluations Select Performance Initiatives Performance vs. Funding Performance Reporting PAR/Citizens’ Report Performance Challenges Goal Progress (RPMs) Figure 1. Performance Management Improvement Process This plan is intended to be primarily used by performance management practitioners throughout the Department to coordinate all performance improvement initiatives undertaken to achieve the 2
  4. 4. Department’s performance management goals. This plan serves a secondary purpose of communicating the Department’s performance management goals and initiatives to all internal and external stakeholders, such as Congress, OMB, DOI leadership and management, and the American public. This plan will be updated on an annual basis, or as necessary, to address the specific performance issues and challenges in the context of the Department’s performance management maturity over its lifecycle. Performance Management Goals Within the Department of the Interior, the Performance Improvement Officer and the Deputy Performance Improvement Officer view performance management as an overarching umbrella of policies, procedures, methods, and tools to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of program performance and employee performance to achieve the mission of the Department. There are four performance management improvement goals that drive our performance management activities. These include: Create a performance management culture throughout the Department Demonstrate improved program performance Use performance information to inform decision making Improve performance transparency and accountability to the American public Roles and Responsibilities Within DOI, a system of governing bodies and individual responsibilities has been established to develop, implement, and oversee all performance management activities (see figure 2). Central to this governing structure is the role of the Performance Improvement Officer (PIO) and Deputy Performance Improvement Officer (Deputy PIO). The PIO and Deputy PIO are responsible for supervising all performance management activities across the Department of the Interior. The list of responsibilities includes, but are not limited to, the following: Developing and improving DOI's strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports Ensuring program goals are aggressive, realistic, and accurately measured Regularly convening agency personnel to assess and improve program performance and efficiency Assisting the DOI Secretary in developing and using performance measures in personnel performance appraisals, particularly those of program managers The Performance Improvement Officer is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Capital, Performance, and Partnerships. The Deputy Performance Improvement Officer is the Director for the Office of Planning and Performance Management, who is responsible for providing leadership, guidance, and consulting services on strategic planning, performance management, and organizational streamlining to improve programs and operate more efficiently. The Director’s responsibilities include implementing the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and chairing the Performance Management Council. In the near future, under the terms of the Executive Order, the Deputy Performance Improvement Officer will also be initiating the Performance Improvement Team which has bureau representation similar to the Council, but will directly engage more senior management of the bureaus in a centralized forum, with improved opportunities to integrate planning/performance, budget, and financial communities across the bureaus. 3
  5. 5. Performance Improvement Officers DAS-HCPP Performance DAS-BBM OMB/Other Agencies/NGOs Chief Performance Officer Improvement Officer OS/PPP OS/POB OS/PFM Deputy Performance Budget Finance Improvement Officer Budget Performance CFO Officers Management Council Council Council Bureau Bureau Bureau Performance Budget Finance Managers Managers Managers Figure 2. Department of the Interior Performance Management Governance Structure The Office of Planning and Performance Management is staffed with senior performance management analysts that serve as a liaison to the bureaus in helping them establish meaningful performance measures, analyze bureau performance data, and implement the performance management policies of the department. This staff also works with the department/bureau budget offices and financial management offices to conduct analyses of integrated performance, budget, and financial data and to support the budget and finance offices with shared data calls for bureau information. Each bureau has a team of performance management analysts that collect, analyze, and report on performance information for their respective bureaus and forward requested Strategic Plan performance information to the department. These performance analysts work with their bureau program managers to monitor and communicate the performance of all programs. Governing Documentation Performance management activities within DOI are executed in accordance with all existing legislative and executive mandates and policies, the most relevant including: 4
  6. 6. Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) (P.L. 103-62) - GPRA requires agencies to develop a five-year Strategic Plan, which includes a mission statement and sets out long-term goals and objectives; Annual Performance Plans, which provide annual performance commitments toward achieving the goals and objectives presented in the Strategic Plan; and Annual Performance Reports, which evaluate an agency's progress towards achieving performance commitments. Government Management Reform Act (GMRA) (P.L. 103-356) - Requires agencies to have comprehensive financial statements that are audited. The law also improves the efficiency of executive branch performance in implementing statutory requirements for reports to Congress. Executive Order 13450, Improving Government Program Performance - This Executive Order documents the official policy of the Federal Government to spend taxpayer dollars effectively and more efficiently each year. The order creates the government-wide Performance Improvement Council and establishes the role of Performance Improvement Officers in each Agency to lead performance-focused efforts to improve effectiveness and efficiency. OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget - Describes requirements for strategic plans and annual program performance reports and provides an overview of the performance budget. OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements - Establishes a central point of reference for all Federal financial reporting guidance for Executive Branch departments, agencies, and entities required to submit audited financial statements, interim financial statements, and Performance and Accountability Reports. Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) - A program evaluation process that rates the effectiveness of government programs based on analysis of four critical areas of assessment: purpose and design, strategic planning, management, and results and accountability. This evaluation program is currently being revised by OMB. Implementation Approach Each year, the Office of Planning and Performance Management will analyze the performance issues and challenges and develop a set of initiatives to improve overall performance and move closer to the established performance management goals. Performance Background The Department’s performance management initiatives began with developing and implementing a Department-wide, integrated Strategic Plan, coordinating program-specific assessments using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), preparing the performance related materials of the Performance and Accountability Reports and producing the corresponding Highlights/Citizen’s Reports. One of the key strategies was to better integrate the performance assessments that were being performed across the Department, and further ensure the continued attention to improving performance throughout all levels of the organization. To promote and facilitate a more performance-oriented culture, a hierarchical process was developed for senior managers and leadership to more readily assess overall performance and identify areas of success vs. those that needed further attention. This more integrated, 5
  7. 7. structured approach now allows senior leaders and managers to direct their attention to areas with the greatest potential for improved performance while inspiring further attention to performance improvement at all levels of the organization. By FY2007, there were already plenty of performance assessments being conducted across the Department’s nine bureaus using hundreds of performance measures, including 205 performance measures in the Strategic Plan and approximately 400 performance measures throughout nearly 70 PARTed programs. Finding areas of success to promote as examples for other programs to follow, and discovering where improvements could be made, involved wading through a sea of data points that was very time consuming and sometimes daunting from an overall perspective. What was needed was a more integrated, hierarchical performance overview to be used primarily at senior levels, so that attention could be better directed to determining those programmatic areas that offered the greatest potential for performance improvement for further, more detailed analysis, especially during the budget formulation process. By incorporating evaluation of identified candidate programmatic areas for improvement during the budget planning process, performance improvement could be evaluated along with the related funding levels. This level of attention and emphasis to applying performance information, especially during the budget planning process, also encouraged improved use, accuracy, and reliability of performance data, and promoted the pursuit of continuous programmatic performance improvement. The key principles involved in this process included: Conducting the appropriate scope and detail of the performance assessment at the appropriate level of oversight to facilitate effective decision making Better utilizing as many existing processes and information as possible, rather than creating new additional data requirements Employing a select set of strategic level performance measures as the backbone, or framework, to form the “top” of a hierarchical performance assessment construct. These select measures are considered to indicate, or represent, the overall performance across the major programmatic areas, as reflected in the Strategic Plan, and are therefore called Representative Performance Measures (RPMs). These RPM’s can be used to identify those select programmatic areas worthy of further more complete and/or detailed analysis using related Strategic Plan and more-detailed program-specific performance measures. Utilizing the hierarchy of the performance assessment, ensuring linkages from each level in the hierarchy are related to each successive level to provide the supporting details as needed The Representative Performance Measures form the nucleus of the Department's approach to overseeing performance assessment, planning, and improvement. These select measures were chosen based on their broad scope relative to the goals in the Strategic Plan, compared to other more specifically defined performance measures, and their potential to represent the Department’s overall performance. The performance management improvement implementation approach calls for routinely using these representative measures to synthesize and compare overall Department performance more readily with each subsequent Annual Performance Report (APR). The RPMs will also be used to help identify strategies for performance improvement and possible Department-wide initiatives. The Representative Performance Measures reflect more than the past year's performance by providing a 5-year trend of performance information that relates preceding years to the current year and projects what is planned for the following fiscal year. The corresponding levels of funding provided for each representative measure provide insight into the cost of achieving these results and how the programs have performed relative to the funding spent. An example of one Representative Performance Measures from the FY2007 Performance and Accountability Report is depicted in Figure 3. 6
  8. 8. Performance vs. Cost 80% 500,000,000 70% 450,000,000 400,000,000 60% 350,000,000 50% 300,000,000 40% 250,000,000 30% 200,000,000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Plan Percent of DOI acres that have achieved desired conditions Cost 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Plan Performance 45% 48% 58% 60% 61% Acres in desired 118,862,916 127,055,258 200,715,412 218,864,783 223,492,266 condition Acres with known 262,659,257 263,115,511 345,580,083 364,460,411 364,460,411 condition Cost ($) Not Available Not Available 333,382,810 372,177,563 364,308,687 Figure 3. Example of a Representative Performance Measure with Corresponding Full Costs The usefulness of the representative measures is based on their quantity (few) and scope (broad), which provides a more practical tool for overseeing performance from an executive level, while pointing to where further drill-down is needed. Supporting Strategic Plan and program metrics can be used to hone in on which particular programs should be targeted to improve performance. Most of the programs are related to the Representative Performance Measures through a comparable performance measure. A few programs are not covered directly with a comparable performance measure in that they involve externally directed block-formula grants, including Indian self determination funds, where the Department has no authority to define specific details as to what the funds purchase, but rather to ensuring that they are used responsibly and effectively in a relatively more general sense. Figure 4 displays how the Representative Performance Measures relate to the larger number of more narrowly-defined Strategic Plan and program measures. An outline of the full set of the Representative Performance Measures with the Department’s Strategic Plan goal structure and corresponding programs is provided in Appendix A at the end of this document. Strategic Plan Mission Areas Resource Resource Recreation Serving Protection Use Communities Representative Performance Measures Number of Measures 7 9 1 8 Strategic Plan Performance Measures Number of Measures 60 53 13 46 Program Performance Number of Measures 102 82 37 60 Figure 4. Relationship of Representative Performance Measures to Other Measures 7
  9. 9. While the present costs provided with each representative performance measure reflect the full cost of achieving performance, including the indirect institutional costs, overhead, and effects of depreciation, it is necessary to separate out the direct costs associated with each added increment of performance. These incremental costs represent the direct program funds that need to be added to specific budget activities to achieve an increase in programmatic performance. While most bureaus can calculate their full costs associated with the performance measures and identify the increment of funding that needs to be added to budget activities to achieve more performance, a centralized system for capturing this information in a consistent manner across the bureaus is needed. Ideally, the system will capture cost information based on the existing Activity Based Costing (ABC) work activities and provide the resulting incremental direct funding in terms of the present Congressionally-approved budget activity structure. Additional work to improve the integration of performance, budget, and financial data will be accomplished in subsequent years. An analysis of the performance results and cost trends from the FY2007 PAR provided a categorization of the Representative Performance Measures in terms of positive, sustained, or challenged performance. For those programmatic areas characterized under “challenged” performance, bureaus were asked to analyze the potential to make changes in these areas so as to achieve increases in performance, especially if it could be accomplished without additional funding. These “changes” to the programmatic area could take the form of redistributing funding; changes in management, processes, and/or program priorities/scope. Increasing emphasis on these assessments as part of the annual planning process noticeably improved the collection, verification, and validation of the related information for the FY2008 PAR, resulting in increased accuracy and reliability of the performance data. The analysis against performance improvement potential categories was conducted internally as part of a 2010 Current Services budget planning effort; results of the assessment were captured in the 2008 Performance Accountability Report (PAR) and Citizen’s Report. In addition to developing the concept of Representative Performance Measures and developing a method for integrating performance and budget information, a formal process was created for assessing the Department’s progress and efforts towards improving its programmatic performance and maturing the implementation of performance management practices across DOI. Formal assessment procedures were developed for quarterly assessments and annual assessments. Quarterly Waiting until the end of the year to assess program performance doesn’t provide managers with sufficient time to react to any negative trends. As such, DOI instituted a policy and practice of assessing performance on a quarterly basis. Bureaus o Conduct internal assessment of progress (e.g., by each region) being made toward achievement of performance targets, need for program or funding adjustments to improve likelihood of achieving the target, and completion of PART follow-on actions Department o Conduct assessment through the Performance Management Council of likelihood of achieving performance targets coupled with the need for program or funding adjustments to improve that probability, and completion of PART follow-on actions o Discuss findings with Performance Improvement Team, composed of bureau deputy directors and chaired by the Deputy Performance Improvement Officer Senior Leadership o Report to the Performance Improvement Officer (DAS-HCPP) on progress being made primarily against the Representative Performance Measures and completion of PART follow- on actions 8
  10. 10. Annually Based on performance reported in the PAR, performance measures will be placed into one of the following categories, considering the results relative to the funding spent: o Positive performance • increasing performance results while costs are level or decreasing • level performance results while costs are decreasing • performance results are decreasing, but less than costs are decreasing o Sustained performance • Sustained (“level”) performance and costs • Trends in performance and costs change similarly (appear parallel to each other graphically) o Challenged performance • level or decreasing performance results while costs are increasing • performance results and/or cost data is incomplete and/or questionable • level of accomplishment could be perceived as low Present analysis of the potential for increasing performance at same or less funding for representative performance measures identified as “challenged”; report on any other activities underway in the program or bureau that is realizing an improvement in performance In the annual planning cycle, programs under those measures categorized as “challenged” will be reviewed to determine if changes in funding, management, and/or program scope could help achieve greater levels of performance for less or the same level of funding. In regards to proposing changes in funding, a proposal to increase funding does not necessarily require an augmentation to the agency total, but could involve a redistribution of funds among a collection of programs. Reviewing these potential opportunities for improvement as part of the budget planning cycle allows for a thorough review of findings and resulting recommendations by all the appropriate levels of management and leadership, without creating a separate planning process. During the review process, both performance and the related costs would be quantified and considered together. FY2009 Improvement Projects Improvement projects for FY2009 were developed from an analysis of the performance management issues and challenges identified from any GAO or IG reports, new/revised legislative and/or executive mandates, assessments of past performance management practices provided for the next Administration, anecdotal evidence based on day to day work, review of the previous years’ Performance Accountability Reports, or from problems encountered while trying to implement previous improvement projects. These new improvement projects will be prioritized and managed as individual projects to ensure successful completion. To help the assigned initiative owner manage his or her initiative(s), a performance management improvement initiative template was created that describes the initiative and any assumptions, its benefits and critical success factors, its obstacles and challenges, and an action plan for accomplishing the initiative. These templates are intended to be a living document that incorporates any changes to the initiative over time. Similarly, any new performance management issues and challenges identified during execution of these improvement projects will be documented in a new template. Performance Issues and Challenges Promoting performance management concepts and practices across the Department has several challenges. Chief among these is the pervasive belief within Departmental Offices and bureaus that performance management is punitive vs. informative. This challenge can be minimized over time through a well coordinated education and awareness campaign to demonstrate the value of a robust performance 9
  11. 11. management program and teach managers and employees alike how to extract information and knowledge from performance data. A second challenge lies in rethinking the value of reporting financial information with performance information. While there is some benefit to knowing the financial net cost of performance, this represents an historical, “rear view” look at performance. Additionally, the financial net cost information, whether expressed as full cost or net cost, has limited meaning to people outside of the financial management community. A more forward looking approach to understanding the value of performance can be achieved by linking performance information with budget information, which includes consideration of the investment of budget authority and expenditures of work completed. While considerable strides have been made to achieve true budget and performance integration, much more can be done. Specifically, the performance/funding assessment needs to be expanded beyond the RPMs to capture more of DOI’s budget in the execution of performance assessment. With a renewed emphasis on transparency and accountability within government, this will help the Department improve its ability to use performance information to help prioritize funding decisions. Further advances will require advanced knowledge of both disciplines, innovative analysis techniques, and the ability to influence the acceptance of these new methods among the executive and legislative stakeholder community. Ultimately, the usefulness of this practice will be demonstrated through adopted use across the Department. Lastly, the Department needs to upgrade its automated systems to collect, store, integrate, analyze, and report performance, budget, and financial data. Currently, there are multiple systems being used by the bureaus and the Department to manage this critical data. The current performance management system was developed internally over five years ago and has significant limitations, most notably in its reporting capabilities. Without a new system in operation, or an automated way to gather the critical data elements from these bureau systems, the Department spends an inordinate amount of time on collecting and reporting performance data and not enough time on analyzing it. There is an ongoing effort to acquire a new, commercial-off-the-shelf Activity Based Cost Management (ABC/M) system and to integrate that system with the enterprise-wide Financial Business Management System (FBMS), but the full integration of performance, budget, and financial data is not expected until 2012 at the earliest, according to the current FBMS schedule. The lack of proper automated tools may delay the implementation of some of the identified performance improvement projects, as well as the ability to address other performance issues that are further out on the performance management maturity continuum. Improvement Projects for FY2009 To address identified performance issues and challenges and work towards the attainment of established performance management goals, there are seven improvement projects that the Department is undertaking in FY2009. Performance management improvement initiative templates for each appear below. Complete the 3-year update of the DOI Strategic Plan, reflecting the Obama Administration’s policies and priorities (This is required by GPRA) Better integrate the display and use of funding and performance information Inform the budget planning process with a performance-based view of program effectiveness Improve the transparency and accountability of the Department through improved internal and external performance reporting Improve the collection, analysis, reporting, use, and storage of performance information through the acquisition/development of improved business intelligence tools Improve the knowledge and skills for understanding and using performance information throughout the Department through the development and implementation of a performance management education and awareness campaign Improve the stature of DOI as a thought leader in performance management through increased participation in external events 10
  12. 12. The FY 2009 improvement projects particularly bring funding investment together with performance beyond the Representative Performance Measures to cover effectively the entire Interior discretionary budget, in a way that can be related to the bureaus’ budget structures/activities. From the FY 2010 Current Services Budget planning exercise that was conducted late last summer, a performance-budget crosswalk was created aligning those performance measures to which bureaus allocated funds to the associated budget activity. A gap analysis identified those areas where funding was still not allocated to programmatic performance, which typically was associated with institutional and support funding. This performance-budget crosswalk forms the basis from which a more complete set of performance measures can be used to inform future budget planning based on past funding investment and related levels of performance achievement. This also provides the means by which the annual performance report can be expanded beyond the Representative Performance Measures to describe more of the performance associated with a larger portion of the total Department budget not just in terms of how much was achieved, but in terms of how cost effectively it was achieved (See Figure 5). 11
  13. 13. Completed Link expenditures to performance 5 ID #1465 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Plan In process Target 60.6% 66.5% 67.6% Performance 45.3% 48.3% 58.1% 61.6% 67.6% Acres in desired condition 118,862,916 127,055,258 200,715,412 212,179,054 260,195,301 260,140,604 Planned Acres with known condition 262,659,257 263,115,511 345,580,083 344,308,411 385,005,230 385,005,230 $ 333,382,810 372,177,563 474,239,250 540,842,916 Single, Defined key Align supporting Align Improve 1 2 3 4 6 integrated indicators program performance budget activities transparency Strategic Plan to performance and accountability Program 1 1 RPM 1 Budget Activity 1 2 Program 2 Annual RPM Budget Activity 2 Financial Statement 2 3 Program 3 Budget Activity 3 RPM 4 3 Budget Activity 4 Budget Activity 5 Program 68 202 RPM 24 Program 69 203 RPM 204 25 Program 70 Budget Activity n 7 Inform decision making; Improve performance Figure 5. Use of Performance-Budget Crosswalk for Improving Performance, Transparency, and Accountability 1. Integrated Strategic Plan FY2003 – 2008 Plan was first DOI integrated plan Updated every three years; FY2010 – 2015 plan under development 2. Defined Key Performance Indicators Based on 204 Outcome and Output measures for Strategic Plan Chose 25 Representative Performance Measures (RPMs) 3. Align Supporting Program Performance Mapped PART programs to RPMs Mapped associated measures to RPMs 4. Align Budget Activities to Performance Created budget and performance crosswalk Identifying budget +/- potential for programs based on performance 5. Link Expenditures to Performance Initially for 25 RPMs, but eventually for all key supporting performance measures Aggregating expenditures for output measures to determine approximate cost of performance at outcome level 6. Improve Transparency and Accountability Redesigning Annual Performance Report to show performance and funding investment related to budget 7. Inform Decision Making; Improve Performance For programmatic and budget planning 12
  14. 14. Future Performance Improvement Projects While future performance management improvement projects will be developed based on an analysis of performance issues and challenges in each subsequent year, knowledge of existing challenges and issues suggests that likely emphasis areas will include, but not be limited to, the following. Better alignment of performance based decision making between executives and managers Increased use of statistical, predictive, and cross-program analysis Increased scope and scale of performance management tools Improved performance data V&V processes to correlate with the importance of performance- based decisions Better linkage of individual performance activities to DOI’s mission through the alignment of DOI’s business architecture and strategic planning efforts More definitive Quarterly Program Review Process Better isolate and explore cost and performance drivers 13
  15. 15. Appendix A: Performance Assessment Hierarchy(based on 2007-2012 Strategic Plan) DEP A RTM EN T OF T H E INT ERIO R R ESO UR C E SER VING R ESO UR C E U SE R ECR EA TIO N PRO TEC TION C OM M U N ITIES He althy Land s and Energy R eso urces W ate rsh eds La nd and On sh o re F lu id Mi ner al Wa ter in De sired Con dition Pe rm its to Drill BLM Wi ldl ife Ha bitat Restor ati on BLM Energy & Minerals Mgmt BLM Reso urce Ma nag emen t NPS Na tu ral Re sou rce Ste ward ship B LM Realty & Ownership Mgmt FWS Natio nal Wil dl ife Refug e Syste m BLM Land Use P lanning L and & W at ers Re c la ime d Ons h ore from Coa l Mining C oal Leases O SM St ate Managed B LM Energy & Minerals Mgmt Abandoned Coal Mine B LM Realty & Ownership Mgmt Reclamation BLM Land Use Planning Sustain Biological Offshore Com m unities L ease Sales MMS Outer Continental S helf M igrato ry Bird s Minerals Evaluation & Leasing MMS OCS Environmental S tudies FWS Mi gra to ry Bi rd Mgmt FWS Natio nal Wil dl ife Refug e Syste m Im pact-free FWS H abi tat C onse rvation Coal Sites OSM State R egu lati on of Surface Co al Mi nin g Threa tened & OSM Fe dera l Re gul atio n Surface Co al Mi nin g Endan gered Species and Ab and on ed Min e Recl ama ti on FWS Enda nge red Sp ecie s F ed eral & Ind ian FWS Natio nal Wi ldl ife Refug e System FWS Hab itat C onse rvatio n Re venu e D i sbu rs em ent In vasive Plants MM S Minerals R evenue Mgm t BLM Wi ld life Ha bitat Re sto ration BLM Reso urce Ma nag eme nt Via Oth er In te rmedi ate Goal Me asure s: N PS N atural R eso urce Stewa rdshi p MMS OCS Mine ral s R egu la ti on an d Co mp li ance BOR Hyd rop owe r FWS Nati ona l Wi ldl ife Re fu ge System Via Other End Outcome Goa l Measu res: FWS Fish erie s W ater R eso urces Via Other I nt ermediate Goal measures: BLM Wildlif e H abit at R es toration & Resource M gmt (2) Reliab ility of NPS Nat ural R esourc e St ewards hip Water Infrastruc ture Protect C ulture BOR Water Mgmt Ops an d Mai ntena nce BOR Da m Sa fe ty and H eritage BOR Site Secu rity Via Ot her I nt ermediate Goal Measures : BOR C ALFED , CV PIA , Sc ienc e and Tec hnology (3) Histo ric Stru ctu res BOR Water Mgmt Planni ng & Cons tructi on Central U tah Project N PS C ultura l Re source Ste ward ship FWS Nation al Wil dli fe R efug e Syste m Land Rela ted BLM Reso urce Ma nag eme nt R esou rces U se of Graz ing P erm its Sup portin g Scie nce U SGS Geographic Res earch &R emot e Sensing US GS Water Information Col lec ti on &Di ssemi nati on B LM Resource Management U SGS Biological Informat ion U SGS Water Res ources R es earc h BLM Land Use P lanning USGS Coa stal an d Mari ne Geol ogy U SGS Na tiona l Co ope rative Ma pp ing Pro gram A llow ab le Sale USGS B iol ogi cal Re sea rch and Mo ni to ring Quantity of Tim ber B LM Resource Management BLM Land Use Planning Via Oth er In te rmedi ate Goal Me asure s: BLM Mi ni ng L aw Admi nistra ti on Us e o f Su ppo rting Scienc e U S GS En e rg y R e so u rc e As se s sm e n t 14 U SG S M i n e ra l R e s o ur ce A ss e ss m e nt Figure A.1 Detailed mapping of Representative Performance Measures to Strategic Plan goals and PARTs (Resource Protection and Resource Use Mission Areas only)
  16. 16. DEPAR TMENT OF THE INTERIOR RESOURCE RESO URCE SE RVING RECREATION PRO TECTIO N USE COMMUNITIES P ro tection of L ives, Visitor Satisfaction Resources, Property BLM Recreat ion Mgmt & Concessions (2) NPS Vi sit or S ervices Initi al Control NPS Concessi ons Mgmt FWS National Wildlife Refuge Syst em of Fire O utbreak Vi a Other SP Goal Measure: BOR Recreation and Concessi ons DOI W i ldland NPS Technical Ass istance FWS Fisheri es Fir e Management Fi re Preventative Treatment DOI W ildl and Fir e Management V ia Other End Outcom e Goal M easures: NPS Park Police and V isit or S ervices (2) FWS Nat ional Wildlif e Ref uge System BLM Resource Management Use of Su pporting Scien ce USGS Geologic H azards As s ess ment Fulfill Indian Fiduc iary Trust Responsibilities T rust Financial Inf o Pro cessed Accurately OST Indian Est ates “Comp leted/Closed” BIA Realty and T rust V ia Other End Outcom e Goal M easures: BI A Forest ry & Nat ural Resource Mgmt (2) BI A Realty and Trust B IA I ndian Land Consolidation Indian Commun ities BIE Schools Ach ieving AYP BIA K-12 School Operations Violent Crime BIA Law Enfor cem ent BIA Tr ibal Courts Via Other Intermedi ate Goal Me asures: BIA Operati ons & Mai ntenance of Roads BIA K-12 School Co nstruction Support of Insular Areas OIA 15 Figure A.2 Detailed mapping of Representative Performance Measures to Strategic Plan goals and PARTs (Recreation and Serving Communities Mission Areas only)