PART Results and the President’s Budget

The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was created as part of the Bush Administration’s Budget and Performance Integration Initiative to link program goals and performance measures to the budget process. According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), PART results “will be used to make decisions regarding budgets and policy.”

To what degree has this actually happened? Do PART results for Department of Education programs correspond to funding levels in the President’s Budget Requests?

As noted in last week’s post, almost half the programs at the Department of Education do not present enough information to determine program effectiveness and receive a PART rating. But limited evidence exists to suggest that a program’s PART rating, even when available, is considered when making funding decisions.

While there may be some connections between PART ratings and budget requests, they are not always consistent. For example, the President’s 2009 budget did eliminate funding for three of the four Department of Education programs rated “ineffective” – Even Start, the Perkins Loan Program, and Vocational Education State Grants. But the budget did include level funding for TRIO Upward Bound, which was also found to be “ineffective” (though some prior year requests did try to cut funding).

The President also proposed eliminating 44 additional programs at the Department of Education. Of the 18 programs with PART reviews, two were rated “adequate,” and 16 were rated “results not demonstrated.” The other 26 programs targeted for elimination had not gone through a PART review to determine program effectiveness.

The President’s 2009 budget request did include funding increases for four of the five programs in the Department of Education rated “effective” – Institute of Education Sciences Research, National Assessment for Educational Progress, National Center for Education Statistics, and Reading First State Grants. The President also requested increases for two programs rated “moderately effective,” nine programs rated “adequate,” and two programs rated “results not demonstrated.”

The connection between PART ratings and the President’s funding request is inconsistent. While PART may be used to justify a funding increase or decrease in some cases, it is not always the case.

This is partly by design. OMB points out that funding requests are not solely based on the PART. A program’s PART rating is only one factor among many used to inform budget recommendations. A bad rating does not necessarily mean decreased funding and a good rating does not guarantee an increase.

Looking at the list of programs rated “effective,” we wonder if ideology played any role in the ratings. Three of the six programs currently rated “effective” focus on research, something the Administration has strongly supported since taking office. Over the years, the Administration has also requested funding increases for Reading First, one of their signature programs.

Despite attempts to ensure that the PART is as unbiased as possible, the PART is ultimately a subjective tool. As a result, it may reflect the biases of those conducting the assessment – the Executive Branch.

Making funding decisions based on solid assessments of program effectiveness is a worthwhile goal. PART is a step forward in linking program performance to the budget process. Still, questions remain about the reliability of the PART instrument itself and the extent to which it is actually used to make funding decisions.

Up next in the Ed Money Watch PART Series: PART Results and Congress