New Research about Dept. of Labor
The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was developed to assess and improve program performance so that the Federal government can achieve better results. A PART review helps identify a program’s strengths and weaknesses to inform funding and management decisions aimed at making the program more effective. This is what the DOL's review shows. It is very informative as we come to know that they themselves are admitting serious flaws
Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or
The DOL admits that these are the problems:
- "current process is paper- intensive, duplicative in places, and inefficient"
- "vulnerability to fraud and abuse"
- The whole process is meaningless because "it could be years between the recruitment efforts described in an application to DOL and the time a labor certification issues or the alien adjusts to permanent resident status"
-"the certification itself lacks critical safeguards"
Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?
"Program goals lack specific, ambitious annual targets. For example, the published backlog reduction targets would not result in elimination of the backlog in two years, as the program currently plans. And the goal to reduce processing time to six months for 90% of applications (currently 32 months) may not be either sufficiently tailored or ambitious for the new automated review process, if processing rates hold true to plan."
The DOL says that they have promised somethings but it is not doable !!!
Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long- term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?
Like the rest of DOL, ETA does not have an integrated accounting and performance management system to identify the full cost of achieving this program's performance goals and support day- to- day operations.
The DOL says that they have no idea of how much it will cost. So how are they planning to go ahead and get the resources to clear off all the cases in the BECS?
Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?
Answer: SMALL EXTENT
Ongoing stakeholder concerns and findings from program evaluations or OIG audits conducted in years past raise serious questions about the design,management, and accountability of the current program.
There are a lot of audits saying that there is something seriously wrong
"The goal of eliminating the backlog by the end of FY 2006 is a result of an external evaluation conducted in 2002. Lengthy processing times are a majorconcern for program stakeholders. Though the goal is ambitious, there is a disconnect with the published targets, which cover only the state- level backlog of 270,000 cases (not the additional cases pending at the federal level) and would not accomplish the goal within two years."
Though they have stated that their goal is 2006 there is no way that is going to be true
And inspite of all this the program rates "ADEQUATE" ?
Last edited by Sandeep; 03-07-2006 at 06:46 PM.
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Overstaying doing research||Spain||Out of status, employment gap and status revalidation||7||11-12-2010 03:40 PM|
|a little research help please||mbartosik||IV Agenda and Legislative Updates||2||10-31-2007 05:17 AM|
|EAD for research assistantship||gc_bulgaria||All other Green Card Issues||3||10-21-2007 12:27 AM|
|Dept. of State web site down||Rinsha||Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins||1||03-22-2007 04:08 PM|