Powering Up Performance

Perhaps we need a similar approach for getting to the truth about the performance of federal programs and linking budget resources to results.

Ever since the passage of the Government Performance and Results Act in 1993, champions of performance management in government have confronted two key challenges: generating quality performance information for each program and getting the executive and legislative branches to use that information in the budget process. Overcoming these two challenges requires performance management at the Office of Management and Budget, at federal agencies, and on Capitol Hill (particularly among the appropriations committees).

The Bush administration created the Program Assessment Rating Tool and committed to review the performance of 20 percent of federal programs each year and to tie budget requests to results of those reviews. No single evaluation tool is perfect, but PART is a methodological, standardized and evidence-based assessment that summarizes what we know and don't know about a particular program. The tool not only helps budget examiners do their jobs, but it also bridges the management and budget sides of OMB.

Now that OMB can manage the flow of program performance information and integrate it into its budget process, it's time Congress did the same.

For starters, lawmakers should pass legislation proposed by Rep. Todd Platts, R-Pa., to formalize the OMB program review process. While the legislation does not explicitly endorse the PART as the only viable method, OMB would be required to continue systematic program reviews regardless of which administration is in power.

Congress could improve the integrity of OMB program assessments by creating a Congressional Office of Program Performance to provide peer reviews of OMB's ratings. The COPP also would conduct its own program performance reviews based on member and committee requests. Perhaps the biggest selling point is that the COPP would help Congress sort through the reams of performance plans, reports and budget justifications that pour into offices on Capitol Hill.

The COPP would provide a much-needed balance to the administration's program assessments. It would create a healthy "good cop, bad cop" dynamic where political views drive differing conclusions about program effectiveness. Using review methods in both branches of government would make the process more transparent and facilitate an informed and healthy debate.

To avoid more congressional bureaucracy, the COPP should be staffed jointly by the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office. A joint committee made up of House and Senate members from the appropriations, budget and oversight panels should select which programs to review each year. Each chamber and political party should have an opportunity to choose.

Lessons from several states demonstrate that with beefed-up program review in the legislative branch, performance budgeting can become a reality. Florida-which has the most sophisticated performance budgeting system of any state-created the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability to provide legislators with cost and performance information to drive budget decisions.

Without an entity dedicated to program review, Congress cannot adequately engage in performance budgeting-a vital tool for addressing funding and demographic challenges. And without Congress' informed input, agencies have no reason to pursue performance management. By putting a COPP on this beat, performance budgeting can become a reality at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.