	Strengths and Weaknesses of PART in Its First Year of Implementation

Through its development and use of PART, OMB has more explicitly  infused performance information into the budget formulation process;  increased the attention paid to evaluation and to performance information;  and ultimately, we hope, increased the value of this information to decision  makers and other stakeholders. OMB should be credited with opening up for scrutiny—and  potential criticism—its review of key areas of federal program  performance and then making its assessments available to a potentially  wider audience through its Web site. As  OMB has recognized, following through on these recommendations is  essential for improving program performance and ensuring accountability. Any tool that is sophisticated enough to take into account the complexity  of the U.S. government will always require some interpretation and  judgment. Therefore it is not surprising that OMB staff were not fully  consistent in interpreting complex questions about agency goals and  results. In addition, the limited availability of credible evidence on program  results also constrained OMB’s ability to use PART to rate programs’  effectiveness. We found inconsistencies in how the definition of acceptable performance  measures was applied. As a result, the goals and measures used in  PART must meet OMB’s needs. Federal programs cannot be assessed in isolation. Targeting PART assessments based  on such factors as the relative priorities, costs, and risks associated with  related clusters of programs and activities addressing common strategic  and performance goals not only could help ration scarce analytic resources  but also could focus decision makers’ attention on the most pressing policy  and program issues. The relationship between PART and its process and the broader GPRA  strategic planning process is still evolving. As part of the executive branch  budget formulation process, PART must clearly serve the President’s  interests. Accordingly, if PART is to  be accepted as other than one element in the development of the  President’s budget proposal, congressional understanding and acceptance  of the tool and analysis will be important. We have recommended that OMB reach out to  key congressional committees early in the PART selection process to gain  insight about which program areas and performance issues congressional  officials consider warrant PART review. We have also suggested that Congress consider the need to  develop a more systematic vehicle for communicating its top performance  concerns and priorities; develop a more structured oversight agenda to  prompt a more coordinated congressional perspective on crosscutting  performance issues; and use this agenda to inform its authorization,  appropriations, and oversight processes. PART offers the potential to build on the  infrastructure of performance plans and information ushered in by GPRA  and the law’s intent to promote the use of these plans in resource allocation  decision making. Continue to improve the PART guidance by (1) expanding the  discussion of how the unit of analysis is to be determined to include  trade-offs made when defining a unit of analysis, implications of how the  unit of analysis is defined, or both; (2) clarifying when output versus  outcome measures are acceptable; and (3) better defining an  “independent, quality evaluation.”
Clarify OMB’s expectations to agencies regarding the allocation of  scarce evaluation resources among programs, the timing of such  evaluations, as well as the evaluation strategies it wants for the PART,  and consider using internal agency evaluations as evidence on a case-by- case basis—whether conducted by agencies, contractors, or other  parties. Improving the integration of inherently separate but interrelated strategic  planning and performance budgeting processes can help support a more  strategic focus for PART assessments. GPRA’s strategic planning goals  could be used to anchor the selection and review of programs by providing  a foundation to assess the relative contribution of related programs and  tools to broader performance goals and outcomes.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) is meant to provide a consistent approach to evaluating federal programs during budget formulation. The subcommittee asked GAO to discuss our recent report, Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal 2004 Budget (GAO-04-174) and strategies for improving PART and furthering the goals envisioned by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).

What GAO Found

PART helped structure OMB's use of performance information for internal program and budget analysis and stimulated agency interest in budget and performance integration. Moreover, it illustrated the potential to build on GPRA's foundation to more actively promote the use of performance information in budget decisions. OMB deserves credit for inviting scrutiny of its federal program performance reviews and sharing them on its Web site. Much of PART's potential value lies in its program recommendations but follow through will require sustained commitment by agencies and OMB. OMB devoted considerable effort to developing PART, but diagnosing problems and rating programs are only the beginning of PART's ambitious agenda. Implementing change and providing oversight takes time; OMB needs to be mindful of this as it considers capacity and workload issues in the PART. As is to be expected in the first year of any reform, PART is a work in progress and we noted in our report where OMB might make improvements. Any tool that is sophisticated enough to take into account the complexity of the U.S. government will require exercising some judgment. Therefore it is not surprising that we found inconsistencies in OMB staff interpreting and applying PART. PART provides an opportunity to more efficiently use scarce analytic resources, to focus decision makers' attention on the most pressing policy issues, and to consider comparisons and trade-offs among related programs by more strategically targeting PART assessments based on such factors as the relative priorities, costs, and risks associated with related clusters of programs and activities. PART assessments underscored long-standing gaps in performance and evaluation information throughout the federal government. By reaching agreement on areas in which evaluations are most essential, decision makers can help ensure that limited resources are applied wisely. The relationship between PART and the broader GPRA strategic planning process is still evolving. Although PART can stimulate discussion on program-specific performance measurement issues, it is not a substitute for GPRA's strategic, longer-term focus on thematic goals, and department- and governmentwide crosscutting comparisons. Although PART and GPRA serve different needs, a strategy for integrating the two could help strengthen both. Federal programs are designed and implemented in dynamic environments where competing program priorities and stakeholders' needs must be balanced continually and new needs addressed. PART clearly serves OMB's needs but questions remain about whether it serves the various needs of other key stakeholders. If PART results are to be considered in the congressional debate it will be important for OMB to (1) involve congressional stakeholders early in providing input on the focus of the assessments; (2) clarify any significant limitations in the assessments and underlying performance information; and (3) initiate discussions with key congressional committees about how they can best leverage PART information in congressional authorization, appropriations, and oversight processes.