Program Assessment Rating Tool: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:59, 16 March 2013

Revision as of 22:11, 24 January 2014

Line 1:

The '''Program Assessment Rating Tool''', or '''PART''', is a program run through the United States [[Office of Management and Budget]] instituted by President [[George W. Bush]] in 2002 to rate all federal programs on their effectiveness. AsBy the conclusion of Julythe 2008Bush administration, 98PART percentwas ofapplied allto federaljust programsover have1,000 beenfederal reviewed.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

==History==

The PART was introduced in the 2004 Fiscal Year Federal budget, and explained by the Bush Administration as a program that 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 | date= February 7, 2005 | url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/| accessdate=2008-09-17 |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20080616222524/http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/ <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2008-06-16}}</ref>. The tool 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 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. http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/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| accessdate=2006-12-14}}</ref>. One study found that PART scores had a modest correlation with budget changes proposed by the President.<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> 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>

{| class="wikitable"