This article looks at the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) and how they assess seven programs. It establishes that the PART does not adequately consider different program types and has characteristics that create a disconnection between this tool and the GPRA: It does not enter into dialogue with the GPRA regarding the choice of performance indicators; it evaluates programs through criteria that conflict with the programs' statutes or intent and penalizes programs for the degree of explicitness in their authorizing statutes; it uses standardized measures that sometimes overlook the intent of statutes or the discretionary nature of implementation; it employs a different level of analysis from the GPRA; it places a contradictory emphasis on the relationship between programs with similar goals; and it emphasizes different external factors influencing program performance. The article concludes with recommendations on how to improve the PART.
Behn, R. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review63(5), 586-604.
2.
Boyd, E. (1995). Community Development Block Grants: An overview . Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
3.
Boyd, E. (1996). Community Development Block Grants: An overview . Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
4.
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. ( 2004). FY 2005 GPRA annual performance plan, FY 2004 revised final GPRA annual performance plan, and FY 2003 GPRA annual performance report . Baltimore, MD: Author.
5.
Clean Water Act. (1977). Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_laws/docs/fedwaterpollutioncontrolact.pdf
6.
Department of Health and Human Services. ( 2000). Final FY 2001 GPRA performance plan, revised final FY 2000 GPRA performance plan and FY 1999 GPRA performance report. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.hhs.gov/budget/gpra/010ig.pdf
7.
Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program. (2006). Annual report for FY 2005. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.usdoj.gov/dag/pubdoc/hcfacreport2005.pdf
8.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. ( 2000). 2000 performance and accountability report. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.hud.gov/offices/cfo/reports/2000/account/11perfinf02000.pdf
9.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. ( 2002). 2002 performance and accountability report. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.hud.gov/offices/cfo/reports/02parsec2.pdf
10.
Department of Housing and Urban Development ( 2005). 2005 performance and accountability report. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.hud.gov/offices/cfo/reports/2005par.pdf
11.
Department of Justice. (2000). Fiscal year 1999 annual accountability report. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/ar99/chapter2.htm
12.
Department of Justice. (2004, January). FY 2003 performance and accountability report. Retrieved March 1, 2007, from http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/ar2003/p2sg3.htm
13.
Federal Election Campaign Act. (1975). Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf
14.
Federal Election Commission. (2003). FY 2002 performance report. Retrieved February 10, 2007, from http://www.fec.gov/pages/budget/fy2004/brj2004/brj2004a.pdf
15.
Federal Election Commission. (2005). Performance and accountability report fiscal year 2005. Retrieved February 10, 2007, from http://www.fec.gov/pages/budget/fy2005/par_2005.pdf
16.
Frederickson, D.G., and Frederickson, G.H. (2006). Measuring the performance of the hollow state. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Gramlich, E. (2002, March). Testimony to the House Financial Services Committee. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Congressional. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from https://web.lexis-nexis.com/
19.
Housing and Community Development Act. (1974 ). Retrieved January 18, 2008, from http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/rulesandregs/laws/sec5301.cfm
20.
Liebschutz, S.F. (1990). Neighborhood revitalization in the United States: The decent. Public Administration Quarterly, 14(1), 86-108.
21.
Office of Management and Budget. (2002). The president's management agenda. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf
22.
Office of Management and Budget. (2004a). Budget of the United States government FY 2004: Rating the performance of federal programs. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/pdf/budget/performance.pdf
23.
Office of Management and Budget. (2004b). Circular A-11: Preparation, submission, and execution of the budget. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a11/current_year/a_11_2004.pdf
24.
Office of Management and Budget. (2005a, March). Guidance for completing the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/fy2005/2005_guidance.pdf
25.
Office of Management and Budget. (2005b, May). House considers CDBG but avoids attacking PART. Retrieved February 6, 2007, from http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2865/1/308?TopicID=1
26.
Office of Management and Budget. (n.d.a) ExpectMore.gov. Retrieved January 9, 2007, from http://www.white-house.gov/omb/expectmore/index.html
27.
Office of Management and Budget. (n.d.b).Rating the performance of federal programs. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/performance.html
28.
Project FEC Task Force. (2002). No bark, no bite, no point. Retrieved February 6, 2007, from http://www.democracy21.org/
29.
Radin, B.A. (2000). The Government Performance and Results Act and the tradition of federal management reform: Square pegs in round holes. Journal of Pubic Administration Research and Theory, 10(1), 111-135.
30.
Radin, B.A. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
31.
Social SecurityAct, Sec. 1128C(a). (1996). Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title11/1128C.htm
32.
Tennessee Valley Authority. (2001). Annual performance report FY 2000. Retrieved January 19, 2007, from: http://www.tva.gov/pdf/gprafy00_perfrpt.pdfs
33.
Tennessee Valley Authority. (2005). Annual performance report FY 2004. Retrieved January 19, 2007, from http://www.tva.gov/abouttva/pdf/gprafy04_perfrpt.pdf
34.
Tennessee Valley Authority Act. (1933). Retrieved March 24, 2008, from www.tva.gov/abouttva/pdf/TVA_Act.pdf
35.
Tennessee Valley Authority GPRA Annual Performance Report: Fiscal Year 2006. (2007, March). Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://www.tva.gov/abouttva/pdf/gprafy06_perfrpt.pdf
36.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2004a, January). Performance budgeting: Observations on the use of OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 budget (GAO-04-174). Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04174.pdf
37.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2004b, March). Results-oriented government: GPRA has established a solid foundation for achieving greater results (GAO-04-38). Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0438.pdf
38.
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. ( 1994). Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://thomas.loc.gov
39.
Weintraub, E.L. (2004). Testimony before the Committee on Rules and Administration of the United States Senate. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2004/071404_weintraub.htm
40.
Wilson, J.Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books .
