Performance Improvement 2008 Report User Comments
No report on evaluation would be complete without inclusion of an opportunity for user evaluation and feedback. Since this annual mandatory report to Congress is an evolving product, we welcome your comments, suggestions, and requests for ways to improve it in the future.
- What is your organizational, work, or academic affiliation?
- Did this report meet your information needs regarding our evaluation activities? If not, what additional information would make this document more useful?
- Were the contents clear? If not, how were they unclear?
- Which sections did you find most helpful? How?
- Which were the least useful? Why?
- Have you used our online PIC database site?
- Was it helpful? Please describe.
- Do you wish to be contacted for a follow-up conversation about this feedback? If so, please provide name and contact information.
Please Email to:
Or mail to:
Policy Information Center
Room 404 E
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20201
This report was prepared by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Andy Rock, Project Director, managed the design, organization, editing, and final preparation; he may be reached at 202-401-8179, firstname.lastname@example.org. To answer technical questions regarding specific studies, or to obtain copies of reports not available on the web call the Federal Contact listed for the study. Policy Information Center staff provided systems and technical support and assistance in the final preparation of the document. Graphic/photo images used in this report are in the domain of the Department of Health and Human Services or were provided by the Project Director.
The unsung heroes and heroines of the annual evaluation work of HHS are Project Officers, most of whom are named as the Federal Contacts for each study in Chapter III. They often have conceived the study need or framed the questions, crafted the scopes of work, overseen the studies, and drafted the summaries you see here. They, along with the diligent effort and creative thought of their legions of contracted colleagues (whose organizations are also named for each entry in this report), make these evaluations possible.
The last, and most important group who contribute to creating this report, are the Group Information Managers for each agency and office. These individuals, comprised of both project officers and agency evaluation leadership organize, coordinate, communicate, edit, and obtain agency clearance for this report. These individuals, who act as the primary agency/office contacts deserve mention:
Group Information Managers
- Administration for Children and Families – Carol Apelt, Stan Chappell, Linda Cloud, Julie Hocker, Karl Koerper, David Siegel, and Girley Wright
- Administration on Aging – Jennifer Klocinski
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality – Lucie Levine and Cynthia Boone
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – Julie Zajac
- Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services – Brigid Goody, Melissa Hulbert, Pauline Karikari-Martin, Renee Mentnech, Mary Pratt, Joe Razes, Thomas Reilly, Effie Shockley
- Food and Drug Administration – Rose Johnson and John Uzzell
- Health Resources and Services Administration – Emily DeCoster
- Indian Health Service – Phil L. Smith and Lucie Vogel
- National Institutes of Health – Juliana Blome and Deshiree Belis
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration – Nancy Brady, Jennifer Fiedelholtz and Dana Roberts
- Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health – Sarah Linde-Feucht, Mahak Nayyar and Valerie Welsh
- Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation – Laura Chadwick, Scott Douglas, Laurie Feinberg, Susan Hauan, Ruth Katz, Martha Moorehouse, Canta Pian, Laura Radel, and Brenda Veazey
- Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response – Richard Morris
- Office of the Assistant Secretary for Resources and Technology – Marc Griego and Carmen-Rosa Torres
- Office of Inspector General – Sue Nonemaker and Stuart Wright
- Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology – Mary Hollander
(Evaluation matters because) if things occur that we don´t know, it is almost as if they didn´t happen. Anonymous
To obtain this report online and search the entire database, go to: http://aspe.hhs.gov/pic/performance
 Funds are used for evaluation activities, and, as directed by subsequent appropriations acts, related activities, including, for example the full funding of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and support for surveys carried out by the Substance Abuse and Health Services Administration.
 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2007-2012, page 24.
 Ibid, page 60.
 Ibid, page 92.
 Ibid, page 114.
 Many of the statutorily mandated demonstration projects carried out by CMS under Titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act include evaluation components that are reported here.
 The Older Americans Act (OAA) specifies that $1.5 million from Title III and $1.5 million from Title IV are to be available from its annual appropriations to be used for the evaluation of OAA programs. Since 2000, the Administration on Aging (AoA) has used those funds for the Performance Outcome Measures Project and its annual national performance measurement surveys. AoA initiated new evaluation studies of Title III-D Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, and Title III-B Supportive Services in FY 2004 and intends to continue evaluating all OAA titles on a rotating basis in the future.
 FDA programs are principally authorized by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Appropriations are provided by the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies. IHS programs are principally authorized by the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and the Indian Self-Determination Act Appropriations are provided by the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies.
 Set-aside funds are used to fund all of the activities of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), much of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), and much of the $28 million that the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) spends on the Ryan White (AIDS) Special Projects of National Significance project., functions and activities some consider programmatic rather than evaluative. Similarly, some individuals consider the surveys supported by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) with set-aside funds, at Congressional direction, not evaluative activities in the strictest sense. However, the information gathered through these means are essential to researchers and evaluators and fall under the category of "basic" evaluation as described on page 17, above.
 From the OIG Website, http://www.oig.hhs.gov/organization/OEI/index.html.
 Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 127, Friday, July 2, 2004; and can be found at the OIG website, http://www.oig.hhs.gov/organization/oigorgstatement070204.pdf.