Lawmakers call for five-year program reviews

House lawmakers on Wednesday will introduce legislation amending the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act to require regular evaluations of all federal programs.

The GPRA amendment, drafted by Rep. Todd Platts, R-Pa., chairman of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Efficiency and Financial Management, would obligate the Office of Management and Budget to assess each federal program's performance at least once every five years. But the suggested amendment does not dictate any particular method of conducting the evaluations.

"We didn't want to be too prescriptive," said Tabetha Mueller, a spokeswoman for Platts. The amendment is designed simply to bolster GPRA and ensure that future presidential administrations review programs systematically, she explained.

Under GPRA agencies must develop strategic plans for meeting specific performance goals. Though the law contains language recommending that agencies periodically evaluate program performance, it does not mandate OMB reviews. The General Accounting Office has identified this as one of GPRA's shortcomings.

Platts' amendment addresses the issue by ensuring that future administrations complete some type of regular program-level reviews, said Michael Hettinger, staff director for Platts' subcommittee. These reviews would not necessarily have to take the same form as those currently performed by OMB under President Bush's direction.

In preparation for the fiscal 2005 budget, OMB evaluated 40 percent of federal programs. Based on responses to a questionnaire called the Program Assessment Rating Tool, OMB evaluators classified the programs as effective, moderately effective, adequate, ineffective, or results not demonstrated.

The Bush administration wants to review all federal programs in time for the fiscal 2008 budget cycle. This goal is part of a broader performance-based budgeting initiative. While poor performance ratings do not necessarily result in funding cuts, the ratings will help lawmakers make more informed budget decisions, proponents say.

Platts' GPRA amendment would not put a damper on the Bush administration's plans, Hettinger said. At the same time, the legislation would not wed future administrations to the PART, which many analysts say is an evolving tool. The amendment would encourage OMB to use a "cross-cutting" program evaluation strategy, assessing in the same year programs with similar goals.

Such an approach would allow lawmakers and agency officials to make more meaningful comparisons of programs, panelists testified at a recent series of subcommittee hearings on the PART. OMB already has started using a cross-cutting method to some extent. For instance, in preparation for the fiscal 2006 budget season, OMB plans to focus on rating economic development programs.

Platts expects wide support for his amendment, Hettinger and Mueller said. OMB officials last week reviewed and approved of the legislation, they noted. Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the full House Government Reform Committee, has agreed to co-sponsor the legislation.

The subcommittee will meet soon with Senate lawmakers to discuss the legislation and gather support. In a Monday interview with National Journal Group reporters, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, said the program evaluations are useful.

"I'll tell you one reason I know they are," she said. "Department heads are very aware of their ratings."

If passed, the proposed GPRA amendment would grant the executive branch the "clear statutory authority to conduct comprehensive program reviews," said Carl DeMaio, president of the Performance Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based think tank. He sees the suggested legislation as a "clear endorsement from Congress that a performance review tool and process is needed."

House subcommittee staff members have said for at least a month that they feel legislation is necessary to ensure that future administrations do not scale back program evaluations. Had Congress not passed GPRA, the management concepts introduced in the act may not have taken hold and survived a change in administration, Hettinger noted.

Even if program evaluations do not end up guiding budget decisions, they are useful to congressional oversight committees and agency managers, and should continue in some form when Bush leaves office, Hettinger said.

"One of the things we've tried to emphasize is that it's a management tool for agencies," he said.