Department of State PAR Pilot Perspective Sid Kaplan – Deputy Assistant Secretary Office of Strategic and Performance Planning Federal Financial Management Conference Washington, DC March 12, 2009

2 PAR Pilot Overview PAR Pilot established by OMB in May 2007 to explore different formats for enhancing the presentation of financial and performance information to Congress and the public. PAR Pilot Program reporting structure currently includes four reports:  Annual Financial Report (AFR): Provides overview of Department’s financial performance and results regarding the financial resources entrusted to us.  Budget, Performance and Financial Snapshot: Agency two-page report that includes the mission statement, financial performance, accomplishments, challenges and strategic goals with a few representative performance measures.  Citizens’ Report (formerly the Highlights Report): 25-page summary of agency mission, key goals, how funds are spent, performance relative to goals, and actions planned to build on successes or address shortcomings.  Annual Performance Report and Performance Plan (APR/APP): Includes FY 2008 annual performance report and FY 2010 performance plan in the Congressional Budget Justification.

3 PAR Pilot Advantages  Improved budget and performance information integration  All essential full PAR content retained  Reduced costs in preparing full PAR  Performance indicators fully incorporated into CBJ  Separate timing of report deadlines allows for improved reporting quality  More time to produce performance reporting components  Snapshot and Citizens’ Reports provide extremely condensed, concise and readable view of agency performance  Tailored report substance meets needs of various audiences  Opportunity to innovate – creative use of graphs, photos, charts, compact discs and Podcasts

4 PAR Pilot Challenges  Financial statements summarized and published with budget highlights, but not connected to or integrated with budget information (applies to FY 2007 PAR).  Agency Financial Reports have less exposure and distribution when not included as part of full PAR.  Intensity of work on Citizens’ Report during same timeframe as the preparation and negotiation of the FY 2010 budget.  OMB guidance not final until late in the cycle.

5 PAR Pilot Challenges, continued  OMB Snapshot Report software not fully tested and de-bugged.  A-11 language on performance rating categories changed.  Citizens’ Report page length can be restrictive.  Sequencing of report submission dates. Snapshot Report due before full Citizens’ Report summary materials prepared.  Transition year caused unique issues.

6 Recommendations For The Future  Timing: Harmonize submission schedules to avoid sequencing issues. Recommend Citizens’ Report due date of approximately 2/15 to ensure inclusion of performance results and out-year budget data.  OMB Guidance: Finalize all guidance and related circulars early in the PAR Pilot cycle.  Duplication: To avoid AFR and Citizens’ Report duplication, recommend no performance indicators in AFR.  Integration: Recommend better integration of budget information into performance section and analysis of resources requested, resources invested and results obtained. Include out-year budget data in Citizens’ Report.

7 Recommendations For The Future  Content: Recommend use of approved material as much as possible (Strategic Plan, CBJs, Hill testimony, other planning documents). Avoid new text (and clearances) as much as possible.  Distribution/Marketing: Recommend including PAR Pilot content in other forums such as web resources and hyperlinks. Leverage annual budget roll-out events, press releases and internal agency communications.  Report Composition: Preserve multi-report structure. Recommend retaining Snapshot Report and the Performance Report of the Federal Government.  Innovation: Allow agency flexibility on report content and design.  Scope: Incorporate new CPO agenda and PIO letter in reporting structure.

8 Unique State PAR Pilot Experiences State-USAID produced a FY 2007 Joint Highlights Report  State and USAID fully integrated for budget purposes  Combined report problematic for nuanced requirements  Decision-making time-consuming  Retaining agency-specific identity and branding  Different points of view on reporting substance

9 Contact Information Sid Kaplan Deputy Assistant Secretary Office of Strategic and Performance Planning Bureau of Resource Management (202)