Program Assessment Rating Tool: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:19, 2 July 2023

Latest revision as of 00:00, 7 June 2025

(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Use American English|date=June 2025}}

The '''Program Assessment Rating Tool''', or '''PART''', was a program run through the United States [[Office of Management and Budget]] to rate the effectiveness of all federal programs, PART was instituted by President [[George W. Bush]] in 2002. It was discontinued by the [[Presidency of Barack Obama|Obama administration]].

Line 6 ⟶ 7:

==History==

PART was introduced in the 2004 Fiscal Year Federal budget. The [[Presidency of George W. Bush|Bush administration]] claimed that PART built upon previous efforts of American presidents to make sure federal programs were accountable and achieved results.<ref>{{cite web |author =| title=FY 2004 Budget Chapter Introducing the PART: Rating the Performance of Federal Programs | publisher=whitehouse.gov[[White House]] | date= February 7, 2005 | url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/| access-date=2008-09-17 |url-status =dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080616222524/http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/ <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = 2008-06-16}}</ref> PART grew out of an early Bush administration blueprint for administration called the President's Management Agenda, which set a goal of integrating performance data with the federal budgeting process.

==Implementation==

Line 24 ⟶ 25:

{| class="wikitable"

|- bgcolor="#CCCCCC"

! Result !! 2002 !! 2003 !! 2004 !! 2005 !! 2006 !! 2007 !! 2008

|-

Line 41:

==Reception==

Reaction from the [[United States Congress]] was mixed.<ref>{{cite web| author=Amelia Gruber| title=OMB seeks agency outreach on linking performance to budgets| publisher=govexec.com| date=March 4, 2004| url=http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0304/030404a1.htm| access-date=2006-12-14| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060510122959/http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0304/030404a1.htm| archive-date=May 10, 2006| url-status=dead}}</ref> However, Congress paid little attention to the PART scores.<ref>Moynihan, D.P. (2008). The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.</ref><ref>Redburn, F.S. & Newcomer, K. (2008). Achieving Real Improvement in Program performance and Policy Outcomes: The Next Frontier. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Public Administration.</ref><ref>Frisco, V. & Stalebrink, O.J. (2008). Congressional Use of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Budgeting and Finance 28, 1-19.</ref> Scholars at the [[The Heritage Foundation|Heritage Foundation]] support the program and its potential to reduce the size of government.<ref>{{cite web |author =Keith Miller and Alison Acosta Fraser| title="PART" of the Solution: The Performance Assessment Ratings Tool| publisher=Heritage Foundation | date= January 9, 2004 | url=http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/part-the-solution-the-performance-assessment-ratings-tool| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171204061427/http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/part-the-solution-the-performance-assessment-ratings-tool| url-status=unfit| archive-date=December 4, 2017| access-date=2006-12-19}}</ref> The program won the 2005 Government Innovators Network Award, noting that the program's reception has led to similar program evaluation systems in [[Scotland]], Thailand, and [[South Korea]].<ref>{{cite web |author =| title=Program Assessment Rating Tool| publisher=Government Innovators Network | date=January 1, 2006 | url=http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/awards.html?id=7496| access-date=2006-12-15}}</ref>

Efforts to institutionalize the PART into a permanent process failed in Congress, and PART was viewed with suspicion by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] lawmakers in particular.