Order Code RL32671
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Federal Program Performance Review:
Some Recent Developments
November 15, 2004
Virginia A. McMurtry
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service { The Library of Congress
Federal Program Performance Review:
Some Recent Developments
Summary
On February 25, 2004, H.R. 3826, the Program Assessment and Results Act
(PARA), was introduced, to require the Office of Management Budget (OMB) to
review government programs at least once every five years for purposes of evaluating
their performance. The bill would amend the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-62, known as GPRA), to create a statutory process resembling
the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), first used by OMB during preparation
of the FY2004 budget. H.R. 3826 would not, however, mandate the use of PART
specifically.
On May 19, 2004, a House subcommittee held markup on H.R. 3826, and
approved the bill, as amended, by voice vote. Full committee markup followed on
June 3, 2004, with the bill, as further amended, voted to be reported favorably. A
Senate companion bill, S. 2898, was introduced on October 5, 2004. On October 8,
2004, a written report to accompany H.R. 3826 was filed (H.Rept. 108-768). The bill
as reported would amend GPRA to require the OMB director to review, to the
maximum extent practicable, each federal program (as defined by OMB) at least once
every five years. In conducting each assessment, OMB would coordinate with the
relevant agency head to determine the programs to be reviewed, and to evaluate the
purpose, design, strategic plan, management, and results of the program. In
developing criteria for identifying programs to be assessed each year, the director
would consider the advantages of reviewing programs with similar purposes or
functions the same year. At least 90 days prior to completing the annual assessments,
a listing of programs under review and the criteria being used would be available on
the OMB website, and OMB would also “provide a mechanism” for public comment
on the programs and criteria. The assessments would be performed only by federal
employees, and the results would be transmitted to Congress along with the next
budget submission of the President. PARA would further amend GPRA to require
submission of strategic plans covering four years, to be submitted by September 30
following a year when there is a presidential election.
Various subjects are of potential interest in considering H.R. 3826. One issue
is its relationship with GPRA and PART. Some suggest that PARA builds and
improves upon the GPRA framework and is needed to ensure that coordinated
program reviews continue. Others point out that the PART process, which PARA
resembles, is not well integrated with GPRA, and that PARA, unlike GPRA, does not
require consultation with Congress and other stakeholders. Additional concerns
include avoiding partisanship in the review process and protecting the role of
Congress. Finally, frameworks for systematic review of federal programs developed
previously in sunset bills may be of interest in PARA deliberations. For example, in
1978, S. 2 (95th Congress), as passed by the Senate, devised a 10-year schedule for
review and reauthorization of most federal programs based on categories of function
and subfunction in the FY1979 federal budget.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
GPRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Developments in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
House Subcommittee Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Full Committee Action in the House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Senate Companion Bill and House Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Possible Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Relationship of PARA with GPRA and PART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Statutory Program Review by OMB and the Role of Congress . . . . . . . 8
Previous Review Frameworks in Sunset Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Federal Program Performance Review:
Some Recent Developments
Background
In the 108th Congress, Representative Todd Platts, along with Representative
Tom Davis, introduced H.R. 3826, the Program Assessment and Results Act
(referred to as PARA, or sometimes just PAR). The bill would amend the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)1 to require that the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review federal programs on a five-year cycle.
Provisions in the bill resemble the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART),
currently used by OMB as a component in the budget formulation process, although
PART is not explicitly referenced.
In order to place recent activities in Congress and in the executive branch
relating to review of federal programs in perspective, this report considers briefly
some background on GPRA and PART. The report then traces the development of
H.R. 3826 in the 108th Congress and discusses some concerns that have been raised
regarding the legislation.
GPRA. GPRA sought to promote greater efficiency, effectiveness, and
accountability in federal spending by establishing a new framework for performance
management and budgeting in federal agencies. GPRA represents the latest in a
series of initiatives by the federal government, dating back some 50 years, which
attempt to align spending decisions with expected results, an approach commonly
referred to as “performance budgeting.” In complying with GPRA, agencies must
set goals, devise performance measures, and then assess the results achieved.2
GPRA established three types of ongoing planning, evaluation, and reporting
requirements for executive branch agencies: strategic plans (covering six years but
to be revised at least every three years), annual performance plans, and annual reports
on program performance. GPRA requires that agencies consult with Congress when
developing a strategic plan, and also consider views of other interested stakeholders,
such as state and local governments, interest groups, and private citizens. As
specified in the law and subsequent guidance from OMB and the General Accounting
Office (GAO, now known as the Government Accountability Office), an agency’s
strategic plan must contain six key components:
1 P.L. 103-62; 107 Stat. 285; codified in Chapter 11 of Title 31, United States Code.
2 For further background, see CRS Report RL32164, Performance Management and
Budgeting in the Federal Government: Brief History and Recent Developments, by Virginia
McMurtry; and CRS Report RS20257, Government Performance and Results Act: Brief
History and Implementation Activities, by Genevieve Knezo.
CRS-2
! a comprehensive agency mission statement;
! agency-wide long-term goals and objectives for all major functions
and operations;
! approaches or strategies to achieve the goals and objectives and the
various resources needed;
! relationship between the long-term goals/objectives and the annual
performance goals;
! identification of key factors, external to the agency and beyond its
control, that would significantly affect achievement of the strategic
goals; and
! description of how program evaluations were used to establish or
revise strategic goals, and a schedule for future program
evaluations.3
In a 2004 report assessing GPRA after a decade of implementation, GAO
concluded that the statutory requirements under GPRA “have established a solid
foundation of results-oriented performance planning, measurement, and reporting in
the federal government.”4 In addition, GAO said GPRA had “also begun to facilitate
the linking of resources to results,” although significant implementation challenges
remained. GAO reviewed then-current strategic plans and annual plans and reports
for six selected agencies and noted general improvements over their initial efforts.
However, GAO indicated that the evaluation component continued to be a major
weakness in agency strategic plans. While the subject was generally addressed, GAO
said that the strategic plans lacked critical information required by GPRA, “such as
a discussion of how evaluations were used to establish strategic goals or a schedule
of future evaluations.”5
PART. In 2002 the Bush Administration developed PART to provide more
evaluation data on the results of federal programs. PART became a component in
the budget and performance integration initiative of the President’s Management
Agenda.6 From the outset OMB stated its intent to make the PART process and
evaluation scores transparent, consistent, systematic, and objective.7 PART contains
3 U.S. General Accounting Office, Agencies’ Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions
to Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO Report GGD-10-1-16 (Washington: GAO, 1997),
p. 9.
4 U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established
a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO Report GAO-04-38 (Washington:
GAO, Mar. 2004), “Highlights.”
5 Ibid., p. 52.
6 The agenda, announced in August of 2001, contains five government-wide initiatives for
improving management in the federal government, including budget and performance
integration. For an overview, see CRS Report RS21416, The President’s Management
Agenda: A Brief Introduction, by Virginia A. McMurtry.
7 See OMB, “Program Performance Assessments for the FY2004 Budget,” Memorandum
for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies from Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., M-02-10,
July 16, 2002. Following preliminary tests with PART in the spring, and after receiving
(continued...)
CRS-3
four sections with a total of about 30 questions, focusing respectively on program
purpose and design, strategic planning, program management, and program results
and accountability. In addition to common questions raised in all reviews, PART
also divides programs into seven categories and asks additional questions unique to
each type of program.8 OMB characterizes PART as a diagnostic tool, with a primary
objective of the reviews being to improve program performance. Concurrently, “the
PART assessments help to link performance to budget decisions and provide a basis
for making recommendations to improve results.”9 PART was used by agency
program managers and OMB budget examiners to evaluate programs constituting
about 20% of federal budget in the fall of 2002. On February 3, 2003, President
Bush transmitted his budget for FY2004, which contained a separate volume titled
Performance and Management Assessments.10 Just over half (50.4%) of the 234
programs subject to PART evaluations in this first round were rated as “results not
demonstrated,” due to inadequate performance goals or unavailability of data to
provide evidence of results. Six percent of the programs were deemed “effective”;
24% were “moderately effective”; 14.5% were found “adequate”; and 5.1% were
“ineffective.”
OMB staff, working with personnel in the agencies, reviewed additional
programs representing another 20% of the federal budget during preparation of the
FY2005 budget, along with reassessments of those programs reviewed the prior
year.11 The FY2005 budget, transmitted to Congress on February 2, 2004, reported
about 37% of programs unable to demonstrate results, down from 50% with that
rating the first year, and a modest increase in programs rated “effective.” For
FY2005, almost 40% of programs subject to PART fell in the “effective” (11%) or
“moderately effective” (26%) categories, while about a quarter were rated “adequate”
(21%) or “ineffective” (5%).12 OMB has identified 217 more programs undergoing
7 (...continued)
feedback from both agencies and outside groups, OMB released the revised version in the
summer. Further revisions and refinements have occurred subsequently.
8 The categories apply to both discretionary and mandatory programs and include these
seven program groupings: direct federal programs, competitive grant programs,
block/formula grant programs, regulatory based programs, capital assets and service
acquisition programs, credit programs, and research and development programs. See OMB,
“Instructions for the Program Assessment Rating Tool,” available electronically at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part], visited Oct. 25, 2004.
9 See “Instructions for the Program Assessment Rating Tool,” available electronically at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part], visited Oct. 20, 2004.
10 There are also relevant sections in the main Fiscal Year 2004 Budget of the U. S.
Government volume; see “Governing with Accountability” and “Rating the Performance of
Federal Programs” (pp. 35-53).
11 See OMB, “Completing the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) for the FY2005
Review Process,” Budget Procedures Memorandum No. 861, from Richard P. Emery, Jr.,
Assistant Director for Budget, May 5, 2003.
12 See Fiscal Year 2005 Budget of the United States Government Analytical Perspectives
(Washington: GPO, 2004), pp. 9-22. The CD, titled “Analytical Perspectives Fiscal Year
(continued...)
CRS-4
PART reviews during formulation of the FY2006 budget, due to Congress by
February 7, 2005.13 With this third round, approximately 600 programs, comprising
roughly 60% of the federal budget, will have been through PART reviews, and the
plan is to continue 20% yearly expansions, so that all programs will be reviewed by
submission of the FY2008 budget.14
Developments in the 108th Congress
House Subcommittee Action. On February 4 and 11, 2004, the House
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management held oversight
hearings on GPRA and the President’s Management Agenda. During these hearings
Subcommittee Chairman Platts queried various witnesses for their views on how best
to craft a statutory requirement for a coordinated program-by-program evaluation
framework such as PART. OMB Deputy Director for Management Clay Johnson III
testified that the PART review process offers a vehicle for improving program
performance, while building on the foundation provided by the GPRA. Pledging
continued attention to GPRA implementation, Mr. Johnson noted: “Codification of
the requirement to conduct assessments of program performance would be a welcome
complement to the statutory management framework laid by GPRA.”15
Shortly thereafter, on February 25, 2004, Representative Platts, with
Representative Davis, chairman of the full Government Reform Committee, as
cosponsor, introduced H.R. 3826, the Program Assessment and Results Act (referred
to as PARA, or sometimes just PAR), to require OMB to review all government
programs at least once every five years for purposes of evaluating their performance.
The bill would amend GPRA to codify the requirement for program reviews, but
does not mandate the use of PART specifically. In his accompanying remarks,
Representative Platts noted that GPRA “has laid a solid foundation for agencies
working with Congress to set strategic goals and begin to utilize performance based
information.” With the development of PART, the Bush Administration moved
beyond the GPRA requirements and introduced a system of program review for
evaluating the performance and results of federal activities. According to
Representative Platts, the “next logical step is to codify the requirement for a
coordinated evidence-based review of programs.”16
12 (...continued)
2005: Supplemental Materials,” comes attached to the Analytical Perspectives volume.
13 See “New Program Assessments Planned for FY 2006 Budget,” available electronically
at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/2006_program_list.pdf], visited Oct. 20, 2004,
14 For further background on PART, see CRS Report RL32663, The Bush Administration’s
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), by Clinton T. Brass.
15 Statement of Clay Johnson III, OMB Deputy Director for Management before the House
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management, Feb. 11, 2004. See
Should We Part Ways With GPRA: A Look at Performance Budgeting and Program Review,
hearing, 108th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 12.
16 “Introduction of the Program Assessment and Results Act,” Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 150, Feb. 25, 2004, p. E226.
CRS-5
H.R. 3826 was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and to the
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management. Subcommittee
markup occurred on May 19, 2004. Chairman Platts offered an amendment in the
nature of a substitute containing new provisions: to enhance coordination between
OMB and the agency in the program review process, to outline more specific criteria
to be used in evaluating programs and in the report to Congress, to add a termination
date, and to effect further technical changes. This manager’s amendment was
approved by voice vote. The subcommittee also approved by voice vote an
amendment offered by ranking member Edolphus Towns, requiring the OMB
director to publish notice of programs slated for review, performance goals, and
review criteria, and to provide a 60-day period for public comment. Then the director
would publish in the Federal Register for each program under review in a given year
the final performance goals, assessment criteria, and a summary of public
comments.17
Full Committee Action in the House. Markup of H.R. 3826 by the
Government Reform Committee followed on June 3, 2004, during which
Representative Platts offered another manager’s amendment in the nature of a
substitute, making additional changes in the bill as approved by the subcommittee the
previous month. Language in the substitute softened the requirement to review each
program at least once very five years, by inserting “to the maximum extent
practicable.” The substitute offered to the full committee also changed the provisions
of the Towns amendment, adopted during subcommittee consideration, to require that
the OMB director post on the agency’s website and submit to designated
congressional committees, at least 90 days prior to completion of the assessments,
a list of programs under review that year and the criteria used to assess the programs,
and also to provide some mechanism for public comment. In contrast, the Towns
amendment established a more formal 60-day period for public comment, and
required that OMB include a summary of comments received with the publication of
the final listing of programs, performance goals, and review criteria. The substitute
amendment was approved by voice vote. Representative Towns offered an
amendment to the substitute, to restore the original language of his amendment as
approved by the subcommittee, but the amendment failed by a recorded party-line
vote of 9 Democrats to16 Republicans. An amendment by Representative Henry
Waxman to require that the program reviews mandated by the bill be performed by
the agencies rather than by OMB was rejected by voice vote. Two amendments
offered by Representative Chris Van Hollen were subsequently withdrawn, following
majority agreement that the language would be included in the bill as reported. One
of the amendments required that PARA reviews be considered as inherently
governmental functions, only to be performed by federal employees, and the other
provided for a classified appendix to PART reviews, as needed, to make available to
Congress the classified information without public disclosure. The Government
Reform Committee voted to report H.R. 3826, as further amended, favorably, by
voice vote.18
17 Zach Patton, “House Panel OKs Regular Review for Federal Programs, Congress Daily,
May 19, 2004.
18 Spencer Rich, “Panel OKs Review of Federal Programs Every Five Years,” Congress
(continued...)
CRS-6
Senate Companion Bill and House Report. A Senate companion bill,
S. 2898, identical to H.R. 3826 as approved by the Government Reform Committee
in June 2004, was introduced by Senator Peter Fitzgerald on October 5, 2004.19 On
October 8, 2004, a written report, together with minority views to accompany H.R.
3826, was filed.20 The PARA measure, as reported, would amend GPRA to require
the OMB director to review, to the maximum extent practicable, each federal
program (as defined by OMB) at least once every five years. In conducting the
program assessment, the Director of OMB would coordinate with the relevant agency
head to determine the programs to be reviewed, and to evaluate the purpose, design,
strategic plan, management, and results of the program, along with any other matters
the OMB director might consider appropriate. In developing criteria for identifying
programs to be assessed each year, the director would take into account the
advantages of reviewing programs with similar purposes or functions the same year,
along with the objective of assessing a “representative sample of federal spending”
each fiscal year. Under stipulated circumstances, more frequent assessments of
programs would be warranted. At least 90 days prior to completion of the annual
assessments, a listing of programs under review and the criteria being used would be
available on the OMB website, as well as provided to the House Government Reform
and Senate Governmental Affairs committees; the director would also “provide a
mechanism” for public comment on the programs and criteria. Only federal
employees could perform the functions and activities relating to the annual program
assessments and reports. The results of the reviews would be transmitted to Congress
along with the next budget submission of the President. Provisions would be made
for congressional access to classified information on program reviews, consistent
with existing law governing such disclosure. The review requirement would expire
September 30, 2013. Within six months after enactment of PARA, the Director of
OMB would prescribe necessary guidance for implementation, including a definition
of “program.” PARA would further amend GPRA to require submission of strategic
plans covering four years, to be submitted by September 30 following a year in which
there is a presidential election. This new timetable for strategic plans, if enacted,
would supersede current law, whereby strategic plans cover six years, but must be
revised at least every three years.
Possible Concerns
Various subjects are of potential interest and relevance in conjunction with
continuing consideration of the PARA bills. Some issues that may garner attention
in this regard are identified in the discussion that follows.
18 (...continued)
Daily, June 3, 2004.
19 Remarks by Senator Fitzgerald on introducing S. 2898, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 150, Oct. 5, 2004, pp. S10443-S10445.
20 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Program Assessment and
Results Act, report together with minority views to accompany H.R. 3826, 108th Cong., 2nd
sess., H.Rept. 108-768 (Washington: GPO, 2004).
CRS-7
Relationship of PARA with GPRA and PART. The House report
accompanying H.R. 3826 declares that the bill builds on the GPRA framework and
is necessary to ensure the continuation of systematic program assessments in the
future. According to the report, in developing and using PART, OMB has improved
upon the GPRA framework with the addition of a tool for evaluating the results of
discrete federal programs:
The next logical step is to codify the requirement for a coordinated evidence-
based review of programs.... As such, the PAR Act is necessary to ensure that
program assessments be required for this and future Administrations....
Requiring OMB to be responsible for overseeing program assessment data will
be a great step forward in realizing the reforms envisioned by GPRA and will
make the Federal government more efficient and results oriented.21
On its website, OMB has characterized the connection between PART and
GPRA as follows: “The PART reinforces the ambitious outcome-oriented
performance measurement framework developed under GPRA. Also, the PART
builds on GPRA by encouraging agencies to integrate operational decisions with
strategic and performance planning.... Performance measures in GPRA plans and
reports and those developed or revised through the PART process must be
consistent.”22 As noted previously, OMB has also testified in support of a statutory
requirement for program assessment similar to PART, as a compatible and desirable
addition to GPRA.23 While PART is not specifically mandated in PARA, the
provisions in the bill are modeled on PART.
On the other hand, criticism has been voiced that PART as currently formulated
is not well integrated with GPRA. According to a recent GAO report, “Agency
officials we spoke with expressed confusion about the relationship between GPRA
requirements and the PART process. Many view PART’s program-by-program focus
and the substitution of program measures as detrimental to their GPRA planning and
reporting processes.”24 In another report GAO observed, “It is not yet clear the extent
to which PART performance goals and measures will compete with agencies’ long-
term, strategic GPRA goals and objectives that were established in consultation with
Congress and other stakeholders.”25
Minority views included in the House report to accompany H.R. 3826 also
pointed to differences between the GPRA requirement for input from stakeholders,
the provision for public comment in the Towns amendment that was accepted in
21 Ibid., p. 6.
22 OMB, “PART Frequently Asked Questions,” available electronically at [http://www.
whitehouse.gov/omb/part/print/2004_faq_html], visited Oct. 25, 2004.
23 Relevant OMB testimony by Clay Johnson III is cited above in the section on “House
Subcommittee Action.”
24 U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of
OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, GAO Report
GAO-04-174, pp. 6-7.
25 GAO Report GAO-04-38, p. 15.
CRS-8
subcommittee, and the “much weaker language in the manager’s amendment at the
full Committee, which leaves to OMB the determination what is an ‘appropriate
mechanism for public input.’” According to the minority views, the Towns
amendment would have created a forum for public comment akin to the process
frequently employed in federal rule-making activities and “an appropriate parallel to
the Government Performance and Results Act’s requirement for input from
stakeholders when developing strategic plans.”26
Statutory Program Review by OMB and the Role of Congress.
GPRA requires agencies to set performance goals and evaluate programs results,
whereas under PARA, the White House, through OMB, would determine assessment
criteria and then take the lead in conducting the program reviews, albeit in
coordination with the relevant agency head. The minority views in the report
accompanying H.R. 3826 raised concern about possible partisanship in the
arrangement for assessment, noting: “We already have seen the problems that occur
when OMB reviews programs.... [The PART] process has led to questionable ratings
for a number of programs.” In addition, the statutory mandate in PARA arguably
might affect the constitutional separation of powers, shifting power from Congress
to the executive, by directing OMB to evaluate programs without requiring any
involvement by Congress. According to the minority views, such a program review
process might not give adequate weight to congressional intent as reflected in
authorization and appropriations laws, along with guidance provided in report
language.27
Similar apprehensions about H.R. 3826 were expressed in an article published
by OMB Watch28 with respect both to politicization and congressional prerogatives.
The article contended, “Just as there has been concern that President Bush’s PART
evaluation is a way of using program evaluation as a justification for cutting funding
from government, PAR evaluation also suffers from a seriously lopsided balance of
powers. The executive branch basically gets to decide what government should or
should not be doing and how each program should best accomplish its goals.”29
In contrast to these views, the report accompanying H.R. 3826, reflecting the
perspective of the majority, does not envision such potential consequences. In
defending the need for the legislation, the report maintains, “Information gleaned
from these program reviews will be useful across the board to all stakeholders
[including Members of Congress, taxpayers, and agency officials].” The House
report contends, in particular, that program reviews under PARA “will provide
26 H.Rept. 108-768, p. 18. Bill language would require the OMB director “to provide a
mechanism for interested persons to comment” at least 90 days before completion of the
annual reviews.
27 Ibid., pp. 17-18.
28 OMB Watch is a nonprofit watchdog organization that says its mission is “to promote
open government, accountability, and citizen participation.”
29 “Office of Management and Budget May Be the Only Government Programs’ Evaluator,”
The Watcher, April 5, 2004, available electronically at [http://www.ombwatch.org/article/
articleprint/2113/-1/211/], visited Oct. 25, 2004.
CRS-9
congressional policy makers with the information needed to conduct more effective
oversight, to make better-informed authorization decisions, and to make more
evidence-based spending decisions that achieve positive results for the American
people.”30
Meanwhile, OMB has recognized Congress as “an important partner in the
PART process. The Administration is inviting Members of Congress and other
stakeholders to review the PART details and provide feedback to OMB on the
conclusions OMB and agencies have made in answers to PART questions.” OMB,
moreover, avers the objectivity and transparency of the PART review process, and
holds in general that, “because PART is an evidence-based, objective analysis, the
Administration believes it is a useful tool in budget and policy formulation for all
branches of government.”31 Since the review process in PARA is modeled on PART,
one might arguably associate OMB’s defense of PART with the PARA process as
well.
Previous Review Frameworks in Sunset Legislation. The “sunset”
label has been characterized as “the popular name for a statute which provides for the
periodic termination of government agencies unless they are able to justify their
existence.”32 Sunset measures typically contain two basic components: an action-
forcing mechanism, carrying the ultimate threat of termination, and a framework or
guidelines for the systematic review and evaluation of past performance.33
A noteworthy similarity between PARA and sunset legislation is thus the
codification of a requirement for systematic review and evaluation of federal
programs. In considering PARA, Congress may want to examine how previous bills
requiring reviews of federal programs have been structured. For example, provisions
in the Sunset Act of 1978, as passed by the Senate (S. 2, 95th Congress), differed from
those in H.R. 3826 in several respects, as detailed below.
Designation of Review Agent. In the Sunset Act, the entity charged with
conducting the reviews was Congress. In H.R. 3826, the reviewer is OMB (in
coordination with agency heads). Despite this fundamental difference, other features
of the sunset review process may prove relevant in considering PARA.
Timetable for Review. The Sunset Act of 1978 would have required that
virtually all federal programs be reviewed at least once every 10 years, with 20% of
the programs reviewed in each biennium. H.R. 3826 provides that virtually all
programs be reviewed at least once every five years, with 20% of the programs
30 H.Rept. 108-768, pp. 4, 6.
31 OMB, “PART Frequently Asked Questions.”
32 Anthony R. Licata, “Zero Base Sunset Review,” Harvard Journal on Legislation, vol. 14
(Apr. 1977), pp. 505-506.
33 In the 95th Congress the Senate passed a sunset bill, S. 2, by vote of 87-1, and sunset
measures have been introduced in each ensuing Congress. For further discussion of sunset
proposals, see CRS Report RL31455, Federal Sunset Proposals: Developments in the 94th
to 107th Congresses, by Virginia A. McMurtry.
CRS-10
reviewed each year. Both measures similarly would divide the universe of federal
programs into five groups, but the Sunset Act provided two years for review of each
group, whereas H.R. 3826 would see a group reviewed every year.
Exemptions from Review. The Sunset Act specifically exempted from
review certain types of programs: interest on the federal debt, Social Security and
federal retirement and disability programs, Medicare, civil rights programs and
enforcement, judicial administration, veterans’ benefits, and income tax refunds. The
intent arguably was to protect “essential programs” from termination, not to exempt
them necessarily from program evaluation. Perhaps the concept, if not the legislative
content of provisions, for exemptions from review in the 1978 legislation may be of
continuing interest in devising a statutory requirement for program review.
H.R. 3826 contains no such categorical exemptions, but the provision
indicating that all federal programs should be reviewed “to the maximum extent
practicable” gives OMB a measure of discretion to exclude certain programs from
the analysis. According to the House report accompanying H.R. 3826, this clause
was intended “to give minimum flexibility to the Director should a special
circumstance arise where an assessment of a certain programs is deemed unneeded.”
The report goes on to say that the clause “to the maximum extent practicable” was
“not intended to give the Director wholesale flexibility or the ability to exempt any
programs from review without a legitimate reason. Should the director seek to
exempt any program from this review he shall notify the Congress ... in writing
explaining the specific reasons why the review is deemed unneeded.”34 With the
House committee report expressing such concern regarding the discretion given
OMB to waive program reviews unilaterally, previous language in proposed sunset
bills may be relevant to further consideration of PARA. Earlier sunset bills contained
provisions creating statutory parameters for possible exemptions from program
review.
Rationale for Devising Groups. The Sunset Act specifically delineated the
programs to be reviewed each biennium by budget function and subfunction, as set
forth in the FY1979 budget, grouping similar programs in the same review period
while balancing the workloads of congressional authorizing committees who would
be conducting the reviews. In contrast, H.R. 3826 gives OMB discretion to decide
which 20% of federal programs are to be reviewed in a given year. The approach of
referencing budget functions and subfunctions in statutory language might offer an
alternative framework for review of federal programs that would allow less latitude
for OMB in deciding which programs to review in a given year, and, concurrently,
help ensure the review of related programs with similar functions in the same cycle.
Impact of Reviews. The Sunset Act contained an automatic termination
feature, with programs expiring unless they were specifically renewed by law. H.R.
3826 contains no similar program termination provision.35 Instead, as is the case
currently with PART, the information derived from the reviews conducted pursuant
34 H.Rept. 108-768, p. 9.
35 In H.R. 3826, however, the entire review process would end in 2013, basically after two
review cycles, unless Congress acted to extend it.
CRS-11
to the requirements in H.R. 3826 is expected to be used by OMB in preparing the
President’s budget. OMB has substantial discretion in how the PART scores are
used, and has emphasized that the program evaluation data will never be the only
consideration in budget deliberations. For example, the documentation accompanying
the FY2005 budget provided the following explanation of how PART scores affect
budget decisions:
PART ratings do not result in automatic decisions about funding. Clearly, over
time, funding should be targeted to programs that can prove they achieve
measurable results. But a PART rating of Ineffective or Results Not
Demonstrated may suggest that greater funding is necessary to overcome
identified shortcomings, while a program rated Effective may be in line for a
proposed funding decrease.36
With or without input from PART or PARA, OMB retains substantial discretion
regarding the use of program performance information in preparing the President’s
budget. It will arguably require attentive congressional oversight to assess how
performance information has been translated into dollars in the President’s budget
recommendations. Likewise, Congress may determine the extent to which
performance data from PART or PARA are taken into account in the authorizations
and appropriations processes.
36 Fiscal Year 2005 Budget ... Analytical Perspectives, p. 13.