Evaluations

Evaluations are a key part of USGS culture and are critical to maintaining our reputation for scientific excellence and credibility. The USGS conducts both peer and management reviews to evaluate our activities, consisting of both internal and external reviews by USGS and non-USGS scientists, technicians, or specialists who are not involved in the specific proposal, project, program, or product under review. The USGS goal is to seek an independent external peer review of ongoing programs about every five years, combined with more frequent independent internal management reviews. The evaluations are used for a number of purposes, including to: improve the accountability and quality of programs; identify and address gaps in programs; redirect or reaffirm program directions; identify and provide guidance for development of new programs; and reward and/or motivate managers and scientists.

A major partner in USGS external reviews is the National Research Council, which is conducting a study of the role of the USGS in the 21st Century, and has provided evaluations of USGS scientific activities in mineral and energy resources, volcanoes, and coastal and marine studies. The USGS also has a strong relationship with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), which has conducted a review of our mapping programs; evaluated factors that may limit access to USGS disaster information; and conducted a functional review of USGS human resources roles and responsibilities as part of continuing efforts to streamline.

The program evaluations that contributed to the Strategic Plan are listed in the following table.

These reviews and evaluations collectively shaped this plan. In particular, many evaluations stressed the need for more integrated and coordinated science at the USGS. For example:

• The National Research Council, in its review of the Coastal Marine Geology Program, recommended more centralized direction and management of the program.
• The Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Program Review recommended that the program´s research projects be more closely coordinated.
• The Global Change/Wetland Ecology Program Review recommended better integration of studies and disciplines. Many evaluations also stressed the need for improved applications and delivery of our science:
• The Gateway to the Earth workshop recommended better integration and delivery of USGS´ vast data holdings.
• The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping review recommended increased emphasis on interpretive geospatial science information.
• The National Digital Orthophoto Program (NDOP) Steering Committee recommended that USGS develop more applications to meet its mission requirements.
• The External Review of the Federal-State Cooperative Water Program recommended expansion of the streamflow monitoring network to deliver more comprehensive information to users of data.

The above bulleted recommendations contributed to the development of revised performance measures for real-time hazards information and support the plan´s emphasis on predictive modeling and decision support systems development. In addition, the Bureau´s internal review of its streamgaging network revealed that the previous long-term goal related to streamgaging, which counted the number of streamgages with telemetry, was not the best assessment of the utility of the network. As a result, a revised long-term target was developed based on the average number of gages reporting data on the World Wide Web.

Another important theme of these evaluations that was incorporated into the Strategic Plan is that of partnerships and collaboration. For example:

• The National Research Council recommended expanded partnerships with users of environmental data from the Energy Resources Program.
• Review of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program recommended increased emphasis on multi-level partnerships.
• The NDOP Steering Committee recommended that USGS work more closely with States to coordinate Federal requirements with State programs.

This emphasis on partnerships and customers is reflected in our performance measures for stakeholder meetings and customer satisfaction and in the many listening sessions held by USGS program managers to enhance USGS partnerships.

The following table shows evaluations planned for 2000 and 2001.