The PART Encourages a Focus on Performance Measurement and Program Review

The PART process has aided OMB’s oversight of agencies, and has focused  agencies’ efforts to improve performance measurement. PART Remains a Labor- Intensive Process at OMB and Agencies

Although the PART has enhanced the focus on performance, this has not  come without a cost. Improving managers’ ability to assess  program outcomes, identify information gaps, and assess next steps are  necessary first steps on the path to long-term program improvement, but  are not expected to result in observable program improvement in the short  term. Moreover, as of February 2005—the date of the most recent available  OMB data—the majority of the PART recommendations have not yet been  fully implemented. Consequently, there is limited evidence to date of  outcome-based program results. Lastly, OMB has used the PART as a framework for  several crosscutting reviews, but these generally do not include all tools,  such as tax expenditures, that contribute to related goals. Greater focus on  selecting related programs and activities for concurrent review would  improve their usefulness. 1 for examples of follow-on actions). Because OMB has  chosen to assess nearly all federal programs, resources are diffused across  multiple areas instead of concentrated on those areas of highest priority  both within agencies and across the federal government. This strategy is  likely to lengthen the time it will take to observe measurable change. The PART-GPRA Relationship Does Not Adequately Consider the Different Needs of the Budget and Planning Processes and Their Various Stakeholders

Although both the PART and GPRA aim to improve the focus on program  results, the different purposes and time frames they serve continue to  create tensions. We remain concerned that the focus of  agency strategic planning is shifting from long-term goal setting to short- term budget and planning needs. In response to our  January 2004 report on the first year of implementing the PART, OMB said  that it was working to “generate, early in the PART process, an ongoing,  meaningful dialogue with congressional appropriations, authorization, and  oversight committees about what they consider to be the most important  performance issues and program areas warranting review.” Although OMB  uses a variety of methods to communicate the PART assessment results,  congressional committee staff said these methods have not facilitated this  early consultation on the PART. Most congressional staff  reported that they would more likely use the PART results to inform their  deliberations if OMB (1) consulted them early in the PART process  regarding the selection and timing of programs to assess, (2) explained the  methodology and evidence used or to be used to assess programs, and  (3) discussed how the PART information can best be communicated and  leveraged to meet their needs. Although Congress currently has a number of  opportunities to provide its perspective on specific performance issues and  performance goals, opportunities also exist for Congress to enhance its  institutional focus to enable a more systematic assessment of key programs  and performance goals. Many had concerns about the goals  and measures used to assess program performance. It is important that Congress take full advantage of the benefits arising  from the reform agenda under way in the executive branch. In addition, we also examined relevant OMB and agency  documents to help determine how recommendations are tracked and their  impact evaluated by OMB and the selected agencies. Performance Budgeting: OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool  Presents Opportunities and Challenges for Budget and Performance  Integration. Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance  and Results Act.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO was asked to examine (1) the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) and agency perspectives on the effects that the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) recommendations are having on agency operations and program results; (2) OMB's leadership in ensuring a complementary relationship between the PART and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA); and (3) steps OMB has taken to involve Congress in the PART process. To do this, we also followed up on issues raised in our January 2004 report on the PART.

What GAO Found

The PART process has aided OMB's oversight of agencies, focused agencies' efforts to improve program management, and created or enhanced an evaluation culture within agencies. Although the PART has enhanced the focus on performance, the PART remains a labor-intensive process at OMB and agencies. Most PART recommendations are focused on improving outcome measures and data collection, and are not designed to result in observable short-term performance improvements. Since these necessary first steps on the path to long-term program improvement do not usually lead to improved short-term results, there is limited evidence to date of the PART's influence on outcome-based program results. Moreover, as of February 2005--the date of the most recent available OMB data--the majority of follow-on actions have not yet been fully implemented. By design OMB has not prioritized them within or among agencies. Because OMB has chosen to assess nearly all federal programs, OMB and agency resources are diffused across multiple areas instead of concentrated on those areas of highest priority both within agencies and across the federal government. This strategy is likely to lengthen the time it will take to observe measurable change compared with a more strategic approach. OMB has used the PART as a framework for several crosscutting reviews, but these have not always included all relevant tools, such as tax expenditures, that contribute to related goals. Greater focus on selecting related programs and activities for concurrent review would improve their usefulness. OMB has taken some steps to clarify the PART-GPRA relationship but many agencies still struggle to balance the differing needs of the budget and planning processes and their various stakeholders. Unresolved tensions between GPRA and the PART can result in conflicting ideas about what to measure and how to measure it. Finally, we remain concerned that the focus of agencies' strategic planning continues to shift from long-term goal setting to short-term executive budget and planning needs. OMB uses a variety of methods to communicate PART results, but congressional committee staff we spoke with had concerns about the tool itself, how programs were defined, and the usefulness of goals and measures. Most said that the PART would more likely inform their deliberations if OMB consulted them early on regarding the selection and timing of programs; the methodology and evidence to be used; and how PART information can be communicated and presented to best meet their needs. It is also important that Congress take full advantage of the benefits arising from the executive reform agenda. While Congress has a number of opportunities to provide its perspective on specific performance issues and performance goals, opportunities also exist for Congress to enhance its institutional focus to enable a more systematic assessment of key programs and performance goals.