Performance Budgeting Usa

8/6/2019 Performance Budgeting Usa

1/33

1

Performance Budgetingand Performance :

Lessons from the PART

Initiative

COMPILED BY Mr Joseph Wachira


2/33

2

OverviewOverview

Background

PART Process

PART Questions

Challenges

How OMB (USA) Manages the PARTInitiative


3/33

3

What is the PART?

The Program Assessment Rating Tool is a diagnostic tool used

to assess program performance and to drive improvements.

The PART is designed to provide a consistent approach to

assessing and rating programs across the Federal government.

PART assessments review overall program effectiveness, from

design through implementation and results.

Once completed, PART reviews help inform budget decisions

and identify actions to improve results.

Agencies are held accountable for implementing PART follow-

up actions, i.e., improvement plans, for each program.


4/33

4

When We Began

Many systems in place to collect and report data

Unclear relationship between strategic and annualgoals

Tendency to measure what we could instead ofwhat we should

Uneven attention to performance measurement

Lots of measures, but priorities not transparent Performance data used more for reporting than

decision-making


5/33

5

Where We Are TodayWhere We Are Today

Distribution of Cumulative Ratings 2002 - 2006

50%

38%29%

24% 22%

5%

5%

%%

%

15%

20%

26%28%

28%

24%

26%

26% 29% 30%

6%11% 15% 15% 17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2002 234 2003 407 2004 607 2005 793 2006 977

Res s N Demons ed Ineffec ve Ade quate Modera tely Effective Effective


6/33

6

PART ProcessPART Process The PART questionnaire is divided into four sections: programpurpose/design, planning, management, and results/accountability.

Answers must be clearly explained and cite relevant supportingevidence, such as agency performance information, independentevaluations, and financial information.

Answers translate into section scores weighted to generate an overallscore and rating: Effective, Moderately Effective, Adequate, Ineffective.

Programs without performance measures or data are rated ResultsNot Demonstrated.

Additional questions are asked about particular types of programs:

Block/Formula Grant, Capital Assets and Service Acquisition,Competitive Grant, Credit, Direct Federal, Regulatory-based , Research& Development.


7/33

7

200 PART Schedule200 PART Schedule

200 PARTs identified - January .

PARTWeb available for data entry - January 22.

Questionnaire guidance available - January 2 .

PART training for OMB and agencies - mid February.

PART drafts due - March 0. Consistency check & performance measures review - May - 0.

OMB revises PARTs & passes back results to agencies - May

Agencies submit appeals - May 2 .

Summaries & improvement plans ready - July .

Data entry locked - August .

PARTs published on mid August.


8/33

8

PART QuestionsPART Questions

Four sections

I. Program Purpose and Design (20%)

II. Strategic Planning (10%)

III. Program Management (20%)

IV. Results (50%)


9/33

9

Section I: Program Purpose and DesignSection I: Program Purpose and Design(pp. 6(pp. 6--22)22)

20 weight of total score

Clarity and relevance of program purpose

Soundness of program design

Addresses programs structural issues

Clear design and purpose an essential for

identifying performance measures


10/33

10

Section II: Strategic PlanningSection II: Strategic Planning

(pp. 2(pp. 2 -- ))

0 of total score, with links to Section IV questions

Addresses program plans and approach to long-termgoals

Programs must have long-term and annual

performance measures and ambitious targets

Emphasizes independent, quality performance

evaluations, plus budget transparency and budget-

performance integration


11/33

11

Section III: Program ManagementSection III: Program Management

(pp.(pp. -- )) 20 of total score

Addresses:

Accountability of managers, performance ofpartners

Coordination with related programs

Financial management and efficiencyimprovements

Correction of deficiencies

Do programs have procedures in place to measureand achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness?


12/33

12

Section IV:Section IV:

Program Results/AccountabilityProgram Results/Accountability(pp.(pp. --6 )6 )

0 of total score

Assesses achievement of long-term and annualperformance and efficiency goals

Compares actual performance to targets(identified in Sections II and III)

Effectiveness in achieving goals based onindependent evaluations

Compares with performance of similar programs


13/33

13

Performance Measures are Central

to the PART

Allows tailoring to the specific program

Results are the most valuable information

product of the PART Takes most time in completing the PART

Biggest determinant of overall score andrating

Updated regularly to help keep PARTinformation current


14/33

14

How PART improves performance

measurement

Outcome-oriented long-term measures reflecting programpurpose

Outcome-oriented annual measures that directly support long-term goals

If goals are outputs, must explain how they reflect progresstoward desired outcomes

Challenging but realistic quantifiable targets and timeframes

Clear baseline from which to measure changes in performance

Credit in results section tied to measures in strategic planning

section Performance measures used to manage

Accountability for achieving performance goals


15/33

15

Where performance measures are

today

Of programs assessed

6 have long term measures

2 have ambitious targets for long-termmeasures

have annual measures

2 have ambitious targets for annualmeasures


16/33

16

Examples of Improved MeasuresCoast Guard Aids to Navigation

Old focus: Percentage of time radio navigational systems available

Current focus: Five year average of number of collisions, allisions, andgroundings

National Bone Marrow Donor Registry

Old focus: Number of donors in registry

Current focus: Number of transplants facilitated and post-transplantsurvival rate

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Old focus: Number of clean-ups completed

Current focus: Number of clean-ups that exceed state risk-basedstandards for human exposure and ground water migration

Community Health Centers

Old focus: Numbers and characteristics of persons served and servicesprovided

Current focus: Heath outcomes such as low birth weight babies

Small Business Development Centers

Old focus: Number of small businesses counseled or trained

Current focus: Number of jobs created (new businesses v. old businesses)


17/33

17

Performance MeasuresPerformance Measures Outcome: Events or conditions external to the program and of direct

importance to the public, beneficiaries and/or customers. They relateto the programs mission, purpose, and strategic goals.

Output: Internal program activities products and servicesdelivered to the public, beneficiaries.

Efficiency: Reflect economical and effective acquisition, use, andmanagement of resources to achieve program outcomes orproduce program outputs. Outcome efficiency

Output efficiency

Input productivity


18/33

18

Performance GoalsPerformance Goals

Targets Improved levels of performance

needed to achieve stated goals.

Programs must have ambitious butrealistic, achievable targets and

timeframes for performance measures.

Together, measures, targets, andtimeframes establish the programs

performance goals.


19/33

19

Program EvaluationsProgram Evaluations

Scope - Examine underlying cause and effectrelationship between program and achievement of

performance targets.

Independence - Performed by non-biased parties

with no conflict of interest. Quality

Applicability All programs expected to undergo

some type of evaluation.

Impact Prefer effectiveness evaluations(outcome, e.g., whether Federal intervention

makes a difference).

Rigor The most rigorous evidence that is

appropriate and feasible for that program.


20/33

20

Does It Ever End?Does It Ever End?

Steps after PARTs are completed

Draft summaries for ExpectMore.gov

Spring Updates in PARTWeb

Complete Improvement Plans All programs must have, regardless of PART rating

Focus on findings in the PART assessment

Implement plans and report on progress

ExpectMore.gov release mid-August


21/33

21

Challenges: Lessons to LearnChallenges: Lessons to Learn

QuicklyQuickly Share drafts, communicate frequently.

Use clear, direct language.

Stick to deadlines.

Dont take the PART personally.

Rely on evidence, not anecdotes.


22/33

22

Challenges: Measurement

Uneven quality of performance

measures in PARTs

Several areas difficult to measure Increasing the timeliness of

performance reporting

Consistency: agencies and OMBanswer some questions differently


23/33


24/33

24

Challenges: Improvement Plans

Aggressiveness varies

Unclear how they impact program

results (versus PART score) Uneven attention to plans across

agencies and OMB


25/33

25

Challenges: Improving Performance

Improving PART score versusimproving performance

Ensuring that program managersare empowered and accountable

Assessing improvement plansfairly

Sharing good approaches andmodels


26/33

26

Challenges: Impact

Executive Branch

Management, funding, or authorization decisions are not regularlybased on the PART

Presidents Management Agenda Budget and PerformanceIntegration initiative is being used to leverage greater use of PARTresults

Congress

Rare, diverse references to PART

Not the basis for legislative action

Few oppose vigorously

Crosscutting

Opportunity for collaboration among like programs


27/33

27


28/33

28

ExpectMore.gov SummaryExpectMore.gov Summary


29/33


30/33


31/33

31

Presidents Management Agenda

A strategy for improving Federal management and performance with five

government-wide and nine agency-specific goals.

Strategic Management of Human Capital

Competitive Sourcing

Improved Financial Performance

Expanded Electronic Government

Budget and Performance Integration

The President directed agency heads to designate a Chief OperatingOfficer for day-to-day operations.

The President designated the Presidents Management Council (PMC) asan integrating mechanism for policy implementation across government,headed by OMBs Deputy Director for Management and comprised of the

COOs.


32/33

32


33/33

33

BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATIONCriteria for Achieving GREEN

Senior managers meet at least quarterly to examine reports integrating financial and performance

information for all major Department responsibilities. Agency works to improve programperformance and efficiency each year;

Strategic plans contain a limited number of outcome-oriented goals and objectives. Annual budget

and performance documents incorporate measures identified in the PART and focus on the

information in the senior management report;

Reports the full cost of achieving performance goals accurately in budget and performancedocuments and can accurately estimate the marginal cost of changing performance goals;

Has at least one efficiency measure for all PARTed programs;

Uses PART evaluations to direct program improvements and hold managers accountable for them,

and uses PART findings and performance information to justify funding requests, management

actions, and legislative proposals; and

Less than 10% of agency programs receive a Results Not Demonstrated rating for two years in a

row.

To maintain green status, agency:

Improves program performance and efficiency each year; and

Uses marginal cost analysis to inform resource allocations, as appropriate.

Documents

Performance Budgeting Usa