Federal interest in performance information and its potential relationship to budgeting practices has existed to varying degrees for over 50 years. More recently, this interest culminated in the passage of GPRA and related management reforms of the 1990s. GPRA mandates that federal agencies develop performance information describing the relative effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs as a means of improving the congressional and executive decision-making processes. Among other statutory obligations, GPRA requires federal agencies to publish strategic and annual plans describing specific program activities with the intention of establishing a more tangible link between performance information for these programs and agency budget requests. The current administration has taken several steps to strengthen performance-resource linkages for which GPRA laid the groundwork. The budget and performance initiative of the PMA contains the criteria agencies must meet in order to achieve “green” status on the initiative. The criteria include elements relating to budgeting and strategic planning and also ties those elements to individual performance. As we have previously reported, creating a “line of sight” between individual performance and organizational success is a leading practice used in public sector organizations to become more results-oriented. Central to the budget and performance integration initiative of the PMA, the PART is a means to strengthen the process for assessing the effectiveness of programs by making that process more robust, transparent, and systematic. The PART is a series of diagnostic questions designed to provide a consistent approach to rating federal programs. (See app. II for the PART questionnaire.) Drawing on available performance and evaluation information, OMB staff use the questionnaire to rate the strengths and weaknesses of federal programs with a particular focus on individual program results. The PART asks, for example, whether a program’s long-term goals are specific, ambitious, and focused on outcomes, and whether annual goals demonstrate progress toward achieving long-term goals. It is designed to be evidence-based, drawing on a wide array of information, including authorizing legislation; GPRA strategic plans, annual performance plans, and reports; financial statements; inspectors general and GAO reports; and independent program evaluations. The PART questions are divided into four sections; each section is given a specific weight in determining the final numerical rating for a program. Table 1 shows an overview of the four PART sections and the weights OMB assigned. In addition, each PART program is assessed according to one of seven major approaches to delivering services. Table 2 provides an overview of these program types and the number and percentage of programs covered by each type in the 2002 through 2004 performance assessments. As of February 2005, the PART ratings have been published for 607 programs (according to OMB, this represents about 60 percent of the federal budget). Each program received one of four overall ratings: (1) “effective,” (2) “moderately effective,” (3) “adequate,” or (4) “ineffective” based on program design, strategic planning, management, and results. A fifth rating, “results not demonstrated,” was given— independent of a program’s numerical score—if OMB decided that a program’s performance information, performance measures, or both were insufficient or inadequate. Table 3 shows the distribution of ratings for 2002-2004. During the next 2 years, the administration plans to assess all remaining executive branch programs with limited exceptions. In our January 2004 report on the PART, you asked us to examine (1) how the PART changed OMB’s decision-making process in developing the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request; (2) the PART’s relationship to the GPRA planning process and reporting requirements; and (3) the PART’s strengths and weaknesses as an evaluation tool, including how OMB ensured that the PART was applied consistently. We found that the PART helped structure OMB’s use of performance information for its internal program and budget analysis, made the use of this information more transparent, and stimulated agency interest in budget and performance integration. Our analysis confirmed that one of the PART’s major impacts was its ability to highlight OMB’s recommended changes in program management and design. We noted that while much of the PART’s potential value lies in the related program recommendations, realizing these benefits would require sustained attention to implementation and oversight to determine if desired results are achieved, and that OMB needs to remain congnizant of this as it considers capacity and workload issues in the PART. We also recognized that while there are inherent challenges in assigning a single rating to programs having multiple purposes and goals, OMB devoted considerable effort to promoting consistent ratings but challenges remain in addressing inconsistencies among OMB staff, such as interpreting the PART guidance and defining acceptable measures. OMB senior officials recently told us that inconsistencies in the PART process could also be attributed to agency staff, given the shared agency-OMB responsibilities in the PART process. Limited credible evidence on results also constrained OMB’s ability to rate program effectiveness, as evidenced by the almost 50 percent of programs rated “results not demonstrated.” We also found that the PART is not well integrated with GPRA—the current statutory framework for strategic planning and reporting. We said that by using the PART process to review and sometimes replace GPRA goals and measures, OMB substituted its judgment for a wide range of stakeholder interests. The PART/GPRA tension was further highlighted by challenges in defining a unit of analysis useful for both program-level budget analysis and agency planning purposes. Although the PART can stimulate discussion on program-specific measurement issues, it cannot substitute for GPRA’s focus on thematic goals and department- and governmentwide crosscutting comparisons, and was not used to evaluate similar programs together to facilitate trade-offs or make relative comparisons. Lastly, we said that while the PART clearly must serve the President’s interests, the many actors whose input is critical to decisions will not likely use performance information unless they feel it is credible and reflects a consensus on goals. Our work showed that it if OMB wanted to expand the understanding and use of the PART beyond the executive branch, it would be important for OMB to discuss in a timely fashion with Congress the focus of the PART assessments and clarify the results and limitations of the PART and the underlying performance information. On the other hand, we noted that a more systematic congressional approach to providing its perspective on performance issues and goals could facilitate OMB’s understanding of congressional priorities and thus increase the PART’s usefulness in budget deliberations. In light of these issues, we recommended that OMB address the capacity demands of the PART, strengthen the PART guidance, address evaluation information availability and scope issues, focus program selection on crosscutting comparisons and critical operations, broaden the dialogue with congressional stakeholders, and articulate and implement a complementary relationship between the PART and GPRA. We also suggested that Congress consider the need for a structured approach to articulating its perspective and oversight agenda on performance goals and priorities for key programs. OMB took several steps to implement many of our recommendations. For example, OMB clarified its PART guidance on defining the PART programs, using outcome and output measures, and expanded the discussion of evaluation quality; began to use the PART as a framework for crosscutting assessments; and expanded its discussion about the relationship between the PART and GPRA. The guidance notes that the PART strengthens and reinforces performance measurement under GPRA by encouraging the careful development of performance measures according to GPRA’s outcome-oriented standards. It also requires that PART goals be “appropriately ambitious” and that GPRA and the PART performance measures be consistent. They have also begun reporting on the status of each program’s recommendations and implemented PARTWeb, a Web- based data collection tool to, among other things, improve collaboration between OMB and agencies and centrally track the implementation and status of the PART recommendations. The PART process has aided OMB’s oversight of agencies, and has focused agencies’ efforts to improve performance measurement. According to OMB, the PART is a framework for program assessment and informs its budget decisions. Many agency officials told us that the PART helped either create or strengthen a culture of evaluation within the agencies by providing external motivation for program review. Not surprisingly, agency officials used the PART results to make a case for increased resources in general and for program evaluation specifically. This increased focus on performance is often reflected in improved ratings when “results not demonstrated” programs get reassessed by the PART—86 percent of programs previously rated “results not demonstrated” were subsequently rated adequate, moderately effective, or effective when reassessed. This focus is not without cost, however; the PART remains a labor-intensive process for both OMB and agencies. OMB senior officials describe the PART as providing a consistent framework for assessing federal programs, and as a means to inform its budget decisions. As a major component of the PMA, OMB clearly relies on the PART—a significant component of the PMA—as a major oversight tool and finds information from the PART reviews useful. As we previously reported, the PART has helped to structure and discipline OMB’s use of performance information for internal program analysis and budget review, and made their use of this information more transparent. Given the PART’s use in the budget process, the high profile of the PMA scorecard, and the strong connection between the PART and successful performance on the PMA’s budget and performance integration initiative, agencies have clear incentives to take the PART seriously. Many agency officials told us that the PART helped either create or strengthen a culture of evaluation within the agencies by providing external motivation for program review. The PART question that asks whether a program has undergone regular, independent evaluations sends the message that program assessment and evaluation is an important management tool. For example, according to one agency official at the Health Resources Services Administration in HHS, this requirement encouraged staff to think more broadly about using different types of program evaluations and how they could get the most out of their evaluation dollars. Another HHS official reported that the PART provided an impetus for finishing strategic and evaluation plans for his program, which in turn helped inform the division’s planning process.