Congressional Oversight of Management & Performance Accountability Scorecard (COMPAS)

Scoring Process

Step 1: Identify the departments and independent agencies over which the Committee/Subcommittee has partial or exclusive jurisdiction, and the amounts of their respective budget authority.
Step 2: Within each such department, identify the bureau-level organizations over which the Committee has jurisdiction, and the amounts of their respective budget authority.
Step 3: Determine whether any general oversight hearings were held by the Committee/Subcommittee during the past 4 years covering these departments/agencies/bureaus (agencies).
Step 4: Apply the Scorecard to each such hearing.
Step 5: Total the score for each hearing and award a letter grade for each.
Step 6: Weight the score for each oversight hearing according to the agency’s proportion of the total budget authority under the jurisdiction of the Committee. If no oversight hearings were held, award zero points.
Step 7: Award a final letter grade for oversight and performance accountability to the Committee/Subcommittee based on total of weighted scores.

Scorecard – 100 points possible

For a general oversight hearing that was held during the past 4 years at which a major focus was an agency’s overall past performance and expected future results, as reflected in the content of the Strategic Plan, annual Performance Budget, and annual Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) that covered the agency, determine whether—


1. At least one of the agency’s long-term, general goals or objectives in the Strategic Plan was the subject of questions or comments—

a. By the Chairman 3 points
b. By other Members 2 points per Member
Points 7 points maximum

(The questions/comments could involve such issues as: whether the goals and objectives are sufficiently results-oriented rather than process-oriented; whether the goals/objectives are derived from specific statutory mandates.)


2. At least one of the agency’s long-term, measurable performance targets in the Strategic Plan was the subject of questions or comments—

a. By the Chairman 6 points
b. By other Members 3 points per Member
Points 15 points maximum

(The questions/comments could involve such issues as: whether the right thing is being measured and whether the long-term target is set at the right level of performance; whether the performance target is a meaningful measure of success in achieving a true outcome rather than a process or output; whether several performance targets together collectively define the full scope of the general long-term goal/objective to which they link; whether there is an important outcome-oriented priority not covered by any of the long-term performance targets; whether the reported trend in past performance provides confidence that the future performance target will be achieved; whether there are any statutory changes Congress could enact that would improve program efficiency or cost-effectiveness.)


3. At least one of the agency’s annual performance goals or other annual measures in the Performance Budget was the subject of questions or comments—

a. By the Chairman 6 points
b. By other Members 3 points per Member
Points 12 points maximum

(The questions/comments could involve such issues as: whether the right thing is being measured and whether the annual target is set at the right level of performance; how past results compare to the original goals; whether the annual performance goals adequately measure progress toward the desired long-term outcomes; whether the activity and output measures include program efficiency and cost-effectiveness measures.)


4. The effectiveness of at least one of the supporting strategies described in either the Strategic Plan or the Performance Budget for achieving a goal was the subject of questions or comments—

a. By the Chairman 6 points
b. By other Members 3 points per Member
Points 15 points maximum

(The questions/comments could involve such issues as: whether the strategy provides a clear rationale as why it will likely be successful in achieving the goal it supports; whether the strategy is more than just a routine description of program activities; whether the strategy reflects innovative ways to achieve better results with the same amount of funding as in the past; whether the incorporation of improved financial management (especially managerial cost accounting), information technology and human resources planning were incorporated in development of the strategy; whether the strategy reflects specific activities by the agency to ensure coordination of its efforts with other agencies that share a similar goal.)


5. The integration of program performance and budget information in the Performance Budget was the subject of questions or comments—

a. By the Chairman 4 points
b. By other Members 2 points per Member
Points 8 points maximum

(The questions/comments could involve such issues as: the degree to which the agency’s annual budget now links its funding requests to measurable levels of results; whether the funding of activities is linked to program outputs, and whether those outputs are linked to measurable outcomes; whether the unit costs of activities, outputs and other results are calculated and shown in the budget, and what the recent and projected trends are for these costs; whether the budget includes measures of program efficiency and cost-effectiveness; whether the program and results costs are fully-loaded to show all direct and indirect costs, including overhead, benefits, etc., or whether some costs are buried elsewhere.)


6. Issues relating to the verification and validation of reported performance data were the subject of questions or comments—

a. By the Chairman 4 points
b. By other Members 2 points per Member
Points 6 points maximum

(The questions/comments could involve such issues as: whether managers receive accurate, timely and meaningful program performance data throughout the year; processes for ensuring the accuracy of program performance data and reported results; plans for improving performance data systems.)


7. At least one issue raised in the agency’s financial reports and audits was the subject of questions or comments—

a. By the Chairman 3 points
b. By other Members 2 points per Member
Points 5 points maximum

(The questions/comments could involve such issues as: whether the agency received a clean audit opinion or the timetable for doing so; any outstanding material weaknesses in financial controls identified by the agency or its auditors and how those weaknesses relate to agency accountability and effectiveness.)


8. At least one GAO or Inspector General report (including the agency Management Challenges Report) cited in the Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) and relating to agency management or program effectiveness was the subject of questions or comments—

a. By the Chairman 4 points
b. By other Members 2 points per Member
Points 8 points maximum

(The questions/comments could involve such issues as: how a problem spotlighted in the PAR affects the agency’s ability to achieve a particular performance goal or fulfill a stated strategy; the specific recommendations made by GAO or the Inspector General; the timetable and action plans the agency has for resolving the problem.)


9. OMB’s use of its Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) in evaluating a particular agency program was the subject of questions or comments—

a. By the Chairman 4 points
b. By other Members 2 points per Member
Points 8 points maximum

(The questions/comments could involve such issues as: the score and rating received by a program; why a program received a “no” answer or less than full credit on a specific PART question; the steps the agency is taking to improve its score for a program; efforts by the agency to ensure that other programs will score well when evaluated with the PART.)


10. The agency’s progress in achieving compliance with the criteria for one or more of the 5 initiatives on the Presidents’ Management Agenda was the subject of questions or comments—

a. By the Chairman 4 points
b. By other Members 2 points per Member
Points 8 points maximum

(The questions/comments could involve such issues as plans for meeting the criteria to receive a rating of “green” for budget and performance integration, human capital reform, e-government, financial management reform, or competitive sourcing.)


11. The agency’s processes or plans for ensuring the personal accountability of managers and senior officials for program and agency performance was the subject of questions or comments—

a. By the Chairman 3 points
b. By other Members 2 points per Member
Points 5 points maximum

(The questions/comments could involve such issues as: the use of by the agency of program past performance in evaluating managers and implementing pay-for-performance; whether the agency makes meaningful distinctions between adequate performance and truly superior performance and provides sufficient reward for personnel in the latter category so as to provide real incentive for sustained excellence; what the agency has done with poor performing managers.)


12. The agency’s processes or plans for using evaluations by objective, independent sources to assess program effectiveness was the subject of questions or comments—

a. By the Chairman 2 points
b. By other Members 1 point per Member
Points 3 points maximum
Half credit if the issue was raised in a post-hearing written question to the agency.

(The questions/comments could involve such issues as: how results in a difficult to measure area were or will be objectively evaluated; what specific plans and timetables the agency has for retaining independent evaluations of program effectiveness.)


Total Points
Resulting Letter Grade
92 – 100 points =
90 – 91 points =
88 – 89 points =
82 – 87 points =
80 – 81 points =
78 – 79 points =
72 – 77 points =
70 – 71 points =
68 – 69 points =
62 – 67 points =
60 – 61 points =
59 points or less =
A
A-
B+
B
B-
C+
C
C-
D+
D
D-
F