Detailed Information on the
Coast Guard: Polar Icebreaking Program Assessment

Administration proposes to reallocate funding for the polar icebreaking program to the budget for the National Science Foundation, which can contract for polar icebreaking services with the Coast Guard or other providers.

Measure: Percent success rate in meeting requests for icebreaking

Explanation:

Measure: Cost of NSF U. S. Antarctic Program + NSF funding of Arctic Research + other organization research funding / Cost of Polar Ops program

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the program is to break ice in the polar regions; to provide heavy polar icebreaker system capability support for U.S. national interests. However, it is not clear to what end it performs this function. A variety of possible answers, provided by multiple agencies, would include enabling National Science Foundation (NSF) programs, conducting oceanographic research, supporting U.S.military interests in polar regions, and protecting the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone around Alaska.

Evidence: 14 USC 2, 14 USC 93, 14 USC 94, 14 USC 141, 15 USC 4101, 15 USC 4109: all authorize or require Coast Guard to perform icebreaking.

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

Explanation: Breaking the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic is necessary for NSF and other agencies to conduct the U.S. Antarctic Program and the U.S. Arctic Research Program. Aside from NSF research, the other missions supported by the program are either very occasional (polar search and rescue) or theoretical (military requirements in the Antarctic).

Evidence: U.S. Antarctic Program Summary

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: While Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers provide support the U.S. Air Force Base in Greenland and could be used for other U.S. missions, Coast Guard polar icebreakers are the only U.S. assets capable of breaking polar ice throughout the year.

Evidence: Other nations with heavy icebreaking capability are Russia and the Baltics.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Although Coast Guard conducts this mission almost exclusively to support other agencies, primarily the National Science Foundation, it collects only a small percentage of the total operating costs through reimbursement from the other agencies. NSF is driving the costs of the Coast Guard program but is not itself bearing them, a market failure that precludes efficiency. The program is designed so that we cannot know if the costs of the program are justified by the benefits.

Evidence: 15 USC 4109 and 16 USC 2441 allow Coast Guard to be reimbursed only for recurring incremental costs associated with specific projects. In 2003, the direct costs of operating the polar icebreakers were $43m, total costs of the polar icebreaking mission were xx, and Coast Guard received only $9 million in reimbursements from other agencies.

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: This program may be subsidizing activities that would have occurred in its absence. NSF's work constitutes most of the work of the polar icebreaking mission. If NSF had to pay the full cost of operating the Coast Guard icebreaking program, it might find less costly solutions, including icebreakers owned by other countries.

Evidence: For example, USCG is officially responsible for supporting the resupply of Thule Air Force base in Greenland. However, because USCG polar icebreakers are located on the West Coast, USCG has an agreement for the Canadian Coast Guard to actually perform this mission. This situation is an example of how U.S. icebreaking needs in polar regions can be met without USCG involvement.

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

Explanation: In the past, CG has used as its measure a percent-success rate for meeting other agencies' (primarily NSF's) requests for icebreaking services. The goal is 100% every year. This measure is problematic because it does not take into consideration if the request is met effectively or efficiently. No performance measure was used in the 2004 performance report or 2005 Budget. CG has been developing a new measure, a science and logistics management index.

Evidence: USCG FY 2005 Congressional Budget JustificationUSCG FY 2004 Report www.uscg.mil/CG_2004_html/goals.html#iceDraft Polar Ice Operations measurement planPolar Ice Operations Mission Success index spreadsheets

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The measures used to date are not ambitious since CG has met 100% of all icebreaking support requested since the program began.

Evidence: Draft Polar Ice Operations measurement plan Polar Ice Operations Mission Success index spreadsheets

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

Explanation: In the past, CG has used as its measure a percent-success rate for meeting other agencies' (primarily NSF's) requests for icebreaking services. The goal is 100% every year. This measure is problematic because it does not take into consideration if the request is met effectively or efficiently. No performance measure was used in the 2004 performance report or 2005 Budget. CG has been developing a new measure, a science and logistics management index.

Evidence: USCG FY 2004 and 2005 Congressional Budget JustificationUSCG FY 2004 Report www.uscg.mil/CG_2004_html/goals.html#iceDraft Polar Ice Operations measurement planPolar Ice Operations Mission Success index spreadsheets

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The measures used to date are not ambitious since CG has met 100% of all icebreaking support requested since the program began.

Evidence: Draft Polar Ice Operations measurement plan Polar Ice Operations Mission Success index spreadsheets

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Coast Guard is essentially a partner in NSF's Arctic and Antarctic research programs. To date, Coast Guard's performance measures have not taken into consideration if or how well the research was completed.

Evidence: USCG FY 2004 and 2005 Congressional Budget JustificationNational Science Foundation FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf0410/start.htm

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) may begin an evaluation of this program in the next few years, as appropriate.

Evidence:  

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Coast Guard's budget requests include detailed performance information. Additionally, the CG's Mission Cost Program model provides comprehensive cost information for individual programs, including overhead and other indirect costs, as well as direct costs. Funding for Coast Guard is provided through assets and people that perform multiple missions, most of them demand-driven, making it impossible to predict exact relationships between funding levels and performance measures for individual programs.

Evidence: USCG FY 2004 Report

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

Explanation: CG is working to overhaul its polar ice operations measurements.

Evidence: www.uscg.mil/CG_2004_html/goals.html#ice

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: Annually or after each deployment, the program collects information on success of mission, operational risk, operational deficiencies, program deficiencies, and customer feedback. These factors are considered when managing the program.

Evidence: Deployment summary messages, deployment cruise reports, engineering reports

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: All officers within this program are held accountable for the performance of the program through the Officer Evaluation System (OES) and their individual Officer Evaluation Report (OER) which is done annually and or semi-annually. OERs directly impact promotion and assignment decisions. In fact, the OER is the ONLY required document that is looked at when considering assignment and promotion. Area and District program managers are also held accountable under the same system.

Evidence: Chapter 10, Coast Guard Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6); LCMA Items & Issue Papers; Q1 FY-04 PMA Report.

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

Explanation: The Coast Guard obligates substantially all (over 99%) operating funds (Operating Expense Appropriation) each year. Virtually all capital acquisition funds (Acquisition, Construction and Improvement Appropriation) are obligated prior to expiring. The Coast Guard's Office of Resource Management enforces the provisions of COMDTINST 7100.3 (series), Financial Resources Management Manual that specify quarterly spending rates and funding carry over limits.

Evidence: Estimated obligations by quarter in apportionments. Obligation rates are tracked monthly by the Coast Guard's Office of Resource Management. Quarterly spend down rates are enforced in accordance with the Financial Resource Management Manual, COMDINST M7100.3 (series).

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

Explanation: The efficiency measure is the cost of arctic & Antarctic research funding/the cost of Polar Ice Operations program. This measure is designed to provide a benefit to cost ratio of the polar science conducted to the cost of breaking ice to support that science.

Evidence: IT improvements have been implemented on all the polar icebreakers, including 24-hour internet access. The newest icebreaker, the Healy, greatly improved efficiency by increasing the vessel's capability while reducing manning requirements.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Although CG works closely with US Transportation Command, Candian Coast Guard, NSF, and the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System, its performance measures are not coordinated with its client agencies' and the client agencies do not pay a representative share of their costs of operating the icebreakers.

Evidence:  

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: DHS received a qualified opinion on its 2003 audit, due in part to problems with Coast Guard documentation. The audit also identified five material weaknesses in Coast Guard specifically. This audit presented a number of unique and, in some cases, one-time challenges. In counsultation with KPMG LLP, Coast Guard has crafted and is implementing a remedial plan.

Evidence: Independent Auditors' Report on DHS' Financial Statements, Audit Report Number OIG-04-10

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

Explanation: CNA program evaluation is underway. Additionally, Quality Performance Consultants assist the Coast Guard, Coast Guard units, and individuals in improving overall mission performance through improved management practices.

Evidence:  

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program does not have meaningful long-term performance goals.

Evidence: USCG FY 2004 Report www.uscg.mil/CG_2004_html/goals.html#ice

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

Explanation: The program does not have meaningful annual performance goals.

Evidence: USCG FY 2004 Report www.uscg.mil/CG_2004_html/goals.html#ice

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

Explanation: The efficiency measure is the cost of arctic & Antarctic research funding/the cost of Polar Ice Operations program. This measure is designed to provide a benefit to cost ratio of the polar science conducted to the cost of breaking ice to support that science.

Evidence: USCG FY 2004 Report www.uscg.mil/CG_2004_html/goals.html#ice

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: No other U.S. program perform a similar mission.

Evidence: N/A

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

Explanation: No evaluations have been completed.

Evidence: