GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Bush performance rating tool draws plaudits, pans

• 61306
  

  The PART process is not adequately tied to agency budgeting processes. Expenditures at the end of the year continue to increase dramatically, so 'move the money out the door and make sure you spend it all before the end of the fiscal year' is still very much the way things are done. Of course, if Congress would commit to passing an annual appropriation on time for once, perhaps agencies could plan better use and obligation of their budget. Can you imagine a Government with good planning and equally quarterly expenditures? How much we could accomplish?

  Delores McKinger Posted October 21, 2008 11:47 AM
• 61305
  

  "Move the money out the door and make sure you spend it all before the end of the fiscal year" is still the tenet of every single Federal agency. And if you don't believe it, look at the spending reports of agency by quarter. OMB has completely failed to require agencies to plan and expend their budgets appropriately.

  Sue Nach Posted October 21, 2008 11:44 AM
• 61297
  

  What?? We are government and we don't want no stinking performance objectives.. We just come to work if we are available do what we feel like and demand raises and promotions. We don't have time to serve the public the ingrates, just pay your taxes

  Dan ketter Posted October 21, 2008 10:52 AM
• 61243
  

  I'm disturbed by the defensive tone of much of the criticism fo the PRT process, which appears to boil down to saying because it has identified programs the effectiveness of which is undemonstrated or questionable it obviously is itself suspect and somehow nefarious, and resorting to the infamous ad hominem argument as if that was dispositive of the points at issue. This is disenheartening. The PART process was developed for the very fact that the existing GPRA and appropriations processes were not themselvs effective in assigning accountability and holding agencies management to measurable expectations. The urge to evade anything like true program ROI measuring sticks, which is clearly at the bottom much of the negativism is symptomatic of the bureaucratic imperative at its most unlovely. My own agency fought PART tooth and nail, but the beneficial outcomes have won many converts. Sadly, however,the opposition was and is strongest among our career SES ranks.

  Jeremiah Posted October 20, 2008 5:15 PM
• 61238
  

  I'm in favor of never throwing out the baby, whether it's with the bathwater or not.

  Martin Lawrie Posted October 20, 2008 3:08 PM
• 61237
  

  Mr. O'Grady, your claim that PART judges programs on standards at odds with program purposes makes me wonder how familiar you are with the tool. Also, if it is more appropriate for Congress to do so and - as you say - they are capable of doing a better job, why haven't they done so? (See Mr. Campbell's comment.)

  Steve Richardson Posted October 20, 2008 2:46 PM
• 61227
  

  The principle problem with it is that it forces Agencies and Departments to fit their program measures to PART, which was developed by OMB to assess Federal program performance. In effect, the White House is using PART to supplant Congress's role by instituting OMB's subjective policy preferences and biases for those of the other branches of government.

  As GAO observed, "PART is not well integrated with GPRA - the current statutory framework for strategic planning and reporting. By using the PART process to review and sometimes replace GPRA goals and measures, OMB is substituting its judgment for a wide range of stakeholder interests." (GAO-04-174, January 2004 Highlights).

  Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, a member of EPA's Science Advisory Board, testified on March 11, 2004, before the House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards that "it appears that the weighting formula in the PART favors programs with near-term benefits at the expense of programs with long term benefits. Since research inevitably involves more long-term benefits and fewer short-term benefits, PART ratings serve to bias the decision-making process against programs such as STAR ecosystem research, global climate change research, and other important subjects."

  PART is a very poor mechanism for measuring program performance and results. PART actually decreases the efficiency and effectiveness of government through increased administrative burdens, distracted managers, and compliance costs. PART continues a troubling trend to arrogate increasing power to the White House, even in areas that by constitutional design have been committed to Congress. PART systematically ignores the reality of Federal programs and judges them based on standards that are deeply incompatible with the purposes that federal programs are expected to serve. Congress already has the means to investigate and produce far more sophisticated analyses of the usefulness, effectiveness, and results of government programs.

  John J. O'Grady Posted October 20, 2008 12:27 PM
• 61224
  

  While any rating or evaluation system will have its inherent flaws (comparing diverse processes, poorly or politically chosen evaluation measures, skewing activities to meet arbitrary goals, taking into account factors beyond the agency's control) however accountability to the public requires it of us. Providing the best possible evaluation through good planning and clear goals allows elected officials and the public see what they are getting for their tax money, as well as being a positive tool for the agency being evaluated. Ideally, it helps take agencies move of the "popularity" pool (who likes being regulated?) and into measuring effective performance according to public needs.

  PJ Posted October 20, 2008 11:26 AM
• 61219
  

  One example of how well PART has served health agencies is the conclusion reached that community health centers are one of the most successful programs. This assumption is totally wild. When the agency that oversees these programs focused on improving access to the underserved their hope was that enhanced efforts and improve health outcomes would naturally follow. Unfortunately, due to this narrow prism, poor development of needed policy, continuation of outdated quality management tools, lack of serious regulatory oversight and mandates for corrective action the best has not occurred. And now, it takes too much to 'stop a train.'

  Lynette Posted October 20, 2008 10:57 AM
• 61215
  

  Having been training in the PART, I've always thought it more than a bit interesting that it does not review functions common across all agencies -- such as the effectiveness of management. When I asked the instructors on this, I was told "it would be too hard".

  colleen sallee Posted October 20, 2008 10:01 AM
• 61201
  

  Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Granted, PART has some flaws, but is there something better? If not, the question then is it better than what we had before?

  Jim Campbell Posted October 20, 2008 7:45 AM
• 61155
  

  The entire Bush administration is a "under performing agency". Only history gets to rate them and I don't think they will fair well..

  Retired Air traffic Controller Posted October 17, 2008 6:59 PM