ExpectMore.gov


Detailed Information on the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Programs Assessment

Program Code 10000392
Program Title Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Programs
Department Name Department of State
Agency/Bureau Name Department of State
Program Type(s) Direct Federal Program
Assessment Year 2003
Assessment Rating Moderately Effective
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 100%
Strategic Planning 86%
Program Management 84%
Program Results/Accountability 75%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $34
FY2008 $16
FY2009 $23

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments
2004

Explicitly link the budget request to accomplishment of performance goals as part of the 2006 performance plan and budget cycle.

Completed
2004

Take steps to hold federal managers and program partners accountable for achieving key program results.

Completed
2004

Develop at least one efficiency measure for these programs.

Completed
2004

Continue to evaluate and refine the performance goals for these programs to ensure that they provide useful information to inform management, budget and policy decisions.

Completed

Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Long-term Output

Measure: Degree of progress toward a peaceful resolution of the unresolved conflicts (i.e., Nagorno-Karabakh, Moldova/Transnistria, Georgia/South Ossetia) (New measure, added February 2008)


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2008 On Target On Target
2009 On Target
2010 On Target
2011 On Target
2012 On Target
Long-term Output

Measure: Implement of comprehensive system to ensure accountability of U.S. extra-budgetary contributions to the OSCE.


Explanation:FY04 Target - Secretariat implements a system to provide USOSCE on a regular schedule with detailed information on the expenditure of U.S. extra-budgetary contributions. USOSCE initiates a systematic check of all unexpended funds from prior years. Actual: OSCE Secretariat's Integrated Resources Management Application (IRMA) provides real time accounting of U.S. extra budgetary contributions. USOSCE monitors expenditures weekly. USOSCE working closely with OSCE Secretariat to account for and report to the Department on prior year unexpended funds. FY05 Target - USOSCE completes check of all unexpended prior year funds and clears all unexpended funds from 2003 or earlier. Actual: Due to insufficient staffing at USOSCE desk audits were performed; prior year extra-budgetary financial records still under review. FY06 - OMB grants State Department a score of 90 or better for linking U.S. budgetary and non-budgetary contributions to OSCE to concrete objectives and accounting for their proper use and control. Actual:

Year Target Actual
2007 On Target On Target
2008 On Target On Target
2009 On Target
2010 On Target
2011 On Target
2012 On Target
Annual Output

Measure: ODIHR/OSCE assessment of participating State compliance with international standards in the conduct of elections.


Explanation:FY04 Target - ODIHR conducts no more than three expert assessments. Adequate funding is included in the regular budget for the OSCE Kosovo Mission. Actual: Local authorities in Kosovo planned/managed elections, with OSCE in advisory role. ODIHR expanded assistance in Georgia, exposed fraud and abuse in Ukraine; established long-term activities in Ukraine. FY05 Target - Level of respect for the principle of free elections increases significantly throughout the OSCE area. ODIHR conducts no more than 5 full-scale election observation missions (EOMs). Local authorities in Kosovo take full responsibility for planning elections in 2006, with OSCE as observer only. Actual: OSCE/ODIHR mounted 8 full-scale EOMs, 1 limited EOM, and 3 Election Assessment Missions. Kosovo authorities makeing progres in planning to administer 2006 elections. FY06 Target - All Balkan states (except Kosovo) achieve a level of democracy that obviates ODIHR full-scale election observations. Local authorities in Kosovo take full responsibility for conducting elections in 2006, with OSCE as observer. ODIHR begins intensive program with Central Asian states.

Year Target Actual
2005 On Target Slightly Below
2006 On Target Slightly Above
2007 On Target On Target
2008 On Target On Target
2009 On Target
2010 On Target
Annual Efficiency

Measure: Improvement in the utilization rate of the OSCE budget. (New measure, added February 2008)


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2006 Baseline 94%
2007 Baseline 95%
2008 96% 95%
2009 97%
2010 97.5%
2011 98%
2012 98%

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score
1.1

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The U.S. provides funding to the OSCE to ensure regional and sub-regional stability in the independent states of the former Soviet Union and the countries of southeastern Europe.

Evidence: Congressional Budget Justifications, MPPs and Congressional Notification documents.

YES 20%
1.2

Does the program address a specific interest, problem or need?

Explanation: OSCE programs promote human rights, democracy and regional security in the states of the former Soviet Union and southeastern Europe.

Evidence: Congressional Budget Justifications, MPPs and Congressional Notification documents.

YES 20%
1.3

Is the program designed to have a significant impact in addressing the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: PKO funds support a portion of the OSCE's overall operating budget and provide contributions for specific projects of interest to the U.S. Since the OSCE is a large organization funded by many member states and has a wide variety of programs and objectives, the impact of a marginal increase or decrease in PKO funding for the organization's operating budget would be difficult to measure. But major reductions in the U.S. contribution to its operating budget would probably require that certain missions/operations be significantly scaled back. In some cases, the U.S. is the major/only donor for specific OSCE projects, so the impact of a funding reduction/increase for those programs would be readily known. State provides funds to OSCE from other accounts (D&CP, SEED and FSA), so it is possible that there could be some duplication in State funding for OSCE.

Evidence: Congressional Budget Justifications, MPPs and Congressional Notification documents.

YES 20%
1.4

Is the program designed to make a unique contribution in addressing the interest, problem or need (i.e., not needlessly redundant of any other Federal, state, local or private efforts)?

Explanation: The OSCE is unique in its size and scope. It is the largest regional security organization in the world with 55 participating States from Europe, Central Asia and North America. It is active in early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. The OSCE approach to security is comprehensive in dealing with a wide range of security-related issues including arms control, preventive diplomacy, confidence- and security-building measures, human rights, democratization, election monitoring and economic and environmental security; and cooperative in the sense that all OSCE participating States have equal status, and decisions are based on consensus.??

Evidence: Congressional Budget Justifications, MPPs and Congressional Notification documents, UN Secretary General reports.

YES 20%
1.5

Is the program optimally designed to address the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: There is no conclusive evidence that another approach would be more efficient/effective to achieve the program purposes.

Evidence:  

YES 20%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 100%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score
2.1

Does the program have a limited number of specific, ambitious long-term performance goals that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: UPDATED FOR 2005: State has revised its MPP for the USOSCE and addressed all of OMB's recommendations from the FY 2004 PART. The revised MPP contains long-term goals with annual targets, baseline information as well as a report on progress to date. The goals are also linked to the funding source. The revised MPP should be considered an example for other State programs to follow.

Evidence: FY 2005 MPP for USOSCE.

YES 14%
2.2

Does the program have a limited number of annual performance goals that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goals?

Explanation: UPDATED FOR 2005: The 2005 MPP for USOSCE addressed OMB's recommendations included in the FY 2004 PART. The MPP now includes separate annual and long-term goals, each with supporting annual targets, baseline information and reports on progress to date. The annual goals are directly related to the long-term goals, so that progress toward the long-term goal can be measure by the annual goals and targets. The goals are also linked to the funding source.

Evidence: FY 2005 MPP for USOSCE.

YES 14%
2.3

Do all partners (grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, etc.) support program planning efforts by committing to the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: UPDATED FOR 2005: State has revised its MPP for the USOSCE and addressed all of OMB's recommendations from the FY 2004 PART regarding performance goals. USOSCE has demonstrated that it requires reporting from the OECD that is sufficient to evaluate the annual and long-term goals for the program.

Evidence: FY 2005 MPP for USOSCE, Mandate for OSCE Mission in Moldova, reports from OSCE's Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the Kosovo Mission on U.S. contributions for human dimension projects, PAE reports, IRMA presentation.

YES 14%
2.4

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs that share similar goals and objectives?

Explanation: UPDATED FOR 2005: State has defined which type of OSCE programs are funded by PKO and other appropriations in response to concerns that overlapping funding was being provided by several appropriations.

Evidence: State memo submitted for FY 2005 PART; July 23, 2002 internal State Department memo allocating PKO funding for OSCE.

YES 14%
2.5

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope conducted on a regular basis or as needed to fill gaps in performance information to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness?

Explanation: Program managers in the Political Military and regional bureaus review and evaluate the activities of the OSCE. The Resource Management Office (RMO) at USOSCE also conducts reviews of OSCE missions in the field to monitor performance. While these reviews are not independent of the federal agency (i.e. State), they are independent of the recipient organization (OSCE), and appear to be sufficient in scope. USOSCE's RMO has agreed to undertake a review of its programs on a regularly scheduled basis, including quarterly consultations with the OSCE Secretariat and a quarterly visit to at least one OSCE Institution, for the purpose of evaluating the programs' performance in relation to goals set out in the State Department's performance planning documents.

Evidence: UN Secretary General Reports, USOSCE Extra-budgetary Evaluation Form, USOSCE Extra-budgetary Report Requirements.

YES 14%
2.6

Is the program budget aligned with the program goals in such a way that the impact of funding, policy, and legislative changes on performance is readily known?

Explanation: UPDATED FOR 2005: In general and for these specific programs, State Bureau Performance Plans and Mission Performance Plans do not tie resource decisions to annual performance targets.

Evidence: 2005 MPP for USOSCE

NO 0%
2.7

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: UPDATED FOR 2005: State has revised its MPP for the USOSCE and addressed all of OMB's recommendations from the FY 2004 PART. The revised MPP contains long-term goals with annual targets, baseline information as well as a report on progress to date. The goals are also linked to the funding source. The revised MPP should be considered an example for other State programs to follow.

Evidence: 2005 MPP for USOSCE.

YES 14%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 86%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score
3.1

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: State program managers require and evaluate a variety of reports that address program performance and contract compliance. Since the East Timor programs are implemented by contractors, there are a number of reporting requirements that are built into contract agreements. The OSCE submits reports for a number of programs funded by PKO. However, information received in response to these reporting requirements should be better linked to key annual and long-term performance goals set out in State performance plans and should provide the basis for baseline information included in performance plans.

Evidence: Contract reports, OSCE reports, written explanations submitted by State program managers in support of the PART exercise.

YES 17%
3.2

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: UPDATED FOR 2005: To our knowledge, performance management contracts are not used for program managers. The 2005 PART guidance requires the program agency to identify the managers who are responsible for achieving key program results and establish performance standards for those managers. To our knowledge, this has not occurred.

Evidence: State memo submitted for FY 2005 PART

NO 0%
3.3

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: PKO funds, which have single-year availability, are obligated within the year appropriated. However, State program mangers have had difficulties in the past obligating the required 85% of funds before August 31 each year. Program managers have identified this problem and are working to address it. In addition, USOSCE now requires increased reporting from the OSCE to augment its ability to oversee the organization's obligation of funding.

Evidence: SF133s, written explanations submitted by State program managers in support of the PART exercise.

YES 17%
3.4

Does the program have incentives and procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The U.S. Mission to the OSCE was able to demonstrate (see Section II, question 1) that they have taken measures to improve the efficiency and quality of their resource tracking system.

Evidence: Written explanations submitted by State program managers in support of the PART exercise, contract documents, USOSCE MPP, USOSCE Extra-budgetary Tracking Form, USOSCE Standard Operating Procedures on Extra-budgetary Contributions, Assessments and Contract Invoices.

YES 17%
3.5

Does the agency estimate and budget for the full annual costs of operating the program (including all administrative costs and allocated overhead) so that program performance changes are identified with changes in funding levels?

Explanation: UPDATED FOR 2005: This question was deleted from the 2005 PART, so it did not seem appropriate to include it in the 2005 reassessment.

Evidence:  

NA 0%
3.6

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Procedures are in place to ensure that proper payments are made. Bills are received on a regular basis and reviewed by the appropriate agency officials before being certified for approval. In addition, USOSCE and State are taking steps to refine the implementation of procedures to avoid occasional lapses that have occurred in this process.

Evidence: Written explanations submitted by State program managers in support of the PART exercise, USOSCE MPP, USOSCE cables on bills.

YES 17%
3.7

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: State has identified oversight and performance planning problems with contributions provided to the OSCE for specific projects ("grants"). They are taking steps to improve oversight and require the OSCE to report on performance criteria. In addition, USOSCE created a Resource Management Office to allow them to better manage the U.S. resources provided to the OSCE.

Evidence: Written explanations submitted by State program managers in support of the PART exercise, USOSCE MPP, USOSCE Extra-budgetary Evaluation Form, USOSCE Extra-budgetary Report Requirements, USOSCE Extra-budgetary Contribution Tracking Form.

YES 17%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 84%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score
4.1

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome goal(s)?

Explanation: UPDATED FOR 2005: The 2005 USOSCE MPP includes measurable long-term and annual goals and reports on progress made to date towards those goals. The majority of the goals show that the annual targets, which measure progress toward the long-term goals, have been met.

Evidence: 2005 MPP for USOSCE

YES 25%
4.2

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: UPDATED FOR 2005: The 2005 USOSCE MPP includes measurable long-term and annual goals and reports on progress made to date towards those goals. The majority of the goals show that the annual targets, which measure progress toward the long-term goals, have been met.

Evidence: 2005 MPP for USOSCE

YES 25%
4.3

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Funding for the OSCE has been scaled back or realigned as requirements have changed. In addition, the U.S. backed an OSCE decision to let out bids for a contract to develop an integrated resource management system, which will enable the organization to improve its efficiency and management of resources.

Evidence: Written explanations submitted by State program managers in support of the PART exercise, CBJs and CNs reflecting funding adjustments based on program changes.

YES 25%
4.4

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: None of the measures in the common measures program relate to this program.

Evidence:  

NA 0%
4.5

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: UPDATED FOR 2005: Examples of independent evaluations were not made available to OMB for review.

Evidence:  

NO 0%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 75%


Last updated: 09062008.2003SPR