Office of Management and Budget Print this document

Budget and Performance Integration

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 on each element of the proposed assessment process or on the overall process is invited and may be provided through the Internet at 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.

  1. 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.)?

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

Return to this article at:

Print this document