New PART Scores Showcase More Contradictions of Program

Shortly after the Office of Management and Budget released the President's FY 2007 budget, the agency released a list of the 141 programs [1] slated for cuts or elimination in the president's State of the Union address due to their lack of results. These cuts to discretionary programs would save nearly $15 billion in FY07--$7.3 billion by terminating 91 programs and $7.4 billion by cutting funding for another 50--a drop in the bucket in the larger budget picture. This year, the administration's funding recommendations not only continue to illustrate the subjectivity and inconsistency of the PART itself, but also calls into question the reasoning underlying the PART, that is, the White House's dedication to good program management and objective results.

Last year, President Bush suggested cutting or terminating 154 federal programs, of which less than one-third had been reviewed using the PART. Congress accepted 89 of the President's proposals, cutting a total of $6.5 billion from federal spending. This year, Bush is suggesting terminating 91 programs and reducing 50 others. By far the greatest cuts under the proposal--almost $3.5 billion--would come from the Department of Education.

Just like last year, of the 141 programs slated for cuts and termination by President Bush, less than one-third have gone through the PART process. Among the 45 programs on the president's list that did receive PART ratings, 12 were rated "adequate" and three received the second highest mark of "moderately effective." No programs singled out by the president received the tool's highest rating of "effective."

Among the remaining programs slated for cuts, 12 received the lowest rating of "ineffective." Seventy-five percent of those ineffective programs were slated for complete elimination, and one, the HOPE VI program [2] in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was slated for rescission this year.

Forty percent of the PARTed programs slated for cuts received the rating of "results not demonstrated (RND)," meaning the PART programs were unable to develop acceptable performance goals or collect data to determine whether they were performing. Often these programs collect data, undertake rigorous performance assessments, and set goals of their own--data often found, however, to be unacceptable to OMB.

Under the PART, programs can be penalized for following congressional statutory intent or implementing Supreme Court rulings. The PART allows OMB, and in turn the president, to insert their own perspective and objectives into the oversight and budgeting functions ordinarily reserved for the legislative branch. This has implications for the balance of powers between the three branches of the government, particularly if the PART were to be, as has been proposed, used in budgeting decisions made by Congress.

A Broader Look at PART
This is just one of many significant problems [3] with the PART. To date, roughly 80 percent of all government programs have been rated by the PART, and by this time next year all programs will have gone through the process once. Below are the ratings for all government programs to date:

Of the programs rated ineffective since the first year the PART was used, four have been slated for funding increases by the administration. It is unclear why certain "ineffective" programs should be terminated outright, while others should receive funding increases. It is also difficult to determine whether a failing program could be turned around with additional resources or if the program is a lost cause. This subtlety is lost in the PART questionnaire.

Further, a connection is lacking between PART ratings and budget requests. For example, 125 programs have been rated effective over the last four years, of which 35 were proposed for funding cuts in the current budget, 11 saw their funding remain the same, and the remaining 79 saw funding increases. This seemingly arbitrary funding pattern illustrates substantial inconsistencies with the PART, pointing to the subjectivity of PART evaluations.

Subjectivity and political bias in the PART also seems apparent when surveying how budget requests are handled for programs that fall under the category of "results not demonstrated." Of the over 800 programs which have been evaluated to date, 189--almost 25 percent--have been rated "results not demonstrated." Comparing the RND programs from the Department of Education (historically opposed by Republicans) and the Department of Homeland Security (created by this president) one immediately is struck by the inconsistency of PART rating and budget requests. The president proposed cutting nearly 25 percent of the Education Department's RND programs, but just 6 percent of those in the Department of Homeland Security.

Perhaps most ironic is the Federal Emergency Management Agency's PART score of "adequate" awarded before its incredibly inept and calamitous response to Hurricane Katrina, particularly in light of programs with proven track records of success, such as Upward Bound, receiving ratings of "ineffective."

OMB Deputy Director Clay Johnson, who is the administration's point person on PART, has done little to clarify these inconsistencies. Before the House Budget Committee in a hearing on government performance [4] on Feb. 16, Johnson testified on the use of PART and on the government's new PART website, expectmore.gov [5].

The website allows individuals to view all completed PART questionnaires and includes very short descriptions of actions taken as a result of the PART rating. During the hearing, Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) was particularly effective in exposing the inconsistent way budget requests are made for different programs receiving the same PART rating. Johnson implied that administrative priorities--and not merely the PART--allow for some programs to receive funding increases, and others to receive cuts, such as in the case of the "results not demonstrated" category. In the cutthroat budget squeeze, when it comes down to guns vs. butter, it was apparent in listening to Johnson that the rating tool of the administration appears to favor guns regardless of PART scores.

Johnson also mentioned in his testimony [6] that government performance is important and accountability necessary when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars, a statement with which few would argue. Yet the OMB's PART is neither a true government performance tool or an objective analytical mechanism. There is little evidence [3] PART scores are comprehensively and objectively used in an unbiased manner to inform the development of the president's budget requests. Rather, it seems the president's rhetorical focus on performance and results is merely a smokescreen providing cover for a predetermined political agenda, seeking to promote a particular ideology while drastically reducing the size of the federal government.