Detailed Information on the
B.J. Stupak Olympic scholarships Assessment

Establishing targets for the program's annual and long-term performance measures.

Developing and implementing a strategy for making program performance data accessible to the public in a transparent way.

Develop and implement technical assistance and data quality strategies to improve performance reporting.

Proposing no funding for this program in the 2006 budget and redirecting program resources to need-based programs.

Working with the Congress to eliminate the program.

Measure: Persistence rate for Stupak scholarship recipients

Explanation:The annual percentage of Stupak scholarship recipients that continue their postsecondary education. (Targets under development.)

Measure: Graduation rate for Stupak scholarship recipients

Explanation:The percentage of Stupak scholarship recipients in their senior year of study that graduate. (Targets under development.)

Measure: Cost per scholarship recipient who persists or graduates.

Explanation:Cost per successful outcome where success is defined as persisting or graduation. (Targets under development.)

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The B.J. Stupak Olympic Scholarships program provides financial assistance to Olympic athletes who are pursuing a postsecondary education at an institution of higher education. ED is given statutory authority to, "provide financial assistance to the United States Olympic Education Center or the United States Olympic Training Center to enable such centers to provide financial assistance to athletes who are training at such centers and are pursuing postsecondary education at institutions of higher education."

Evidence: Title XV, Part E of the Higher Education Act (HEA)

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

Explanation: The program does not address a specific and existing national problem, interest or need. It duplicates Federal student financial assistance programs that are already available to Olympic athletes.

Evidence: N/A

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

Explanation: This program is redundant of other Federal student financial assistance programs. In addition to the vast amount of financial aid available through public and private institutions and foundations, Federal student financial assistance programs offer Olympic athletes the opportunity to pursue a postsecondary education.

Evidence: N/A

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

Explanation: By statute, the only entities eligible to receive Federal support through this program are the United States Olympic Committee's Education and Training Centers. Portions of both the Education Department's (ED) regulations and the President's Management Agenda are devoted to the premise that Federal investments are more effectively targeted through competitive processes rather than directed awards. As a result of the statutory structure of the program, funding is awarded to one specified grantee without regard to performance and there are only very minimal provisions within the authorizing statute to ensure that a high level of performance is maintained. This means that there is no competitive option and very little incentive for the grantee to improve outcomes based on a linkage of the program goals to grantee performance.

Evidence: See program authority in Title XV, Part E of the Higher Education Act. See also the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), 34 CFR Part 75.

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

Explanation: The implementation policies of the United States Olympic Committee ensure that the resources are targeted to a very specific group of highly qualified student athletes.

Evidence: The United States Olympic Committee has established rigorous eligibility criteria for distributing the resources available through this program. Only a very highly qualified group of student athletes are eligible for Olympic scholarships. An estimated 321 student athletes were funded over the past three years.

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 order to track the effectiveness of the program in achieving its goals, ED has developed a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program. They are: 1) The graduation rate of Olympic scholarship recipients 2) The persistence rate of Olympic scholarship recipients

Evidence: The measures reflect performance with regards to the ultimate goals of the program, ensuring that Olympic althletes persist in postsecondary education and graduate from institutions of higher education (IHEs).

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

Explanation: Ambitious targets and timeframes for these long-term measures are currently under development

Evidence: Targets for the long-term measures will be available in 2005.

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 order to track the effectiveness of the program in achieving its goals, ED has developed a limited number of specific annual performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program. They are: 1) The graduation rate of Olympic scholarship recipients 2) The persistence rate of Olympic scholarship recipients In addition, the program's efficiency measure will track the cost per successful outcome (college persistence).

Evidence: The measures reflect performance with regards to the ultimate goals of the program, ensuring that Olympic althletes persist in postsecondary education and graduate from IHEs.

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

Explanation: Ambitious targets and timeframes for these annual measures are currently under development

Evidence: Targets for the annual measures will be available by 2005.

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: While the program has not previously had explicit performance measures, it is clear that the goals of persistence and graduation are implicit in this scholarship program and were supported by the program's single grantee.

Evidence:  

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: No evaluations have been undertaken for this program.

Evidence: No plans exist to conduct an evaluation of this program due to its small scope.

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: ED has not satisfied the first part of the question because program performance changes are not identified with changes in funding levels. The program, at this time, does not have sufficiently valid and reliable performance information to assess (whether directly or indirectly) the impact of the Federal investment. However, ED has satisfied the second part of this question in that ED's budget submissions show the full cost of the program (including S&E). ED's 05 integrated budget and performance plan includes the program's annual and long-term goals.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: The program has identified strategic planning deficiencies and taken meaningful steps to address these deficiencies by developing its performance measures and identifying data collection weaknesses.

Evidence: As part of a comprehensive strategic review, ED has revised the performance measures for the BJ Stupak Olympic Scholarship program. The program has also initiated a process to revise program materials, such as application packets and annual performance reports, to reflect its new long-term and annual performance measures.

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 Department collects performance information on an annual basis from the grantee. Project performance information is not explicitly used to improve program performance, although it is used in grantee management including assessing the degree to which the grantee has achieved its stated goals and objectives. Once performance targets have been set, data will be used to measure progress in achieving program goals.

Evidence: Staff work with the project director to ensure that performance goals are consistent with the statute. It should be noted, however, that because of the statutory structure of the program, funding is awarded without regard to performance.

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: Currently, ED cannot demonstrate how federal managers and program partners are held accountable for program goals. However, the Department has initiated several efforts to improve accountability in its programs. First, ED is in the process of ensuring that EDPAS plans -- which link employee performance to relevant Strategic Plan goals and action steps ' hold Department employees accountable for specific actions tied to improving program performance. ED is also revising performance agreements for its SES staff to link performance appraisals to specific actions tied to program performance. Finally, ED is reviewing its grant policies and regulations to see how grantees can be held more accountable for program results.

Evidence: The President's Management Agenda scorecard (Human Capital and Budget & Performance Integration initiatives) notes ED's efforts to improve accountability. The Department's Discretionary Grants Improvement Team (DiGIT) recommendations indicate that ED is reviewing its grant policies and recommendations.

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

Explanation: At the Federal level, all funds are obligated according to an annual spending schedule that is established at the beginning of the fiscal year. At the grantee level, the funds are distributed through the grantee to the Olympic Training Centers. Scholarships are processed in conjunction with student financial aid offices. All awards were made by August of each year.

Evidence: Program financial management records

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: To date, the Department has not established procedures for this program to measure and achieve efficiencies in program operations. However, ED is in the process of developing its competitive sourcing Green Plan, and is working to improve the efficiency of its grantmaking activities. The Department has also established a strengthened Investment Review Board to review and approve information technology purchases agency-wide.

Evidence: Department Investment Review Board materials. ED's Discretionary Grants Improvement Team (DiGIT) recommendations.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program has implemented strategies to collaborate and coordinate activities with appropriate national and international organizations.

Evidence: The grantee coordinates activities with the National Athletic Sanctioning Bodies and the National Olympic Committee to approve athletes as well as a number of postsecondary institutions. Additionally, activities are also coordinated with a variety of national and international sporting organizations, as appropriate.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: No internal control weaknesses have been reported by auditors. Plus, the Department has a system for identifying excessive draw downs, and can put individual grantees on probation which requires Departmental approval of all grantee draw downs.

Evidence: Program financial management records

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

Explanation: Because this is a non-competitive award, ED has limited authority to modify grantee practices. While program staff ensure that program funds are allotted in a timely manner, the Department plays a limited oversight role in managing activities supported under this program. Still, ED is in the process of developing a revised technical assistance plan that focuses on the program's performance measures.

Evidence: N/A

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

Explanation: By statute, the only entities eligible to receive support under this program are the United States Olympic Committee's Education and Training Centers.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: The program has oversight practices that provide program managers with sufficient knowledge of grantee activities.

Evidence: As there is only one grantee associated with this program, communications and oversight issues are not as significant as they are in larger programs. The program staff are in regular communications with the grantee's program director in order to get information and offer technical assistance on matters pertaining to the program.

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: GPRA data are now reported in several formats, including on the Department's website. Basic award information on awardees and grant amounts is also available on the Department's web-site, but are not synthesized in a meaningful, transparent manner. ED is developing a department-wide approach to improve the way programs provide performance information to the public. In 2004, Education will conduct pilots with selected programs to assess effective and efficient strategies to share meaningful and transparent information.

Evidence: N/A

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

Explanation: Targets for the long-term measures are yet to be established.

Evidence: N/A

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

Explanation: Targets for the long-term measures are yet to be established.

Evidence: N/A

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

Explanation: The program has developed an efficiency measure. In future years this measure will allow the Department to assess the relative efficiency of the program.

Evidence: N/A

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

Explanation: There is no comparable data available to compare this program with other student financial aid programs.

Evidence: The Department may be able to make some comparisons in future years as performance measures for student assistance programs are implemented.

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

Explanation: No evaluations of this program have been conducted and there are currently no plans to conduct such a study.

Evidence: N/A