|
| | |
Budget and Performance Integration
Click icon for PDF assistance
One of
the five initiatives on the President’s Management Agenda is
budget and performance integration. This initiative builds on the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and previous
efforts to identify program goals and performance measures and to
link them with the budget process. The FY 2003 President’s Budget
was the first to include explicit assessments of program performance
Spring
Review Guidance
The Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) is currently refining and improving
this program assessment process in preparation for the FY 2004 Budget
Review. One of the elements of the improved assessment process is the
use of a common analytic tool – the Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART). OMB is testing an early version of the PART on a selected
group of programs during the Spring Review process. OMB is also inviting
comments on the PART and program selection guidance from a wide range
of interested parties inside and outside of the Federal government.
The elements of the Spring Review guidance may be obtained by clicking
on the appropriate heading below.
-- PART
Worksheet Instructions (79k)
-- PART Questions and Selection Scoring worksheets for following program
types:
(Note: Both .pdf and Excel versions of these worksheets are available
for download. The .pdf files only contain the PART Questions and Scoring
worksheets. However, there are three spreadsheets in each Excel file,
the second of which is the PART Questions and Scoring worksheet for that
program type.)
-- Total
Program Score Worksheet (51k)
Feedback
Feedback
on each element of the proposed assessment process or on the overall
process is invited and may be provided through the Internet at http://hydra.gsa.gov/survey/ombfeedback/ by
clicking this underlined address. Visitors to this web site will be
prompted to answer the following questions on specific aspects of the
Spring Review guidance to assist OMB in compiling the feedback results.
However, general comments and recommendations will be accepted as well.
- Definition
of Program. There are many ways to define programs. At one
end, a program may be defined to cut cross several agencies,
e.g., disaster response. At the other end, a program may be defined
as a particular activity within a larger set of activities, e.g.,
a single type of research grant. The draft definition of a program
seeks to define programs in ways that support assessments and
use of those assessments to make budget and management decisions.
- Do
you have recommendations on how programs should be defined (e.g.,
budget line items, activities that bundle together several line
items, etc.)?
- Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The PART provides a common,
transparent approach to assessing programs and supporting recommendations
based on those assessments. The PART consists of a series of
questions intended to support the assessment of four key program
characteristics: program purpose/Federal role, strategic planning,
program management, and results. There is a unique PART for each
of the seven major types of Federal programs.
- Was
important program performance information not captured by the
PART? If so, how could it be captured?
- Are
the structure (separate sections for program purpose/Federal role,
strategic planning, management, and results) and emphasis (score
weighting) suited for capturing program effectiveness?
- Are
there specific changes in the questions you would recommend?
- Overall
Assessment Process. There may be other aspects of the proposed
assessment approach on which you wish to comment and you are invited
to do so. In particular, however, we would like your input on:
- How
should program effectiveness ratings be used to support budget
and management recommendations?
|
|