My comment is not specifically on the question but on the overall performance report template- all questions. The questions are a useful frame and tool to ensure that grantees like my agency include all the relevant information in the progress report in a clear format. I appreciate that there are both numeric and narrative sections so that elements that can't be captured numerically can be captured using the narrative section.
This feedback is from Joel Gerwein, Project Manager, California State Coastal Conservancy. Email: joel.gerwein@scc.ca.gov
Thank you for your comment on the proposed standard performance report questions. We hope that this effort will lead to a more consistent reporting process that meets the requirements of regulation, while at the same time attempts to streamline the reporting process for all individuals involved. I see this process could perhaps reduce the amount of time that people spend developing their performance reports.
As always, we are open to all comments and suggestions, so if you have an idea that you believe will improve the quality of this effort, please don't hesitate.
Ryan - WSFR Training Branch
Anonymous
Jan 18, 2017
Concur that this question is reasonable and necessary.
Thanks for taking the time to review and comment. Your thoughts are similar to most others who commented on this question. That the question seems reasonable and necessary.
This question appears reasonable, necessary, and required by law.
-Heather Kieweg, MN Dept. of Natural Resources
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017
Reasonable and in-line with current expectations.
-Andrea Crews, OK Dept. of Wildlife Conservation
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017
This question is really the essential question that has always been at the root of performance reporting and seems reasonable and, of course, necessary. In general, however, with respect to this proposed performance report template I am a bit confused about how it will be completed. Are these questions intended to be at the overall project (i.e. grant) level or would these be answered on an objective by objective (action by action) basis in TRACS? We have some grants that are large with many projects/species and objectives addressed. Is the intent that we should synthesize results into one narrative response to each question or would we be answering the questions individually for each objective / action? In either case it doesn't seem to be an advantage over a " traditional" narrative performance report. Is the intent that grantees will prepare this type of report and attach it in TRACS or is it something that would be built into the reporting feature? If the later, then, again, at what level would we be reporting?
This question is reasonable and should already be answered in a normal performance report. Since we have been moving away from Narrative objectives, this almost seems like a step backward in requiring the objectives to each be addressed in a Narrative way as well as the standardized reporting.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Anonymous
Jan 20, 2017
Agree with comment above. If standard and SMART objectives are going to provide the framework for the TRACS enhancement, the method of measurement used in TRACS should provide sufficient evidence as to whether objectives are being met.
Bob Longcor, NJDFW
Anonymous
Jan 20, 2017
This question is acceptable for performance reporting purposes, but as stated in the comments above, it should be more explicit in regard to quantifiable measures if we are migrating towards SMART objectives.
We suggest that the question be reworded to something similar to below:
What progress have you made toward completion of the objectives of the project? Describe how your objectives were met in a quantifiable manner.
Missouri's reports provides a narrative related to the completion of objectives provided within each grant. This specific question would be appropriate for interim reports on multi-year projects (construction or research), however this specific question might not completely help for a final report, particularly a research project or management evaluation type project. Commonly, for annual O & M, education or management type projects the accomplishment of our current SMART objectives are the comparison of output measures (proposed vs. actual). We would provide reasons for any slippage (Question 2) based on a common set of factors (e.g. Change orders, weather-related, availability of staff, etc.)
With the attempt to standardize the objectives and the TRACS project action levels, the result would simplify our reports, however for some types of projects (research), even answering all of the proposed standard questions won't help the reader understand what was the final product or results. For other grants (annual O & M type), the report could be answered with a combination of Question #1 and 2.
Thank you,
Doyle Brown Federal Aid Coordinator Missouri Department of Conservation
Reasonable and necessary question. Nothing different than what we’ve been asked to provide previously.
Anonymous
Jan 27, 2017
Agree with this question and the open-endedness of it. To require specific data and content for something that may not be relied upon very heavily by the State'e due to State's having their own systems in place places too heavy a burden upon State agencies and creates a hurdle to carrying out efficient and effective projects and project reporting. Thank you.
| Privacy Statement
to ask a question, suggest a topic, or to get more information.
14 Comments
Anonymous
Dec 27, 2016My comment is not specifically on the question but on the overall performance report template- all questions. The questions are a useful frame and tool to ensure that grantees like my agency include all the relevant information in the progress report in a clear format. I appreciate that there are both numeric and narrative sections so that elements that can't be captured numerically can be captured using the narrative section.
This feedback is from Joel Gerwein, Project Manager, California State Coastal Conservancy. Email: joel.gerwein@scc.ca.gov
Ryan Oster
Dec 30, 2016Joel,
Thank you for your comment on the proposed standard performance report questions. We hope that this effort will lead to a more consistent reporting process that meets the requirements of regulation, while at the same time attempts to streamline the reporting process for all individuals involved. I see this process could perhaps reduce the amount of time that people spend developing their performance reports.
As always, we are open to all comments and suggestions, so if you have an idea that you believe will improve the quality of this effort, please don't hesitate.
Ryan - WSFR Training Branch
Anonymous
Jan 18, 2017Concur that this question is reasonable and necessary.
DeAnn Johnigk, WA Dept of Fish & Wildlife, deann.johnigk@dfw.wa.gov
Ryan Oster
Jan 18, 2017DeAnn,
Thanks for taking the time to review and comment. Your thoughts are similar to most others who commented on this question. That the question seems reasonable and necessary.
Best Regards,
Ryan Oster
Heather Kieweg
Jan 18, 2017This question appears reasonable, necessary, and required by law.
-Heather Kieweg, MN Dept. of Natural Resources
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017Reasonable and in-line with current expectations.
-Andrea Crews, OK Dept. of Wildlife Conservation
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017This question is really the essential question that has always been at the root of performance reporting and seems reasonable and, of course, necessary. In general, however, with respect to this proposed performance report template I am a bit confused about how it will be completed. Are these questions intended to be at the overall project (i.e. grant) level or would these be answered on an objective by objective (action by action) basis in TRACS? We have some grants that are large with many projects/species and objectives addressed. Is the intent that we should synthesize results into one narrative response to each question or would we be answering the questions individually for each objective / action? In either case it doesn't seem to be an advantage over a " traditional" narrative performance report. Is the intent that grantees will prepare this type of report and attach it in TRACS or is it something that would be built into the reporting feature? If the later, then, again, at what level would we be reporting?
Randy Curtis, NH Fish and Game Dept.
Sheila Cameron
Jan 19, 2017This question is reasonable and should already be answered in a normal performance report. Since we have been moving away from Narrative objectives, this almost seems like a step backward in requiring the objectives to each be addressed in a Narrative way as well as the standardized reporting.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Anonymous
Jan 20, 2017Agree with comment above. If standard and SMART objectives are going to provide the framework for the TRACS enhancement, the method of measurement used in TRACS should provide sufficient evidence as to whether objectives are being met.
Bob Longcor, NJDFW
Anonymous
Jan 20, 2017This question is acceptable for performance reporting purposes, but as stated in the comments above, it should be more explicit in regard to quantifiable measures if we are migrating towards SMART objectives.
We suggest that the question be reworded to something similar to below:
What progress have you made toward completion of the objectives of the project? Describe how your objectives were met in a quantifiable manner.
NYSDEC, Division of Fish & Wildlife
Doyle Brown
Jan 20, 2017Missouri's reports provides a narrative related to the completion of objectives provided within each grant. This specific question would be appropriate for interim reports on multi-year projects (construction or research), however this specific question might not completely help for a final report, particularly a research project or management evaluation type project. Commonly, for annual O & M, education or management type projects the accomplishment of our current SMART objectives are the comparison of output measures (proposed vs. actual). We would provide reasons for any slippage (Question 2) based on a common set of factors (e.g. Change orders, weather-related, availability of staff, etc.)
With the attempt to standardize the objectives and the TRACS project action levels, the result would simplify our reports, however for some types of projects (research), even answering all of the proposed standard questions won't help the reader understand what was the final product or results. For other grants (annual O & M type), the report could be answered with a combination of Question #1 and 2.
Thank you,
Doyle Brown
Federal Aid Coordinator
Missouri Department of Conservation
Michael Sawyers
Jan 20, 2017As currently proposed, this question appears to be necessary and reasonable.
Julie Kempf
Jan 20, 2017Reasonable and necessary question. Nothing different than what we’ve been asked to provide previously.
Anonymous
Jan 27, 2017Agree with this question and the open-endedness of it. To require specific data and content for something that may not be relied upon very heavily by the State'e due to State's having their own systems in place places too heavy a burden upon State agencies and creates a hurdle to carrying out efficient and effective projects and project reporting. Thank you.