Program assessment rating tool results

The PART questionnaire was divided into four sections: 1. Strategic Planning, 3. Program Management, and 4. Program Results. Points were awarded to a program based on the answer to each question, and an overall rating of effectiveness was then assigned.

The last year of OMB's use of the PART was , as the tool was then dropped by the Obama Administration and replaced with a new emphasis on using performance information to manage programs, to address a shortcoming that had been a concern of OMB and others for several years. This new focus on the effective use of performance information in program management was underscored in the enactment of legislation to update the Government Performance and Results Act of , the GPRA Modernization Act of These questions were organized into four sections of the PART that were each assigned a weight for calculating an overall score:.

In addition to the 25 questions on the basic PART instrument, certain types of programs had several additional questions relating to their special characteristics. There were 6 such categories of programs that had their own unique set of additional questions. The 7 categories of federal programs were:. When a PART was completed for a program, along with each answer there was a brief explanation that included a description of the relevant evidence substantiating the answer. The questions within each section were given equal weight, unless the evaluator decided to alter their weight to emphasize certain key factors of importance to the program.

A Yes answer must be definite and reflect a high standard of performance. Each question requires a clear explanation of the answer and citations of relevant supporting evidence, such as agency performance information, independent evaluations, and financial information.

Responses must be evidence-based and not rely on impressions or generalities. CO1: Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that in- cludes a qualified assessment of merit? Competitive Grants 3. CO2: Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities? CO3: Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful man- ner?

BF1: Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities? BF2: Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful man- ner? RG1: Did the program seek and take into account the views of all af- fected parties e.

Regulatory 3. RG3: Does the program systematically review its current regulations to ensure consistency among all regulations in accomplishing program goals? RG4: Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the ex- tent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Regu- latory 3. Capital Assets and Service Acquisition 3. CR1: Is the program managed on an ongoing basis to assure credit qual- ity remains sound, collections and disbursements are timely, and reporting re- quirements are fulfilled? Appendix C 89 3. Credit 3. Specific Results Questions by Program Type 4. RG1: Were programmatic goals and benefits achieved at the least in- cremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Regulatory 4. CA1: Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and estab- lished schedules? Capital Assets and Service Acquisition. A new book from the National Research Council recommends changes in how the federal government evaluates the efficiency of research at EPA and other agencies. Assessing efficiency should be considered only one part of gauging a program's quality, relevance, and effectiveness. The efficiency of research processes and that of investments should be evaluated using different approaches.

These evaluations require panels of experts. In contrast, process efficiency should focus on "inputs" the people, funds, and facilities dedicated to research and "outputs" the services, grants, publications, monitoring, and new techniques produced by research , as well as their timelines and should be evaluated using quantitative measures.

The committee recommends that the efficiency of EPA's research programs be evaluated according to the same standards used at other agencies. To ensure this, OMB should train and oversee its budget examiners so that the PART questionnaire is implemented consistently and equitably across agencies. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.