Detailed Information on the
University Nuclear Education Programs Assessment

Taking the steps necessary to terminate the program promptly in the coming year.

The program has been successfully terminated.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Assistance mission is to enhance the nation's nuclear education infrastructure to meet the manpower requirements of the Nation's energy, environmental, healthcare and national security sectors.

Evidence: Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Chapter 4, Section 31 on research assistance) and FY 2006 Budget.

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

Explanation: The program was originally designed to address declining enrollment levels among U.S. nuclear engineering programs. Since the late 1990's, however, enrollment levels in nuclear education programs have tripled. In fact, enrollment levels for 2005 have reached upwards of 1,500 students, the program's target level for the year 2015. In addition, the number of universities offering nuclear-related programs also has increased. Government support for these programs no longer appears necessary.

Evidence: The program was unable to provide evidence that it addressed a specific and existing problem, interest, or need.

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

Explanation: Aside from University Nuclear Education Programs, several other entities that directly benefit from an enhanced nuclear education infrastructure provide funds and support for nuclear education.

Evidence: There are non-federal contributors to the efforts of this program, including nuclear industry societies, national laboratories, national research institutes, regulatory bodies, and utilities.

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

Explanation: There is no readily available evidence of major flaws limiting the program's effectiveness or efficiency. The program utilizes a peer review process in an effort to allocate program funds to the most deserving applicants.

Evidence: Peer-review process instructions.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The competitive grants are restricted to U.S. colleges and universities with reactors or nuclear engineering or nuclear related programs. The solicitations and requests for proposals and ultimately the awards issued go directly to the colleges, universities, students and faculty who are working toward meeting the manpower requirements of the nuclear industry. An example of the benefits of the program can be illustrated in a recent past recipient from this program who is now an instructor at a Historically Black College and University (HBCU) that does not currently have a nuclear engineering program. The college's goal is to establish a nuclear engineering program, and the instructor has developed two nuclear engineering courses that he will teach in the fall of 2005.

Evidence: University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Assistance program's GPRA #63 Program Plan; FY 2006 Budget; Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 600, 601, 605,and 1036.

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: To date, the program has been process oriented. However, the program is currently developing long-term and annual performance measures. These measures will help direct the program towards meaningful outcomes rather than outputs.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: To date, the program has been process oriented. However, the program is currently developing long-term and annual performance measures. These measures will help direct the program towards meaningful outcomes rather than outputs.

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: To date, the program has been process oriented. However, the program is currently developing long-term and annual performance measures. These measures will help direct the program towards meaningful outcomes rather than outputs.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: To date, the program has been process oriented. However, the program is currently developing long-term and annual performance measures. These measures will help direct the program towards meaningful outcomes rather than outputs.

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: To date, the program has been process oriented. However, the program is currently developing long-term and annual performance measures. These measures will help direct the program towards meaningful outcomes rather than outputs.

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: To date, the program has not received or scheduled regular independent evaluations.

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: The budget request is prepared to support the program's goal: "enable, by 2015, the Nation's nuclear engineering universities to support a stable national undergraduate enrollment of approximately 1,500 to meet the Nation's need for trained nuclear scientists and engineers." When funding, policy and congressional decisions impact the program, the program staff re-evaluates and realigns resources to better achieve the program goal.

Evidence: FY 2006 Budget.

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

Explanation: To date, the program has been process oriented. Recognizing this deficiency, the program is currently developing long-term and annual performance measures. These measures will help direct the program towards meaningful outcomes rather than outputs.

Evidence:  

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: DOE-Idaho established the Report Tracking System (RTS) to ensure that award recipients are performing the requirements of the reporting requirements checklist. The ID program staff reviews the reports on a monthly basis for performance and financial compliance. In the event that grantees do not comply with their reporting requirements, corrective measures are applied. If the grantee is unable to meet the reporting requirements associated with the grant, then Contractor Officer can withhold the fund on other grants to that same institution. In addition, HQ also receives the RTS report on a quarterly basis to review financial and performance data. Problems are then reported to HQ and follow-up is made with performer if results are not adequate. Reports are submitted and logged to the RTS system and tracked and monitored for delinquency. HQ also conducts a financial and performance meeting with the Director of NE to address the progress toward executing the program's mission, performance measures and financial outlook of the program.

Evidence: RTS reports; Budget documents; Monthly Obligation, Cost & Performance Reports; and periodic stakeholders meetings.

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 program is currently developing long-term and annual performance measures. Starting in FY 2005 the financial assistance awards provided to the grantees will include the program's long-term goal. In addition, in FY 2006, the financial assistance awards will also include relevant annual performance measures that the grantee must support. Accountability will be assessed at peer reviews when prior year performance is evaluated as part of current year reviews and decisions.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: Program is executed in conformance with Congressional language and established program plans. Under performing activities (lack of obligations/costs) triggers increased scrutiny and an explanation from the awardee concerning lack of financial progress and whether funds were properly spent for the activities and purpose intended in the particular grant program. The program staff reviews the awardees explanation and if necessary develops corrective actions for the awardees to follow.

Evidence: Program Guidance Letters and associated Statements of Work; Notice of Financial Assistance Sheets; Monthly Obligation, Cost & Performance Reports; site visits; and program reviews.

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 program is currently developing efficiency measure(s).

Evidence:  

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program maintains close interactions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Labor on human resource needs.

Evidence: Nuclear Energy Institute 's (NEI) Workforce Task group includes other federal agencies, industry, trade unions, trade associations, and universities.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program uses the Department-wide financial management system to meet all statutory and regulatory requirements in the execution of this program. In addition, the program is in the process of establishing internal controls consistent with the principles of DOE Order 413.3 to execute the program.

Evidence: Annual Reporting for Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act; Industry Interactive Procurement System (IIPS); Annual DOE Performance Plan and Performance Appraisal Form; and full compliance with both the Anti-Deficiency and Impoundment Act.

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

Explanation: The program is in the process of implementing principles of DOE Order 413.3, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Assets, in the management of this program. The DOE Order 413.3 principles that University Nuclear Education Programs is implementing are performance requirements analysis; project management reviews, which include both internal NE reviews, DOE-wide reviews, and Independent reviews; establishing a more formalized change control process; and using earned value as a management tool. The program has developed a work breakdown structure (WBS), which feeds into the earned value system. The WBS reflects how University Programs organizes and manages its work. In addition, NE-HQ and NE-ID have implemented a certification program for all program/project mangers using the Department's Acquisition Career Development Program.

Evidence: Annual Reporting for Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act; Annual DOE Performance Plan and Performance Appraisal Form; Quarterly Performance Reporting in Joule; and Department Order 361.1, Chg. 2, Acquisition Career Development Program.

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

Explanation: The process is clearly defined in the solicitation or request for proposals and all are peer-reviewed. In addition, continuation/renewals are evaluated on an annual basis.

Evidence: DOE Merit Review Guidelines 10 CFR 600; Merit Review Procedures; and Merit Review Evaluation Forms.

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

Explanation: The program personnel work closely with the universities to manage activities. In addition, the program personnel conduct site visits and attend evaluation/review sessions conducted by the award recipient. Recipients of radiochemistry awards provide annual reports updating the program on progress.

Evidence: Established list of sites visited; program evaluation minutes and recommendations, and annual reports from radiochemistry beneficiaries.

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: NE collects performance data on an annual basis however it is not currently publicly available. During FY 2006, University Nuclear Education Programs will develop a vehicle to provide performance data publicly.

Evidence: Annual reports from grantees.

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

Explanation: To date, the program has been process oriented. However, the program is currently developing long-term and annual performance measures. These measures will help direct the program towards meaningful outcomes rather than outputs.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: To date, the program has been process oriented. However, the program is currently developing long-term and annual performance measures. These measures will help direct the program towards meaningful outcomes rather than outputs.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: The program is currently developing efficiency measure(s).

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: The program is currently developing long-term and annual performance measures and efficiency measure(s). Once established, these measures can be used to compare the program to similar programs at other federal agencies as well as to those operated by industry and academia.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: To date, the program has not received or scheduled regular independent evaluations.

Evidence: