Detailed Information on the
Denali Commission Assessment

Focus the program on its role as a regional planner and investment coordinator to increase efficient investment in areas of high distress.

Develop and implement a performance evaluation of community and economic development programs.

Share performance data and research results among Federal agencies to better understand the link between Federal investments and overall community-level change.

Measure: Number of distressed communities in rural Alaska.

Explanation:This is how the Denali Commission measures the overall economic vitality of the area it serves.

Measure: Number of bulk fuel facilities constructed or renovated to be code compliant with U.S Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Agency standards.

Explanation:This links with strategic goal 1, providing for Alaskans' infrastructure needs.

Measure: Number of primary health care facilities constructed to renovated to provide reasonable access to health care

Explanation:This links with strategic goal 1, providing for Alaskans' infrastructure needs.

Measure: Percent increase in employment 7-12 months after Denali Commission Training

Explanation:This links with strategic goal 2, employability.

Measure: Percent increase in median earnings 7-12 months after Denali Commission Training.

Explanation:This corresponds with strategic goal 2, employability.

Measure: Cost per participant of Denali Commission Training

Explanation:This relates to strategic goal 4, efficiency

Measure: Percent increase in median earnings 5 years after Denali Commission Training

Explanation:This relates to strategic goal 4, efficiency.

Measure: % of funding spent on overhead

Explanation:This relates to strategic goal 4, efficiency.

Measure: Ratio of projects to FTEs

Explanation:This relates to strategic goal 4, efficiency.

Measure: Percentage of Bulk Fuel Facilities determined to be non-code compliant by U.S. Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Agency standards (172) that are now code compliant through construction or renovation

Explanation:Long term outcome of the Bulk Fuel Program

Measure: Percentage of Rural Primary Care Facilities that did not provide reasonable access to health care as identified in in the Primary Care Needs Assessment that now provide resonable access to health care through construction or renovation

Explanation:

Measure: Percent increase in employment among trainees 5 years after Denali Commission Training

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Denali Commission's mission is to: (1) deliver the services of the Federal Government in the most cost effective manner practicable by reducing administrative and overhead costs, (2) provide job training and other economic development services in rural communities, particularly distressed communities (many of which have a rate of unemployment that exceeds 50 percent), and (3) promote rural development, provide power generation and transmission facilities, modern communications systems, water and sewer systems and other infrastructure needs.The Denali Commission partners with tribal, federal, state, and local governments and collaborates with Alaskans to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government services, to develop a well-trained labor force employed in a diversified and sustainable economy, and to build and ensure the operation and maintenance of Alaska's basic infrastructure.

Evidence: Denali Commission establishing legislation, available at www.denali.gov/Legislation.cfm?Section=DC_Act and "purpose" section of Denali Commission website, www.denali.gov/Legislation.cfm?Section=DC_Purpose.

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

Explanation: Specific issues and needs addressed by the Denali Commision include: (1)Lack of a well-trained labor force in rural Alaska. In 2002 over 70% of residents in 54 rural Alaska communities were unemployed and over 70% of residents in 128 rural Alaska communities made less than minimum wage of $14,872. (2)Lack of diversified economy in rural Alaska communities. Twenty-seven percent of rural Alaska households are below the poverty line. Jobs are also much harder to come by in remote rural areas, yet 42 percent of the Native Alaskan population lives in remote areas. (3) Insufficient public infrastructure in rural Alaska communities impacts the quality of life of Alaskans and hinders economic development opportunities. Alaska's infrastructure needs have been estimated at $13 billion. Specifically, primary health care facility needs are estimated at approximately $145 million, which takes into consideration the physical condition of clinics and the isolation of communities from primary health care facilities. New hospital needs are estimated at $322 million. (4) Government Services are not efficiently delivered to rural Alaska communities. The Denali Commission works to systematize planning and coordination on a local, regional and statewide basis to achieve the most effective results from investments in infrastructure, economic development, and training.

Evidence: Memorandum of Understanding page 2 section B states the recognition by all state and federal agencies that planning and coordination will achieve effective results The Denali Commission Distressed Community Criteria 2004 Update compiled by the State of Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development shows unemployment and earnings for rural Alaska communities Status of Alaska Natives Report: 2004 Volume 1 page 13 shows the 2000 Census Poverty statistics for Rural Alaska Denali Commission Strategic Plan Appendix A page 20-26 provides further evidence of identified need in rural Alaska infrastructure Development as referenced in the explanation

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

Explanation: GAO recently identified 73 federal programs that can be used for economic development activities, or for activities that could be considered related to economic development. These programs cover rural and urban populations in communities across the country and include an element of local planning in the use of funds. While the Denali Commission focuses on economic development in Alaska, there are a number of other federal programs that address the same needs and provide the same types of assistance including EDA, USDA, and HUD. For example, funding for health care facilities is provided by the Denali Commission, USDA's Community Facilities program and HUD's Indian Community Development Block Grant program. The Federal government invests approximately $17 billion each year in community and economic development in distressed communities through approximately 30 grant and loan programs and tax incentives across 11 agencies. While the Denali Commission provides a unique coordination role, federal economic and community development programs are largely uncoordinated, loosely targeted and not focused on results.

Evidence: Sept. 2000 GAO study. - Multiple Federal Programs Fund Similar Economic Development Activities. Ten agencies and 27 subagency units administer 73 programs that can be used to support one or more of the six activities directly related to economic development -- planning; constructing or renovating non-residential buildings; establishing business incubators; constructing industrial parks; constructing roads and streets and constructing water and sewer systems.

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

Explanation: The Denali Commission requires all programs and projects to leverage additional funding and resources to match the Commission's federal investment. In addition the Commission partners with other Federal, State or private agencies to deliver services. This effective approach is evident in the Denali Commission Strategic Plan which has the following three relevant guiding principles: 1) 'The Denali Commission will generally not select individual projects for funding nor manage individual projects, but will work through existing state, federal or other appropriate organizations to accomplish its mission' 2) "Priority will generally be given to projects with substantial cost sharing.' 3) 'The Denali Commission will give priority to funding needs that are most clearly a Federal responsibility.'

Evidence: Denali Commission Act of 1998

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

Explanation: The Denali Commission funds projects in 'rural communities, particularly distressed communities,' the intended beneficiaries as defined in the Denali Commission Act of 1998. While the Commission has established Distressed Community Criteria defined as per capita income no greater than 67% of U.S. average, 150% of U.S. average or greater of poverty rate, and 3-year unemployment rate of 150% of U.S. avereage or greater, only 44% of that funding going to distressed communities. A non-distressed community is subject to a 50% match for health facilty develpment, whereas a distressed community is only required to produce a 20% cost-share match. The Denali Commission uses distressed community criteria to guide investments, but has developed "needs assessments" to address the two areas--rural communities with inadequate access to health facilities and communities with inadequate bulk fuel facilities. While both distressed and non-distressed communities fit these criteria, the Commission has identified its targeted beneficiaries as those rural communities with inadequate health facilities and bulk fuel facilities. However, OMB and the Commission should continue to work to identify best practices in targeting funds to help meet the Commission's long-term goal of moving communities from a non-attained economic situation to an attained economic situation.

Evidence: Denali Commission Act of 1998 outlines the intended recipients in the Purpose of the Act: "To provide job training and other economic development services in rural communities particularly distressed communities (many of which have a rate of unemployment that exceeds 50 percent)". See www.denali.gov/Legislation.cfm?Section=DC_Act.Distressed Community Criteria compiled by the State of Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development.Alaska Rural Primary Care Facility Needs Assessment. Performed by a multi-agency steering committee made up of the Denali Commission, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Indian Health Service and State of Alaska Department of Health and Social ServicesBulk Fuel Storage Deficiency Rankings List conducted by the Alaska Energy Authority and Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. Denali Commission Pie Chart on Distressed Community funding

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: The 5-year Strategic Plan identifies four long-term goals. Long-term performance measures address the purpose of the program and focus on outcomes. These measures include: 1. reduction in the number of distressed communities 2. reduction in the percent of bulk fuel facilities not in compliance with U.S. Coast Guard and EPA standards 3. increase in the percent of inadequate health facilities that have been renovated or constructed to an adequate status 4. percent increases in employment and wages 5 years after Denali Commission job training

Evidence: Denali Commission Strategic Plan identifies 4 strategic goal areas: 1) develop Alaska's physical infrastructure, focusing on health and bulk fuel storage; 2) increase employability of Alaskans through job skills training and experience working on Denali Commission projects 3) increase the economic vitality of Alaska with financial and technical resources; and 4) ensure that federal and state resources and used efficiently. These long-term goals are measured through specific long-term performance measures outlined in the explanation section. For backup, see: 4-Year Bulk Fuel Plan 7-Year Health Facilities Plan as contained in the Denali Commission Strategic Plan (page 22) Alaska Rural Primary Care Facility Needs Assessment. Distressed Community Criteria. State of Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development Wages and Employment Report.

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

Explanation: The Commission has established ambitous targets and timeframes given significant reductions in funding levels.

Evidence:  

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: Annual measures include: Goal 1 (Infrastructure): a) number of bulk fuel facilities constructed or renovated; b) number of primary health care facilities constructed. These lead to the ultimate outcome of ensuring Alaskan access to basic infrastructure needs. The long-term targets for each of these infrastructure goals are based on independent needs assessments. Goal 2 (Employability): a) percentage increase in wages 7-12 months after Denali Commission training; b) median earnings 7-12 months after Denali Commission training. Goal 3 (Economic Vitality): The Denali Commission does not have specific short-term measures related to this, although it has a long-term measure (number of distressed communities) that addresses this issue. The Commission should develop an annual measure to correspond with the long-term measure such as 'number of jobs created or retained.' Goal 4 (Efficiency of Operations): a) cost/participant of Denali Commission training; b) percentage of funding spent on overhead; c) ratio of FTEs to projects.

Evidence: Although the Denali Commission lacks long-term performance measures, it has clearly-articulated long-term goals and uses the measures outlined in the explanation to this question to reach those goals. The goals are listed in the evidence section of 2.1.

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

Explanation: All measures have baselines and annual targets. Some targets warrant highlighting -- for example, the target for the percent of funding spent on overhead is the statutory requirement; this is not "ambitious," but mirrors the ceiling set by the establishing legislation. In addition, the 2004 target the ratio of FTEs to project is "under development," although fiscal year 2004 is more than three-quarters over. In the future, DC should ensure that targets are established before the start of the fiscal year.

Evidence:  

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: The Commission has in place, where appropriate, performance measures in awards to partners and grant recipients. The award to the Alaska Department of Labor to manage the Commission's training activities requires them to produce the median income and employment numbers used for the long and short term measures of the Commission. For energy projects, grantees are required to submit cost and schedule information into the project database on a quarterly basis. This database tracks such performance as average cost to produce a gallon a fuel.

Evidence: Denali Commission's Financial Assistance Awards On-line Reporting "Wizard" Various Inter-agency agreements and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) report card

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 Denali Commission has not created a schedule of independent impact evaluations of its programs. Currently, Commissioners conduct a review on a quarterly basis, the Inspector General conducts project audits and an independent advisory committee reviews energy facility program development and health care issues. However, these do not qualify as evaluations of sufficient quality, scope, and independence. While many of these reviews highlight important issues, they do not assess how Denali's collective activities are improving economic conditions in rural Alaskan communities. Rather, the Denali Commission should look to conduct a program evaluation that assesses the impact of programs on Alaskan communities by focusing on how Denali affects and influences the desired outcomes (e.g., health care, jobs, safety, etc.). This evaluation should help the Denali Commission fill gaps in performance information, examine the ways in which the Denali Commission is being effective, and identify areas in need of improvement (e.g., targeting, leveraging, duplicating successful development strategies, etc.).

Evidence: Denali Commission Auditability Assessment Inspector General Reports

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: The Commission's budget request and justification do not break down program funding by strategic goal or link to the strategic planning process. Budget requests do not explain how funding levels impact performance or explain why the funding request is appropriate given expected performance.

Evidence: FY2005 Budget Justification.

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

Explanation: The Denali Commission has developed and utilized a 'needs assessment' process to prioritize bulk fuel and health projects. In addition, the Commission developed a work plan for fiscal year 2005 and a five-year strategic plan (2005-2009). These plans define the desired conditions the Denali Commission is working to achieve and set forth annual performance measures for FY 2005. In addition, the Denali Commission is working with OMB to develop an appropriate program evaluation to examine trends in rural Alaskan communities and assess the extent to which activities the Commission is investing in are having an impact on helping to meet these communities' needs.

Evidence: FY 2005 Work Plan and 5-Year Strategic Plan. FY 2005 budget justification Denali Commission Investment Policy

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: The Denali Commission established an On-line Project Database that maintains performance information from all financial award recipients and makes that data accessible to the Commission staff, partner agencies and the public. The information collected from this on-line reporting process is delivered directly to Program Managers. Included in this data collection is information on the cost, schedule and scope of every project Denali funds. The Commission uses these data to improve performance and efficiency. For example, the Commission used data on the cost per square foot of facilities to implement a cost containment policy that now outlines the approved costs per unit for all energy projects and requires approval from the Commission for any project that deviates from these standards. The Denali Commission's investment policy is also used to improve performance and efficiency. The investment policy guides funding decisions for the Commission and sets the guidelines for community size, environmental threats, population trends and other factors that the Commission uses to make investment decisions.

Evidence: Denali on-line project database system, available at: http://steller.denali.gov/dcpdb/index.cfm?action=dsp&type=home&CFID=46389&CFTOKEN=38607961 Denali Commission's Investment Policy (April 2004) Cost Containment Policy (revised April 2002)

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: The on-line project database collects information from grantees that demonstrate whether they are meeting the approved cost, schedule and performance outlined in their financial assistance award. Projects that do not submit information are suspended from receiving further payments. The Commission has suspended drawdown privileges of several award recipients in the past for non-compliance. This action prevents a recipient from drawing any additional federal funding until compliance is achieved. The Commission has also withdrawn or delayed projects in the past for issues such as misuse of materials, failure to acquire land and lack of required reporting. The Commission conducts initial business planning review, and if this identifies the project as non-sustainable, then the Commission terminates project funding. Partners must engage in a planning and design phase and agree to cost and performance expectations prior to the funding of a project.

Evidence: On line Project Database Denali Commission Investment Policy Example of Letters sent to recipients suspending US Treasury's Automated Standard Application for Payments (ASAP) privileges

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

Explanation: Federal funds are obligated in a timely manner. The Denali Commission obligates funds throughout the fiscal year as they become available and carries forward less than 1% of un-obligated funds each year. The Denali Commission Act mandates that overhead be limited to 5%, with over 95% of funds going to the programs themselves. Program funds are allocated among programs according to the Strategic Plan, Work Plan and Denali Commission approval. Within each program area, funds are allocated to specific projects according to the Health Facility Needs Assessment and Bulk Fuel Deficiency Rankings established in cooperation with other State and Federal agencies. When award progress reports are submitted by recipients, reported expenditures are cross-checked and validated against the draw-downs, creating an auditable trail of where and for what purpose funds were spent. The Denali Commission's Inspector General receives all of the Single Audits from the Federal Clearinghouse when Denali Commission is identified as a major program and then communicates any necessary corrective action with the Chief of Staff, who follows up as needed.

Evidence: Inspector General audits

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 Denali Commission adopted a Cost Containment Policy for Energy Projects that ensures that all projects meet cost containment benchmarks outlined. The Commission also passed an Investment Policy, which ensures that federal funds are focused on communities that are not threatened by environmental, size or other conditions that would make the federal investment vulnerable. Sustainability is the foundation on which all investments made by the Commission are based. The Commission adopted a Sustainability Resolution in its first years that outlines the ways in which grantees must pass strict measures of business planning, operations and maintenance review, and other procedures to ensure that the federal investment will be sustained for the life expectancy of such a facility and have sufficient funds for renewal and replacement of the facility in the future. Finally, the Commission is bound by statute to limit the percent of funds spent on overhead to less than five percent. Other efficiency measures assess the number of FTEs needed per project and the cost per participant for job training activities.

Evidence: Denali Commission Cost Containment Policy Denali Commission Investment Policy Denali Commission Sustainability Resolution and Policy

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Coordination and collaboration with other State, Federal and partner agencies is key to Denali Commission activities. The Commission has established a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with all State and Federal agencies to coordinate resource allocation. The MOU has led to meaningful implementation and standing committees to encourage coordination and collaboration of State and Federal agencies in Denali Commission program areas and general development of Alaska communities. A Report Card of the MOU is produced on an annual basis to review specific results from agency coordination and collaboration under the MOU. An example of increased coordination and collaboration through this MOU process is improvements made in housing development and water treatment infrastructure investments. In the past, the State of Alaska Village Safe Water (VSW), which is responsible for development of rural water and sewer systems, was not allowed to provide assistance to connecting homes to water and sewer infrastructure, so new houses built by the HUD were not connected to water and sewer. Through the MOU work group of Housing and Infrastructure as reported in the MOU Report Card, VSW can now provide housing connections for HUD housing resulting in delivery of services to residents.

Evidence: The Denali Commission Act of 1998 and the Denali Commission Strategic Plan identify Goal #2 as 'improve coordination to enhance delivery of government services.' Denali Commission's State and Federal Agency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Memorandum of Understanding Report Card which demonstrates coordinated federal and state agency activity that was conducted as a result of the MOU Alaska Energy Authority Financial Assistance Award Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Financial Assistance Award Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Financial Assistance Award Alaska Department of Health and Social Services Financial Assistance Award Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 'Training For Jobs' FY04 Training Proposal Alaska Growth Capital Financial Assistance Award USDOL Draft Interagency Agreement DHHS 'HRSA Interagency Agreement HUD Draft Interagency Agreement USDA-RUS Interagency Agreement EPA Interagency Agreement

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Strong financial management practices are in place to ensure that proper payments are made for the intended purposes, the US Treasury's Automated Standard Application for Payments (ASAP) system is utilized. Recipients are required to enroll in the system with Treasury and have unique identifiers for each financial assistance award, causing recipients to drawdown funds only against specific awards. Use of the ASAP system reduces the risk of erroneous payments. When award progress reports are submitted by recipients, reported expenditures are cross-checked and validated against the draw-downs, creating an auditable trail of where and for what purpose funds were spent. The Denali Commission employs a financial management system that meets all statutory requirements. All required federal financial reports are generated from the system. Financial information in both the web-based project database and the financial management system is updated at least weekly by the contracted accountancy service with direct information from the ASAP system. Figures are cross checked by the Grants Administrator and Director of Operations & Finance. As the Denali Commission has not yet been audited, no audit statements can be offered, but OMB will carefully assess any future audits.

Evidence: On-line Project Database Denali Commission Pre-Audit

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

Explanation: The Denali Commission's 'system' for identifying management deficiencies is the actual Denali Commission itself, which meets at least twice annually and is provided a review of program activities and passes policies and resolutions that address any management deficiencies. Realizing that infrastructure development in rural Alaska was vulnerable to lack of proper operations and maintenance due to limited skills and knowledge in the communities, the Commission adopted a Sustainability Resolution in September 2001 that defines the Commission's commitment to sustainability including: analyzing and ensuring that all costs associated with operations and maintenance of the facility will be paid for during the life of the facility and a requirement for business plans before construction. To ensure wise use of federal resources the Commission recently adopted a formal Investment Policy (April 2004) that sets guidelines for evaluating project costs and scope of work pursuant to population, environmental threats such as erosion and other limiting factors. The Commission adopted a Cost Containment Policy in April 2002 after realizing that projects of similar scope had varying total costs. The Cost Containment Policy sets benchmarks that must be met for energy projects.

Evidence: Nelson Lagoon Bulk Fuel Storage Project Business Operating Plan City of Sand Point Primary Care Facility Business Plan is attached Denali Commission Sustainability Resolution and Policy Denali Commission Investment Policy Denali Commission Cost Containment Policy Final Denali Commission Project Cost Containment Assessment Projects in Various Alaska Villages April 8, 2002 Final AEA Bulk Fuels Program Management Audit 1999 Commission Funded Bulk Fuels Projects Various Alaska Villages August 2000

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: The Denali Commission has programs related to its four goal areas, each with a different approach to competitively awarding funding. As previously described, an independent needs assessment list has been completed for both Power and Bulk Fuel by the Alaska Energy Authority in conjunction with many State and Federal agencies. This list identifies the communities with the most need, based on the deficiency of facilities. Funding is not guaranteed to communities even if they are at the 'top of the list' but instead first must pass the Commission's Sustainability Policy, Investment Policy and Cost Containment Policy. Therefore the Commission's Energy Program is based on a needs list and is 100% peer reviewed by Partner agencies. The Denali Commission's Health Facility Program is managed competitvely through the use of a Health Care Steering Committee which is made up of all State, Federal, and private experts in the field of health. The Commission allocates 100% of funding in this competitive manner. In addtion 100% of the funds used for economic development are awarded through a competitive process and reviewed by an independent panel.

Evidence: Grant Applications 4-Year Bulk Fuel Plan 7-Year Health Facilities Plan as contained in the Denali Commission Strategic Plan (page 22)

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The Commission has a Project Database that requires recipients to provide regularly scheduled reports (at least annually, most submit reports quarterly) to Program Managers for each of the Commission's programs, which provides real-time knowledge of grantee activities. Single audits are required of all grantees, as set forth by law. Inspector General, GAO, Independent Audit of Partners, and oversight by State and Federal regulatory agencies all are further evidence of oversight on fund recipients.

Evidence: Denali Commission Project Database Final AEA Bulk Fuel Program Management Audit 1999 Commission Funded Bulk Fuels Projects Various Alaska Villages Single Audit for Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The Commission requires all fund recipients to submit reports on-line to the Denali Commission Project Database. Reporting by recipients is on a project-by-project basis and includes the following information: expenditures to date, milestones reached during reporting period, cost estimates for next project phase, estimated completion dates for project phases, changes to scope, schedule or cost, and attachments of reports, documents and project before, during and after pictures.The data collected through this on-line reporting is provided to Program Managers and is posted on the Commission's publicly-accessible website. The public is able to access project level information including the current expenditure as last reported, project phase, project scope of work, project estimated cost to completion and estimated time of completion, attachments of actual financial awards between fund recipients and the Denali Commission, and any project reports or documents such as business plans, and pictures. The public is able to access project and program information in the roject database such as: Project at a Glance, roject List, Needs List, Resolutions, and Denali Training Fund Project List, as well as financial reports. The public can also access information by Community. The Commission also produces an publically available interactive annual report.

Evidence: Welcome to the Project Database Printout (www.denali.gov)

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

Explanation: The Denali Commission has begun to demonstrate progress in meeting the health care and energy needs of rural Alaskan communities. "Needs assessments" have led to prioritized lists of communiteis that have inadequate access to health care facilties and deficient bulk fuel facilities. However, data on whether the number of distressed Alaskan communities is decreasing and evaluations on the impact of Denali's investments on the economic viability of these communities is not yet available. Therefore, the Denali Commission has received a "small extent."

Evidence: Performance measures

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

Explanation: The Commission has exceeded targets in several areas -- number of bulk fuel facilities constructed or renovated, number of primary health care facilities constructed, and ratio of FTEs to projects. However, data on other measures such as increases in employment and wages as a result of job-training investments is only now becoming available from the State of Alaska's Department of Labor.

Evidence: Performance measures 2002 IG report

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

Explanation: The Denali Commission has outlined several relatively new efficiency measures. For two of these, 2003 was the base year so there is little data on whether Denali has improved efficiency in these areas. Additional evidence is noted in the Inspector General Report of November 19, 2002 which states: 'Project completions are increasing and are in line with the normal pattern of agency start-up operations and the requirements for approval and installations of infrastructure facilities ' a condition that is exacerbated in Alaska due to the short construction season in most of the rural villages". In addition, to the per unit cost efficiency measure--"cost per job training participant"--Denali is exploring establishing benchmarks for bulk fuel and health facility programs that tie to the Commission's cost containment policies.

Evidence: Performance measures 2002 IG report

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

Explanation: There are no comparative studies that assess Denali's strengths and weaknesses relative to other community and economic development programs. Among federal programs involved in community and economic development, the Denali Commission has a strong prioritization process. However, due to the lack of program evaluations it is unclear how projects link to the larger goal of improving the economies of rural Alaskan communiteis. In the one area where the Commission has established an ambitious outcome goal of reducing the number of distressed communities, performance information is not yet available to assess the Commission's progress in meeting this goal. This is largely due to the fact that the Denali Commission was only recently established in 1998. The program's strength is its collaboration with other federal, state, tribal and non-governmental partners and therefore partial credit is warranted.

Evidence: PART assessments for EDA, ARC, Delta Regional Authority, CBDG Strategic Plans for HUD, EDA, ARC

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

Explanation: As stated in question 2.6, the Denali Commission has not received any evaluation of sufficient scope, quality or independence. The only evaluation to date is the IG report of November 2002, which states: 'Visits to the various villages, as well as discussions with the residents, provided ample and repeated demonstration that the Commission is an obvious success. The flexibility afforded the Commission allows it to achieve many things quickly in coordination with its partners. Visits to the villages leave one with the impression that the Commission has been around for many years.' However, the IG report does not meet the standards set forth in the PART guidance for rigor. It is based on observation rather than quantitative analysis or experimental design. Over the next year, OMB and Denali will address appropriate evaluation design methodolodies for program activities.

Evidence: 2002 IG study