Presentation by Tom Skelly Director, Budget Service Department of Education

1. Meeting of the Budget and Performance Integration Leads IMPROVING INTEGRATION OF PERFORMANCE INFORMATION IN CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS Presentation by Tom Skelly Director, Budget Service Department of Education The American Institute of Architects 1735 New York Ave. NW Washington, DC 20006-5292 Wednesday, November 8, 2006 8:30—10:00 a.m.

2. Two Competing Demands on Budget Justifications • OMB—more performance information • Budget and Performance Integration/PMA • Performance Accountability Reports (CFO, GPRA, etc.) • Good policy analysis and decision-making • PART • Congressional appropriators—less performance focus • Prefer traditional budget information • Skeptical of the Administration’s policies and positions • Mistrust of cited performance data • Challenge—how to present performance data within congressional justifications (CJs) to satisfy both OMB and appropriators.

3. Responses to ED’s Justifications by Key Audiences • ED successfully integrated budget and performance information in its congressional justifications. • Response from Appropriators: • The FY 2006 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Act included language for the Department of Labor: • SEC. 107. The Department of Labor shall submit its fiscal year 2007 congressional budget justifications to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the format and level of detail used by the Department of Education in its fiscal year 2006 congressional budget justifications. • The report accompanying the House Energy-Water FY 2006 Appropriations Act directed the Corps of Engineers to improve its annual congressional budget justifications. The Corps was instructed to: • …review the materials submitted by the departments of Education and Transportation, as they are models for emulation.

4. Responses to ED’s Justifications by Key Audiences (cont.) • The Senate FY 2007 Labor-HHS-ED appropriations bill reiterated the requirement included in the FY 2006 Act that the DOL look to Education as a model, and use the same format and level of detail as ED in preparing its FY 2008 budget submission. • In addition, the FY 2007 Senate report includes the following language about an HHS agency: • In developing its fiscal year 2008 budget request, the Committee urges • SAMHSA to revise the format for its congressional justification in ways • that will make it more readable and easily understood.[…] As an example, • the Committee urges SAMHSA to examine the format and level of detail • contained in the Department of Education congressional justification.

5. Responses to ED’s Justifications by Key Audiences (cont.) • Response from OMB: • In a July 5, 2006, e-mail, Clay Johnson, Deputy Director for Management at OMB, wrote to Hudson LaForce, Senior Counselor to the ED Secretary: • At last week's Quarterly PMA scorecard meetings, the ED branch and Robert • Shea were talking about how ED uses performance information in their budget submission, the best of any Cabinet Department.  Congratulations.  We're now trying to figure out how to get all other Departments to follow suit.

6. Pending House AppropriationsCommittee Language • H.R. 5647, FY 2007 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Bill: • SEC. 522. All departments and related agencies shall, in developing their fiscal year 2008 budget requests, provide congressional justifications in the traditional format in accordance with the guidance provided in the report of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives accompanying this Act. No funds in this Act may be used to develop alternative congressional justifications.

7. What Does ED Include in CJs? • Traditional information for appropriations—just the facts/figures • Language provisions • Authorizing legislation • Object Class • Report Items and ED Response • Performance information three ways: •   A separate 25-page Performance Budget tab displaying budgets, programs, and key performance measures by strategic plan goal. • A detailed discussion of performance information – both GPRA and evaluation – in each program justification. • References to performance information and PART in the program account narratives. • Summary of Changes • Appropriations History • Program Description • Impact Data

8. Why Do Appropriators Like Education CJs? (aside from content) • Give them what they want—traditional information: • On formats, ask them each year “What works?” and “What is missing?” • Meaningful graphics and charts are good, but appropriators like to have some details • Tight organization and consistent presentation help, as do tabs, tables of contents, and pagination • On-time delivery (first Monday in February) • Staff briefings at delivery time and soon after • Give them what they need—material to: • Write bill language and specifications • Write reports, deal with authorizations, hold hearings (oversight), meet with and answer constituents and lobbyists • Recommend dollar levels

9. Why Do Appropriators Like Education CJs? (aside from content)(cont.) • Build on a history of collaboration with appropriations staff (not done in a vacuum). • Maintain communication/relationships • Respond quickly to questions, give objective reliable answers • Anticipate their needs for information • Incorporate appropriations staff input and provide models for their review. • Realize that CJs are used as reference documents the whole year. Shelf life is longer if justifications provide useful descriptions of existing programs (even if budget eliminates them).

10. Instructions for Including Performance Information

11. Separate Performance Budget

12. Separate Performance Budget (cont.)

13. Presentation of Program Performance Information in Budget Justifications • Justifications are organized around ED’s appropriation account structure and include separate discussion for each budget line item. • Performance information is included in two sections of the justification for each budget activity: 1.Where performance data supports the budget request, performance information is woven into the traditional narrative—the “Budget Request” section. This may include discussion of PART findings, independent program evaluations, and annual performance data on program outcomes.

14. Presentation of Program Performance Information in Budget Justifications (cont.) 2. Performance information is discussed in a separate section entitled “Program Performance Information,” which includes: • Information on performance indicators and measures, including established targets, in a tabular format for each program where data are available. • Description of data sources for performance measures and analysis of data, including ED’s assessment of the progress made in achieving targets. • Discussion of current strategies for obtaining performance data where annual performance data are not available.

15. Presentation of Program Performance Information in Budget Justifications (cont.) • If there is a program evaluation, a discussion of the methodology and findings. May include evaluations that ED did not oversee, along with discussion of any methodological weaknesses ED has identified. • For programs assessed using the PART, a discussion of • PART findings, recommendations, and any follow-up actions undertaken by ED as a result. • Information on efficiency measures currently in development or in use to improve program management or policy.

16. What Do ED’s CJ’s Look Like?

17. What Do ED’s CJ’s Look Like? (cont.)

18. What Do ED’s CJ’s Look Like? (cont.)

19. What Do ED’s CJ’s Look Like? (cont.)

20. Specific Examples Providing performance data doesn’t always result in appropriations changes. For example: • ED proposes elimination of 42-50 programs each year, but only a handful of programs have actually been eliminated by Congress. • Vocational Education has been rated “Ineffective” and proposed for elimination in 2007, but both House and Senate bills level-fund it. Budget priorities differ for reasons other than performance. However, performance data has informed the debate about program effectiveness and reform.

21. Specific Examples(cont.) • Even Start—rated “Ineffective” using the PART, based on evaluation findings saying it did not produce significant results in improved reading scores. Congress reduced funding for the second year, from almost $250 million in 2004, to $99 million in 2006, after ED made the case in its justification for termination. Both House and Senate FY 2007 appropriations bills include further reductions. • Safe and Drug Free Schools State Grants—rated “Ineffective” for lack of significant impact. Reduced by Congress by $437 million in 2005 to $346 million in 2006. • Perkins Loans Capital Contributions—rated “Ineffective.” Congress eliminated $100 million in new loan funding in 2005. • Upward Bound—ED proposed termination, in part due to PART rating of “Ineffective,” based on findings from a national evaluation that this program is not having an overall impact on college enrollment for its target group of disadvantaged students. The appropriation did not change but ED improved the program administratively by better targeting of needy students.

22. Specific Examples(cont.) • Statistics and the National Assessment of Educational Progress—House and Senate FY 2007 appropriations bills increase funding for these programs, both of which received an “Effective” PART rating. • Programs rated “Adequate” have increased dramatically since 2001. For example, IDEA State Grants ($4.3 billion, 69%) and Pell Grants ($4.0 billion, 46%). • Smaller Learning Communities—rated “RND,” for lack of rigorous evaluation data and overlap with private sector (Gates) funding. Congress cut from $174 million in 2004, to $93 million in 2006. • Data Quality Initiative—In its FY 2006 justification for the • Fund for the Improvement of Education, ED made the case for a new initiative to improve performance data collected from, and evaluations conducted by, grantees in relatively small programs. Congress provided $2 million. 

23. Correlationof PART Rating to Request

24. Summary of Key Elementsin Drafting Justifications • Use budget account and activity structure that is acceptable to the Appropriations Committees. They are the primary audience. • Do not replace impact data normally included (e.g., number and size of grants and other outputs) with performance information. Include both. • Include performance information for each budget activity, but only integrate it into the explanation of the budget request if it is directly supportive of the request. • Include all relevant performance information in a separate section of the narrative for each budget activity.

25. Summary of Key Elementsin Drafting Justifications(cont.) • Include performance data in tabular format, with discussion of data sources and analysis of progress in achieving performance targets. • Include discussion of program evaluations, methodology, and findings. • Include detailed description of PART rating, findings and recommendations, and follow-up activities. Include examples of management improvements or policy changes made as a result of the PART review.

26. Observations and Trends • As appropriators’ discretionary allocations have tightened in the last 2 years, more education programs have been reduced. • The reductions have often come in programs that cannot show performance results. • Justifications are used throughout the year as references on education programs. While produced for appropriators as the key audience, justifications have been shared with other committees, CBO, CRS, etc., and outside interest groups. • While ED has focused on appropriators as the audience, only shorter summaries have been available on the web.

27. Observations and Trends (cont.) • The justifications might be shorter and contain more graphics if we had more time to edit. • A transparent discussion of our 145 education programs is a highly valued product among policymakers and those who influence them.

28. Summary The performance information included in the justifications has enabled appropriators to see the results of Federal investments in education programs and provides a basis for deciding how much to spend. At the same time, the justifications have presented traditional budget information to help appropriations staff complete tasks such as program oversight and preparation of bills, reports, and hearings questions.