U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans

A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) - 2002

Goal 8: FY 2002 OIG Performance Report
Objective 8.1 of 2: To Improve the Department's Programs and Operations.
Indicator 8.1.1 of 5: Percentage of OIG Work Plan Goal 1 assignments initiated
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
% of first year Work Plan assignments initiated coinciding with the Performance Report
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
%
%
2002
62
65
Status: Target not met

Explanation: This is a new measure. While the target was substantially met, we will assess over time the appropriate target level.   		Additional Source Information: OIG Time and Travel Reporting System

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2003
Data Available: November 2003
Information is validated internally.

 
Indicator 8.1.2 of 5: Percentage of OIG Work Plan Goal 1 assignments that yield significant recommendations.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
% of first year Work Plan assignments initiated coinciding with the Performance Report producing significant recommendations.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
%
%
2002
76
75
Status: Target exceeded

Explanation: Significant monetary recommendation is defined as recovering monetary amounts of questioned, unsupported, or other dollars of $300,000 or more. It also includes the associated recommendation to establish/implement control techniques to prevent recurrence of the condition that results in the monetary finding or better use of funds of $500,000 or more. Significant nonmonetary recommendation is a recommendation to establish/implement procedures or control techniques to (1) improve the effective or efficient delivery of program services; (2) safeguard assets or prevent fraud, waste, or abuse; or (3) improve the integrity, accuracy, and completeness of management data involving a program, or a significant component of any program, funded at $500,000 or more annually   		Additional Source Information: OIG Audit and Analysis and Inspection Reports

Frequency: Other.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: November 2003
Validation done internally.

Limitations: The measure includes only recommendations from audit and inspection reports. Significant recommendations from other OIG services, such as quick response projects and advice and technical assistance are not included in this measure.

 
Indicator 8.1.3 of 5: The number and percentage of significant recommendations from OIG products that the Department accepted during the current fiscal year.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Significant recommendations accepted during the FY that coinciding with Report time frame. Accepted recommendations can be from OIG work in the current or a previous fiscal year.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
%
%
2002
99
80
Status: Target exceeded

Progress:


269 recommendations

  		Additional Source Information: OIG audit and inspection reports.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: November 2003
Internal OIG validation

Limitations: Based on self-reported data generated by ED staff

 
Indicator 8.1.4 of 5: The number and percentage of significant recommendations implemented within one year of acceptance by the Department.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
.The significant recommendations implemented during the FY.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
%
%
2002
82
70
Status: Target exceeded

Progress:


220 implemented

  		Additional Source Information: OIG audit and inspection records

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: November 2003
Validated by OIOG personnel

 
Indicator 8.1.5 of 5: Percentage of respondents indicating that OIG Goal 1 activity had a favorable impact in improving Departmental programs and operations.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Response from surveyed program officials, senior managers, and selected members of Congress.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
%
%
2002
 
75
Status: Unable to judge

Progress: New survey under development

Explanation: The OIG is developing a more comprehensive survey, which is designed to provide information about OIG performance in a number of areas instead of the one overall impact measure.   		Additional Source Information: Annual survey



 

Objective 8.2 of 2: To Protect the Integrity of the Department's Programs and Operations.
Indicator 8.2.1 of 9: Percentage of OIG Work Plan Goal 2 assignments initiated.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of first year Work Plan assignments initiated.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2002
67
65
Status: Target exceeded

Progress:


287 cases

  		Additional Source Information: OIG Time and Travel Reporting System

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: November 2003
Data is validated internally

 
Indicator 8.2.2 of 9: Percentage of OIG Work Plan Goal 2 assignments that yield significant recommendations.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
The percentage of first year Work Plan assignments completed for the FY that produced significant recommendations
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
%
%
2002
50
75
Status: Target not met

Explanation: Number of goal 2 recommendations insufficient (1 of 2)for statistical significance   		Additional Source Information: OIG audits and inspections

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: November 2003
Data validated internally.

Limitations: The measure includes only recommendations from audit and inspection reports. Significant recommendations from other OIG services, such as quick response projects and advice and technical assistance are not included in this measure.

 
Indicator 8.2.3 of 9: The number and percentage of investigations that are referred for criminal, civil, or administrative actions.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Referrals during the FY
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
%
%
2002
83
75
Status: Target exceeded

Progress:


287 cases

  		Additional Source Information: OIG Investigative Case Tracking System

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: November 2003
Information is validated internally

 
Indicator 8.2.4 of 9: The number and percentage of investigations that are referred for criminal, civil, or administrative actions that are accepted.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Measures, as based on close case universe
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
%
%
2002
68
85
Status: Target not met

Progress: There was a methodology change in how the statistic was derived. It is now based on the closed case universe that coincides with the Performance Report timelines. This is our baseline data and we will determine over time the appropriate annual target.

  		Additional Source Information: OIOG Investigative Case Tracking System

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: November 2003
Data is validated internally

 
Indicator 8.2.5 of 9: The number and percentage of accepted cases that result in judicial actions (e.g. indictments, civil filings, convictions, adverse personnel actions, and suspensions and debarments).
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Measure, as based on close case universe
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
%
%
2002
83
80
Status: Target exceeded

  		Additional Source Information: OIG Investigative Case Tracking System

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: November 2003
Data is validated internally

 
Indicator 8.2.6 of 9: Amount of monetary penalties, settlements, and recoveries.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Amount of court-ordered or administrative penalties/settlements and actual monetary recoveries from investigations.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Millions
No Target
2002
34.38
 


Explanation: Given the nature of our investigative work, this indicator must be used judiciously and in conjunction with other indicators. Criminal prosecution is not undertaken primarily to recover money. We have deleted performance targets for monetary recoveries to avoid the appearance of a lack of objectivity.   		Additional Source Information: Semi-annual Report to Congress (Audit Tracking System, Investigative Case Tracking System, Common Audit Resolution System, and Department of Justice).

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: November 2003
Validated By: Federal Statistical Agencies.
Numbers are validated internally and by the department of Justice.

 
Indicator 8.2.7 of 9: The number and percentage of significant compliance recommendations from OIG products that are accepted by the Department during the current fiscal year.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
significant recommendations accepted during FY 2002. Accepted recommendations can be from OIG work in the current or a previous fiscal year
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
%
%
2002
68
80
Status: Target exceeded

Progress:


68 recommendations

  		Additional Source Information: OIG audits and inspections

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: November 2003
Data is validated internally

 
Indicator 8.2.8 of 9: The number and percentage of significant monetary recommendations Implemented.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
monetary compliance recommendations implemented
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
%
%
2002
100
80
Status: Target exceeded

Progress:


3 recommendations

  		Additional Source Information: OIG audit and inspection reports

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: November 2003
Information is validated internally

Limitations: Not a statistically significant number of recommendations.

 
Indicator 8.2.9 of 9: Percentage of respondents indicating that OIG Goal 2 activity had a favorable impact in protecting the integrity of the Department's programs and operations.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
% of surveyed program officials, senior managers, selected members of Congress and their staffs.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
%
%
2002
 
75
Status: Unable to judge

Progress: New survey is being developed.

Explanation: The OIG is developing a more comprehensive survey, which is designed to provide information about OIG performance in a number of areas instead of the one overall impact measure.   		Additional Source Information: survey results

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: November 2003

 

Return to table of contents