Program Assessment Rating Tool: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:28, 30 August 2008

Latest revision as of 00:00, 7 June 2025

(35 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)

Line 1:

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

The '''Program Assessment Rating Tool''', or '''PART''', iswas 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. to rateIt allwas federaldiscontinued programsby onthe their effectiveness. As[[Presidency of JulyBarack 2008,Obama|Obama 98 percent of all federal programs have been reviewedadministration]].

PART was spearheaded by OMB Director [[Mitch Daniels]]. OMB staff designed PART and set the final evaluation assigned to a program.

==Current Ratings==

*1004 Total Programs Reviewed

By the end of the Bush administration, PART had been applied to over 1,000 federal programs, representing 98% of the [[Federal budget of the United States|federal budget]].

*18% Effective

*31% Moderately Effective

==History==

*29% Adequate

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=[[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.

*3% Ineffective

*19% Results Not Demonstrated

==Implementation==

98% of programs have been rated, so approximately 21 programs remain to be reviewed.

PART was a [[Surveying|survey]] instrument, developed by OMB staff with outside advice. The instrument asked 25-30 questions divided into four categories:

* program purpose and design

* strategic planning

* program management

* program results

Based on the responses, programs were given a numerical score that aligned with a categorical scale of performance ranging from effective, moderately effective, adequate or ineffective.

In cases where evaluators felt they could not make a judgment, programs were assigned a "results not demonstrated" judgment, which was generally believed to be a negative assessment on a par with an ineffective grade. To complete the tool, OMB budget examiners conducted extensive consultation with agency staff, though the final judgment rested with the OMB.<ref>Moynihan, Donald P. 2013. "Advancing the Empirical Study of Performance Management: What we learned from the Program Assessment Rating Tool." American Review of Public Administration 43(5):497-515. url=http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/images/publications/workingpapers/moynihan2013-003.pdf</ref>

==Utilization==

President Bush used the rating tool to partially justify cuts or elimination of 150 programs in his 2006 FY budget.<ref>{{cite web| |author =Amelia Gruber| title=Program assessments factor into Bush plan to trim deficit| publisher=govexec.com | yeardate=February 7th7, 2005 | url=http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0205/020705a1.htm| accessdateaccess-date=2006-12-14| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061106161304/http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0205/020705a1.htm| archive-date=November 6, 2006| url-status=dead}}</ref> One study found that PART scores had a modest [[correlation]] with budget changes proposed by Bush.<ref>Gilmour, J.B., & Lewis, D.E. (2006). Assessing performance budgeting at OMB: The influence of politics, performance, and program size. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16:169-86.</ref>

{| class="wikitable"

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

|-

| Effective || 6% ||11% ||15%|| 15% ||17%|| || 19%

|-

| Moderately Effective ||24% ||26%|| 26%|| 29% ||30% || || 32%

|-

| Adequate ||15% || 20%|| 26%|| 28%|| 28% || || 29%

|-

| Ineffective || 5%|| 5% ||4%|| 4% ||3% || || 3%

|-

| Results Not Demonstrated || 50% || 38% ||29% ||24%|| 22%|| || 17%

|-

| Total Programs Reviewed || 234 || 407 || 607 ||793 ||977 || || 1017

|}

==Reception==

Reaction from the [[United States Congress]] has beenwas mixed.<ref>{{cite web |author author=Amelia Gruber| title=OMB seeks agency outreach on linking performance to budgets| publisher=govexec.com | yeardate=March 4th4, 2004 | url=http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0304/030404a1.htm| accessdateaccess-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 | yeardate= January 9th9, 2004 | url=http://www.heritage.org/Researchbudget-and-spending/Budgetreport/wm418part-the-solution-the-performance-assessment-ratings-tool| archive-url=https://web.cfmarchive.org/web/20171204061427/http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/part-the-solution-the-performance-assessment-ratings-tool| accessdateurl-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 programsprogram's reception has led to similar program evaluation systems in [[Scotland]], Thailand, and Thailand[[South Korea]].<ref>{{cite web |author =| title=Program Assessment Rating Tool| publisher=Government Innovators Network | yeardate=[[January 1]], 2006 | url=http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/awards.html?id=7496| accessdateaccess-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.

==References==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

Actual PART assessment at George W. Bush online presidential archives: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/expectmore/part.html

==External links==

*Official Website -[httphttps://www.georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/expectmore/ Expectmore.gov]

[[Category:United States Office of Management and Budget]]

[[Category:United States budgetfederal budgets]]