Abstract
For over 50 years the US federal government has attempted to better align resource decisions and expected performance. Although several government-wide reforms contributed to the evolving concept of performance budgeting in the United States, all fell short of linking performance to budget decision-making. Building on the strategic planning, reporting, and measurement processes of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the current administration believes its Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) succeeds where other reforms failed. At the time of writing, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was in its final year of a five-year effort to use PART to rate the program design, strategic planning, management, and results of all US federal programs as a part of its executive branch budget formulation process. This chapter draws on General Accounting Office (GAO) reviews2 that described PART’s development and use, and assessed its strengths and weaknesses as a budget and evaluation tool.
1. The author would like to acknowledge Paul Posner, Jackie Nowicki, and others who contributed to the 2004 and 2005 GAO PART reviews.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Blalock, A.B., and B.S. Barnow, 2002, “Is the New Obsession with Performance Management Masking the Truth About Social Programs?” in Quicker, Better, Cheaper?: Managing Performance in American Government, ed. Dale Forsythe (Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute).
Daniels, M.E., 2002, “Linking Program Funding to Performance Results.” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations of the House Committee on Government Reform, 107th Cong., 2nd Session (Washington: US Government Printing Office).
Fantone, D.M., and P.L. Posner, 2003, “United States Case Study on Accountability and Control in Modernization Reforms,” paper presented at the OECD Expert Meeting on Accountability and Control, Madrid, October 29–30, 2003.
General Accounting Office (GAO), 1997, The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Government-wide Implementation Will Be Uneven, GAO/GGD-97–109, June 2, 1997 (Washington: GAO), pp. 3, 15, 26–9.
—, 1998a, Performance Budgeting: Past Initiatives Offer Insights for GPRA Implementation, GAO/AIMD-97–46, March 27 (Washington: GAO), pp. 4–6, 35, 42.
—, 1998b, Program Evaluation: Agencies Challenged by New Demand for Information on Program Results, GAO/GGD-98–53, April 24 (Washington: GAO), pp. 23–4.
—, 2004a, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04–38, March 10 (Washington: GAO), p. 64.
—, 2004b, Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, GAO-04–174, January 30 (Washington: GAO).
Government Accountability Office, 2005a, Performance Budgeting: Efforts to Restructure Budgets to Better Align Resources with Performance, GAO-05–117SP, February (Washington: GAO).
—, 2005b, Performance Budgeting: PART Focuses Attention on Program Performance, But More Can Be Done to Engage Congress, GAO-06–28, October 28 (Washington: GAO).
—, 2005c, Program Evaluation: OMB’s PART Reviews Increased Agencies’ Attention to Improving Evidence of Program Results, GAO-06–67, October 28 (Washington: GAO).
Joyce, P.G., 1993, “Using Performance Measures for Federal Budgeting: Proposals and Prospects,” Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. 13(4), pp. 3–17.
Kingdon, J., 2002, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (New York: Longman Press).
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2001, The President’s Management Agenda—FY2002, August 2001 (Washington: OMB), p. 9.
—, 2002a, OMB Budget Procedures Memorandum No. 852, Addendum 1, Attachment A, Spring Review Program Effectiveness Ratings, Guidance for Selecting Programs and Attachment B, Instructions for the Program Assessment Ratings Tool, General Guidance, May 10, 2002 (Washington: OMB).
—, 2002b, National Advisory Council, Performance Measurement Advisory Council (PMAC), Summary of Meeting, June 27, 2002 (Washington: OMB).
—, 2002c, OMB Memoranda to the Heads of Departments and Agencies, M-02–10, Program Performance Assessments for the FY 2004 Budget, July 26, 2002 (Washington: OMB).
—, 2003a, Executive Office of the President. Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2004 (Washington: US Government Printing Office), pp. 4–5.
—, 2003b, OMB Budget Procedures Memorandum No. 861, Completing the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) for the FY2005 Review Process, May 5, 2003 (Washington: OMB).
—, 2003c, Executive Office of the President, OMB Circular A-1l, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, Fiscal Year 2003, Part 6, Sec. 220 (Washington: US Government Printing Office).
—, 2003d, OMB Memoranda to the Heads of Departments and Agencies, M-03–17, Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Update, July 16, 2003 (Washington: OMB).
—, 2004, OMB Budget Data Request No. 04–31, Completing the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) for the FY2006 Review Process, March 22, 2004 (Washington: OMB).
—, 2005a, Executive Office of the President, OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, Sec. 51, November 2, 2005 (Washington: US Government Printing Office).
—, 2005b, Budget Procedures Memorandum No. 879, Addendum 2, Additional Guidance to Improve Consistency in PART Assessments and Updated 2005 PART Process Schedule, September 30, 2005 (Washington: OMB).
—, 2005c, Executive Office of the President, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2006 (Washington: US Government Printing Office), pp. 10–12.
—, 2005d, Executive Office of the President, Major Savings and Reforms in the President’s 2006 Budget, February 11 (Washington: US Government Printing Office).
—, 2005e, Executive Office of the President, The Government Reorganization and Program Performance Improvement Act of 2005, June 30 (Washington: US Government Printing Office).
—, 2006, OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool Guidance No. 2006–02, Guidance for Completing 2006 PARTs, March 10, 2006 (Washington: OMB), pp. 65, 68.
Tanaka, S., J. O’Neill, and A. Holen, 2003, “Above the Fray: The Role of the US Office of Management and Budget,” in Controlling Public Expenditure: The Changing Roles of Central Budget Agencies-Better Guardians? ed. J. Wanna et al. (Cheltenham: Edward Edgar), pp. 57, 80.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2007 International Monetary Fund
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fantone, D.M. (2007). US Program Assessment Rating Tool. In: Robinson, M. (eds) Performance Budgeting. Procyclicality of Financial Systems in Asia. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137001528_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137001528_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-36335-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-00152-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)