Program Assessment Rating Tool: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:15, 24 January 2014

Revision as of 22:49, 9 February 2014

Line 3:

==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. url=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>

{| class="wikitable"

Line 30:

==Reception==

Reaction from the United States Congress has been 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| accessdate=2006-12-14}}</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 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/Research/Budget/wm418.cfm| accessdate=2006-12-19}}</ref> The program won the 2005 Government Innovators Network Award, noting that the programs reception has led to similar program evaluation systems in Scotland and Thailand.<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| accessdate=2006-12-15}}</ref>

Efforts to institutionalize the PART into a permanent process failed in Congress, and PART was viewed with suspicion by Democratic lawmakers in particular.

==References==