422 FW 1, Program Evaluation

A. Description. Program evaluations are evaluations of program operations, usually at more than one organizational level, to measure actual outcomes and results against program goals and objectives, including Service priority objectives; assess application of Service policy; and examine program execution against established standards.

B. Purpose. The purpose of program evaluations is to establish a process to ensure that programs are operated and executed Servicewide in accordance with established standards, such as Service priority objectives, laws and regulations, management controls, and program policies, procedures, goals, and objectives.

1.2 Evaluation Criteria. The following core elements will be used by evaluation teams to design and plan program evaluations. The evaluation team may supplement these criteria with additional areas for analysis to meet other specific purposes. Suggested coverage within these elements can be amended based on the nature and scope of the evaluation.

A. The Washington Office formulates Service policy, guidance, and plans; sets priorities; coordinates program activities; and assesses program performance. Within this context, the criteria for Washington Office program evaluations are:

(1) Development of policy, guidance, and plans; e.g., timeliness, clarity, and adequacy of policy and implementing regulations, program guidance, and memoranda; Servicewide consistency in interpretation/application of Service policy.

(2) Coordination of program activities with other Service and Department offices and outside organizations; e.g., timeliness, significance, and impact on program effectiveness.

(3) Program assessment; e.g., type, frequency, results.

(4) Effectiveness in meeting goals and objectives; e.g., accomplishment of program goals and objectives, annual plans, Secretary's and Service priority objectives, and Service mission; deviations to plans; impediments to meeting goals.

(5) Improvements in program execution; e.g., completion of corrective actions from previous evaluations; increase in program efficiency; cost savings.

(6) Ability to meet the needs of the program's customers; e.g., knowledge of the program's customers and their needs; responsiveness; feedback from customers.

(7) Processes, if required (see 1.4, below), e.g., system operations, workflow, timeliness, impediments.

B. Regional Offices implement national policies; appraise and monitor their operations to assure effectiveness and goal attainment; and recommend to the Washington Office revisions in national policies, plans, and procedures. Within this context, the criteria for Regional Office program evaluations are:

(1) Implementation of policy and guidance; e.g., Regionwide consistency in interpretation and application.

(2) Effectiveness of program execution and compliance with laws, regulations, policies, and procedures; e.g., timeliness and adequacy of program activities; coordination with other Service and Department offices and outside organizations; Regionwide consistency in program execution; outcomes and accountability.

(3) Effectiveness in meeting goals and objectives; e.g., accomplishment of Regional work plans, Service priority objectives, and Service mission; deviations to plans; impediments to meeting goals.

(4) Improvements in program execution; e.g., program review and corrective actions; recommendations to the Washington Office for revisions in policies, plans, and procedures; increase in program efficiency; cost savings.

(5) Ability to meet the needs of the program's customers; e.g., knowledge of the program's customers and their needs; responsiveness; feedback from customers.

(6) Processes, if required (see 1.4, below), e.g., system operations, workflow, timeliness, impediments.

C. Field stations and offices implement Service policies and execute programs and plans below the Regional Office level. Within this context, the criteria for field station/office program evaluations are:

(1) Effectiveness in meeting goals and objectives; e.g., accomplishment of annual work plans; compatibility of plans with Service program objectives and Service mission; deviations to plans; impediments to meeting goals.

(2) Effectiveness of program execution and compliance with laws, regulations, policies, and procedures; e.g., resource management, facility maintenance, results, accountability.

(3) Ability to meet the needs of the program's customers; e.g., knowledge of the program's customers and their needs; responsiveness; feedback from customers.

(4) Improvements in program execution; e.g., program review, increase in program efficiency, cost savings.

(5) Processes, if required (see 1.4, below), e.g., system operations, workflow, timeliness, impediments.

1.3. Other Criteria. In addition, programs may be evaluated by:

A. Alternative Program Evaluations required by program authorities, Service policy other than this Part, and the Departmental Manual;

B. Comparison of actual program results with performance goals established in the annual performance plan under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993; and

C. Special evaluations, the criteria for which may be determined by the Director.

1.4 Process Evaluations. A program evaluation may include an examination of the processes of a program. See 420 FW 2.1C for additional information.

1.5 Evaluation Schedule. At least one Servicewide program will be scheduled for a program evaluation each year. The implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act may also determine the evaluation schedule. An evaluation begins after the Director has determined the organizations and programs subject to evaluation in the Annual Evaluation Plan.