Introduction to the FY 2005 Performance Section
The Performance Section of this report is composed of chapters for each of USAID's eight strategic goals organized by the following six sub-sections:
SUB-SECTIONS USED FOR STRATEGIC GOAL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
| Sub-Section |
Purpose and Explanation |
| I. Public Benefit |
A concise narrative describing how pursuit of the goal provides intended benefits
(or harm avoided) for America and the world. |
| II. Resources Invested |
A summary of resources (net costs) devoted to pursuit of the goal for both the current reporting
period (FY 2005) and the previous reporting periods (FY 2004 and FY 2003). The number of direct
funded positions (USAID employees) associated with the strategic goal is also provided. |
| III. Selected Performance Trends |
Graphs that show key performance trends specific to each goal. |
| IV. Illustrative Examples |
An example of key achievements that is typical of the Agency's work in support of the goal. |
| V. Performance Results |
Results history/trend, together with, if available, preliminary FY 2005 performance results,
the current rating, and a short impact statement pertaining to each of the available FY 2005
results achieved. For any FY 2005 performance result listed as preliminary, the final
validated/verified performance data for that target/indicator set will be provided in the
FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) Addendum, to be published by USAID in April 2006. |
| VI. Program Evaluations and Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews |
Summaries of evaluations and reviews conducted on the programs critical to activities
related to a given strategic goal. |
The table below shows the percentage of results attained that were equal to or above the "On Target" rating for each strategic goal. The greater the percentage of results equal to or greater than the "On Target" rating, the better.
Percentage of Results Equal to or Above the “On Target” Rating
Strategic Goal
(Number of FY 2005 Reported Results) |
FY 2003 |
FY 2004 |
FY 2005 |
| 1. Regional Stability |
91% |
88% |
TBD |
| 2. Counterterrorism |
N/A* |
100% |
TBD |
| 3. International Crime and Drugs |
100% |
66% |
TBD |
| 4. Democracy and Human Rights |
93% |
73% |
TBD |
| 5. Economic Prosperity and Security |
80.5% |
89% |
TBD |
| 6. Social and Environmental Issues |
84.8% |
78% |
TBD |
| 7. Humanitarian Response |
90% |
100% |
TBD |
| 8. Management and Organizational Excellence |
N/A |
N/A |
TBD |
1 All results presented are preliminary. Final results will be presented in the FY 2005 PAR Addendum, to be published by USAID in April 2006. (back to text)
Data Reliability, Completeness, and Validity
Performance measurement is dependent on the availability and integrity of useful data that will
indicate the reliability, completeness, and validity of performance. Because all data are imperfect
in some fashion, pursuing "perfect" data may consume public resources without creating
appreciable value. For this reason, there must be an approach that provides sufficient accuracy and
timeliness, but at a reasonable cost. This section of the FY 2005 Performance and Accountability
Report (PAR) provides information on how USAID uses performance data, assesses limitation of the data,
and plans to improve USAID's data verification and validity reporting processes.
To ensure that a level of data quality is being maintained, USAID's operating units (OU) are
requested to ensure that the data reported met the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards
for data completeness and reliability that is presented in OMB Circular A-11, Section 230.2(f).
The OMB standards are as follows:
The performance data in a performance and accountability report are considered complete if:
- Actual performance is reported for every performance goal and indicator in the performance
budget (performance plan), including preliminary data if that is the only data available when
the PAR is sent to the President and the Congress; and
- The Agency identifies in the PAR any performance goals and indicators for which actual performance
data are not available or only preliminary data or estimates are available at the time the report
is transmitted, and notes that the performance data will be included in a subsequent annual report.
(Agencies are encouraged to pre-announce expected lags in the reporting of performance data in
their performance budgets.)
Performance data need not be perfect to be reliable, particularly if the cost and effort to secure
the best performance data possible will exceed the value of any data so obtained. Agencies must discuss
in their assessments of the completeness and reliability of the performance data any limitations on the
reliability of the data. Additionally, agencies should discuss in their PARs efforts underway to
improve the completeness and reliability of future performance information as well as any audits,
studies, or evaluations that attest to the quality of current data or data collection efforts.
The Agency's data meet these tests for completeness and reliability.
Verification and validation of the Agency's performance results are accomplished by periodic
reviews, certifications, and audits, including Data Quality Assessments (DQA) of OU performance,
and annual certification of OU strategic objectives and their relationship to the Agency's
strategic goals. Because of the size and diversity of the Agency's portfolio, validation and
verification is supported by extensive automated systems, external expert analyses, and
management reviews.
Back to Top ^ | < Previous Page | Next Page >
|
1
