 |
|
|
|
Government Leader home > August 2005 issue
August 2005; Vol. 1 No. 3
PART nears tipping point: OMB’s performance rating tool appears to be getting the job done
By JONATHAN D. BREUL
Why do certain TV shows, movies and books so suddenly become popular? Why do fashion trends take hold?
Author Malcolm Gladwell suggests a useful theory in his book The Tipping Point (Little, Brown & Co.), in which he explores the little things that make a big difference. He argues that seemingly minor alterations can create a social epidemic that generates a dramatic turnaround in behavior.
Three recent developments suggest that the government’s Program Assessment Rating Tool, or PART, may be precipitating a “tipping point” toward more results-oriented government.
 | |
| | “PART reviews have become common in agency vocabulary and practice.” — JONATHAN D. BREUL | |
|
What is PART? It was developed by the Office of Management and Budget as a tool for assessing federal program performance and assisting in budget allocation decisions. OMB is using PART to assess every federal program over a five-year period to make sure the programs are meeting intended goals.
The PART tool evaluates program performance in four areas: program purpose and design, strategic planning, management and results. It produces four qualitative ratings: ineffective, adequate, moderately effective and effective.
A rating of adequate or better is generally considered a passing grade. A program may also be rated as “results not demonstrated” when it lacks agreed-upon performance measures or baselines and performance data.
PART builds on the supply of performance information that federal agencies have been generating (in copious quantities) as a result of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. However, PART goes beyond GPRA in two important ways.
First, by systematically and transparently assessing program management and results, it determines whether programs are effective.
Second, PART lets decisionmakers attach budgetary and management consequences to programs that cannot demonstrate their effectiveness.
After being used in three budget cycles, the PART process has reached critical mass. The Bush administration has now “PARTed” over 600 programs, or about 60 percent of the federal budget. Officials plan to do another 20 percent this year and the final 20 percent next year.
Of course, OMB has always used results data as part of its ongoing program oversight and policy development. However, since many OMB examiners have an extremely short tenure (often three to five years), a considerable number of them see PART as the customary way of doing business.
Likewise, PART reviews have become common in agency vocabulary and practice.
Another recent development is HR 185, a bill introduced earlier this year that would in effect codify PART.
Sponsored by Rep. Todd Platts (R-Pa.) and supported by House Government Reform committee chairman Tom Davis (R-Va.), the Program Assessment and Review Act expands GPRA by requiring OMB to examine programs at least once every five years and submit a report to Congress with the president’s budget request.
House Democrats have raised concerns that the legislation would dilute congressional authority and distort programs by encouraging OMB to impose its own interpretation of authorizing statutes. The bill passed the Government Reform Committee in March on a partisan roll call vote, 19-14, and now awaits floor action and a Senate sponsor and companion bill.
The most recent development is that PART was one of six 2005 winners of a prestigious Innovations in American Government award. Often referred to as the Oscars of government, the Innovations awards are a program of the Ash Institute at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and are administered by the Council for Excellence in Government.
The awards recognize government innovations that take a creative approach to solving significant problems and come with $100,000 grants, although OMB’s lawyers have determined they are not allowed to keep the money.
So, is PART working? Is it making a real difference? One indication is that scores are up. Program reassessments seem to show that implementation of the PART recommendations is improving program performance. Trends identified in PART reassessments show that agencies have identified effective ways to drive results and implement lessons learned across similar programs, especially when they are focused on similar goals.
While it is too soon to tell for sure, PART—admittedly a minor alteration in the larger scheme of things—just may be a “tipping point” that will provoke a paradigm shift in bureaucratic behavior.
Jonathan D. Breul is a senior fellow at the IBM Center for the Business of Government in Washington. He is a former senior adviser to the deputy director for management in the OMB. In the Executive Office of the President, Mr. Breul served as OMB’s senior career executive with primary responsibility for governmentwide general management policies and led the overall implementation of GPRA.
|
|
|
![Government Leader[happiness]](/images/govleader_smlogo.gif "Government Leader [happiness]"){kind=small}
