ExpectMORE.gov evaluates programs based on a series of questions that may not be relevant to all programs. It also assumes programs have adequate resources.
A military base maintenance program may not be able to set long term goals, the endangered species program can not demonstrate great success, perhaps because it is demonstrably underfunded, the bird banding office is a service, not goal oriented. The intention was on the surface a good one, at another level, it was a way to "show" programs did not work and were not worth funding, so they could be cut. Congress apparently expects little of ExpectMORE as it has ignored the program and cut few of the programs with low evaluations. David Duffy ----- Original Message ----- From: Lyndell Bade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, June 23, 2008 7:49 pm Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ineffective federal programs? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > I'm more than puzzled. I'm dumbfounded. If you > merely browse through the > not-performing federal programs, the list is staggering. > The programs > listed can not possibly be not-performing. > > *Even the most straightforward forestry, conservation, > education, social > services, housing, agricultural, and military programs are not- > performing.*I'm sure this administration would love to argue > that conservation and > social service programs are not-performing. But even if > you ignore their > analysis of environment, biology, and conservation programs, > there is still > something seriously wrong with their "results". > > There has to be a problem with the statistical reporting, > analysis, and > evaluation. When base operations and support for the > Marines and Air > Force are listed as not-performing programs, there is something > severelywrong with their evaluation. *How can a program > merely meant to provide > funding and daily operations support for military bases be not- > performing?* It > makes no sense. It's ridiculous. > > I'm not arguing about the role of the modern military or the > administration's foreign policy decisions. I'm merely > pointing out that the > logic and programmatic analysis is terribly flawed when support and > logistics programs are reported as not-performing. I'm > sure the money was > used for support and logistics...and so then it couldn't have failed. > > I'm still floored by the absurdity! > > Lyndell > > > On 6/23/08, Kraemer, George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > A I browsed the NASA site (thanks to Jim Hansen), I ran across > a puzzling > > link at the bottom of the page: ExpectMORE.gov ( > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/index.html). > > > > My curiosity piqued, I looked further and was informed that > the FWS > > Endangered Species Program and the Migratory Bird Management and > > Conservation Program, and the ACoE Aquatic Ecosystem > Restoration Program are > > "not performing" since "results (are) not demonstrated." > > > > Do the experts really feel this way? > > George P. Kraemer > > Associate Professor of Environmental Studies and Biology > > Chair, Environmental Studies Program Purchase College (SUNY) > > > > David Cameron Duffy Ph.D. Professor/PCSU Unit Leader/CESU Director PCSU/CESU/Department of Botany University of Hawaii Manoa 3190 Maile Way, St John 410 Honolulu, HI 96822 USA Tel 808-956-8218, FAX 808-956-4710 http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/duffy/
