Program Assessment Rating Tool: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:39, 11 May 2020

Revision as of 00:20, 18 June 2020

Line 32:

==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| 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 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| accessdate=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 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.