What good is a painfully detailed review of a research agency's activities if it's ignored by the politicians who draw up the agency's budget? That's what a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel asks in a new report on a 1993 law aimed at making the federal government more efficient.
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires each agency to set annual goals, define how it plans to achieve them, and then measure the outcome. For years, researchers have worried that the act would trivialize federally funded research by forcing agencies to show a short-term payoff from basic research. Now they have a new fear--that agency officials are wasting time preparing reports that lawmakers don't read.
The annual GPRA reports "have not been used for a political purpose, which is the ultimate goal," says Enriqueta Bond. Bond co-chairs the NAS panel that looked at how five leading research agencies deal with the act, which kicked in a few years ago. A White House budget official agrees, adding that "the measures used by most agencies aren't particularly helpful" in setting funding levels.
The annual exercise does help the agency evaluate research quality and relevance, according to the academy panel, but falls short in deciding if the work is world-class. Still, the burden of preparing the reports may soon outweigh the benefit, Bond warns, unless policy-makers start paying more attention.
