Program Assessment Rating Tool: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:49, 9 February 2014

Latest revision as of 00:00, 7 June 2025

(20 intermediate revisions by 16 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 programs on their effectiveness. Byby the conclusion[[Presidency of theBarack BushObama|Obama administration, PART was applied to just over 1,000 federal programs,]].

representing 98% of the federal budget. The Obama administration discontinued the use of PART assessments. Actual PART assessments can still be viewed among George W. Bush online presidential archives: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/expectmore/part.html

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

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]].

==History==

The PART was introduced in the 2004 Fiscal Year Federal budget,. and explainedThe by[[Presidency theof BushGeorge AdministrationW. asBush|Bush aadministration]] programclaimed that PART built upon previous efforts of American Presidentspresidents 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=httphttps://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/| accessdateaccess-date=2008-09-17 |archiveurlurl-status =dead|archive-url http= https://web.archive.org/web/20080616222524/http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/ <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedatearchive-date = 2008-06-16}}</ref> The toolPART 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==

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

PART was spearheaded by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mitch Daniels, and OMB staff had primary responsibility for designing the tool, and setting the final evaluation assigned to a program. PART itself was a 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, and program results. Based on the responses to those questions, 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 generally asked agency staff to answer the questions, 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/publications/workingpapers/moynihan2013-003.pdf</ref>

* 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 generallyconducted askedextensive agencyconsultation staffwith toagency answer the questionsstaff, though the final judgment rested with the OMB.<ref>Moynihan, Donald P. 2013. “Advancing"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 | date= February 7, 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 the PresidentBush.<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"

|- bgcolor="#CCCCCC"

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

|-

Line 30 ⟶ 41:

==Reception==

Reaction from the [[United States Congress]] has beenwas 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| 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 | date= January 9, 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 | date=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 ==

representing 98% of the federal budget. The Obama administration discontinued the use of PART assessments. Actual PART assessments can still be viewedassessment amongat George W. Bush online presidential archives: httphttps://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]]