Order Code RS21416
Updated February 14, 2005
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The President’s Management Agenda:
A Brief Introduction
Virginia A. McMurtry
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Summary
This report provides an overview of the President’s Management Agenda,
announced in August 2001, and comprising five government-wide initiatives, including
strategic management of human capital, competitive sourcing, improved financial
performance, expanded electronic government, and budget and performance integration.
Related developments, such as introduction of a Management Scorecard for gauging
agency achievement on the initiatives and development of a program assessment rating
tool (PART) for evaluating program performance, are also discussed. This report will
be updated as developments warrant.
Background on the Initiatives
In August 2001 the President’s Management Agenda was announced, with the stated
purpose of “improving the management and performance of the federal government.”1
The Agenda consisted of five government-wide initiatives (described below), and several
specific program activities.2 According to President Bush, these five main initiatives were
selected as representing “the most apparent deficiencies where the opportunity to improve
is greatest.” The President’s initiatives reflect the view that management in the federal
government might be improved by adopting more business-like principles and practices
from the private sector, which emphasize performance and results.
1 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, The President’s Management Agenda — FY2002
(Washington: OMB, 2001), p. 1. Subsequently referred to as Agenda. For an online update about
developments related to Agenda initiatives, see [http://www.results.gov].
2 The initial program area initiatives included the following: faith-based and community
initiative, privatization of military housing, better research and development criteria, eliminating
fraud and error in student aid programs and deficiencies in financial management, housing and
urban development management and performance, broadened health insurance coverage through
state initiatives, a “right-sized” overseas presence, reform of food aid programs, and coordination
of veterans affairs and defense programs and systems. Subsequently, eliminating improper
payments and real property management were designated as additional program initiatives.
Congressional Research Service { The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
! Strategic Management of Human Capital. The Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) has defined this initiative as transforming how the
federal government employs, deploys, develops and evaluates its
workforce by focusing on results.3 Discussion in the FY2006 budget
suggests that this initiative “helps agencies ensure that they have high-
performing employees with the right skills at the right time.”4
! Competitive Sourcing entails public-private competitions for federal
activities considered commercial and possible contracting out to the
private sector of work currently performed by federal employees, and
related revisions of OMB Circular A-76.5
! Improved Financial Performance seeks to enhance the quality and
timeliness of financial information available to the agencies and
Congress when making decisions about federal programs. Two other
facets originally subsumed under this initiative later were designated as
separate program initiatives — improving management of real property
assets and eliminating improper payments.6
! Expanded Electronic Government focuses on strengthening agencies’
management of information technology resources and using the Internet
to improve service delivery. The latter effort involves some two dozen
activities, such E-Clearance and E-Travel.7
! Budget and Performance Integration entails efforts to integrate
performance reviews with budget decisions in the federal government.8
Increasingly, agencies are to use program performance information (such
as that generated by the program assessment rating tool (or PART) when
making budget and management decisions.
3 For discussion of related reform proposals, see CRS Report RL31518, Federal Workforce
Flexibility Act of 2003: S. 129 (108th Congress), by Barbara L. Schwemle.
4 For a status report on the governmentwide initiatives, see Fiscal Year 2006 Budget of the
United States Government (Washington: GPO, 2005), pp. 50-55.
5 For further discussion, see CRS Report RL31024, The Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act
and Circular A-76, by L. Elaine Halchin.
6 For further related discussion, see CRS Report RL31965, Financial Management in the
Federal Government: Efforts to Improve Performance, by Virginia A. McMurtry. An
“improper payment” includes any federal payments that should not have been made or
were made in an incorrect amount.
7 For further discussion, see “Status of the Presidential E-Government Initiatives,” on the CD-
ROM accompanying the FY2006 budget. Related e-government issues are addressed in CRS
Report RL31057, A Primer on E-Government: Sectors, Stages, Opportunities and Challenges
of Online Governance, by Jeffrey W. Seifert.
8 This initiative builds on efforts begun pursuant to the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-62; 107 Stat. 285). For further discussion, see CRS Report RL32164,
Performance Management and Budgeting in the Federal Government: Brief History and Recent
Developments, by Virginia A. McMurtry.

---

CRS-3
Subsequent Developments
On February 4, 2002, President Bush transmitted his budget for FY2003, which
sought to incorporate the five management initiatives into agencies’ budgets, and
introduced a Management Scorecard to measure progress in each of the five reform areas.
Grades for the agencies on each of the initiatives, based on a traffic light motif of green
for success, yellow for mixed results, and red for unsatisfactory, have been updated
quarterly by OMB; OPM and OMB jointly determine the grades for the management of
human capital initiative. For each initiative, there are multiple “standards for success,”
or core criteria which an agency must meet in order to get a green rating. There are
likewise listings for each initiative of conditions amounting to “fatal flaws”; if an agency
displays any one of these, it receives red. A yellow grade applies when an agency is free
of red conditions and has achieved some but not all of the core criteria.
With respect to the Management Scorecard as applied by OMB, the 12 sets of
quarterly grades to date suggest that improvements are occuring, but are uneven across
agencies. No agency has yet attained green for all five initiatives. However, the grades
for current status (as of December 31, 2004)9 indicate that five agencies (Departments of
Energy, Labor, State, and Transportation, and the Social Security Administration) have
earned four greens. On the other hand, three agencies (the Army Corps of Engineers,
OMB, and the Smithsonian) received four or more reds. There are also differences in
reaching the OMB-designated standards for success among the respective initiatives. In
December 2004, financial performance displayed the most red grades (18), while tying
for second highest number of greens (8). The human capital initiative arguably reflected
the most progress to date, with nine agencies at green, and only two at red; however, over
half of the agencies (15 out of 26) received a transitional grade of yellow.
In addition to the current status grades, agencies are also given a progress score for
each initiative: green for implementation proceeding as planned, yellow for some
slippage, and red warning of an initiative in serious jeopardy. OMB’s grading of the
agencies on the scorecard for progress in implementation, as of December 31, 2004, is
much higher overall than that given by OMB for current status of the initiatives, with
green predominating, and only nine (of 130 total grades) being red. Seven agencies have
green for progress in implementation on all five initiatives, while ten have green for
progress on all but one of the initiatives.
The Administration also developed a new program assessment rating tool in 2002,
known as PART, for evaluating program performance. The PART questionnaire contains
four sections, which focus on program purpose and design, strategic planning, program
management, and program results and accountability.10 For various reasons, OMB
translates PART numerical scores into qualitative ratings, as listed below in Table 1.
PART was first used by agency program managers and OMB budget examiners to
evaluate some 20% of federal programs in the fall of 2002 during the budget review
process for the President’s FY2004 budget. As of the end of 2004, over 600 programs
9 Electronic versions of the Dec. 31, 2004, scorecard, along with previous ones, are available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/results/agenda/scorecard.html], visited Feb. 2005.
10 For further discussion, see CRS Report RL32663, The Bush Administration’s Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) , by Clinton Brass.

---

CRS-4
have been through PART reviews, with annual expansions to continue, so that virtually
100% coverage is reached in the FY2008 budget.
On February 3, 2003, President Bush transmitted his budget for FY2004, which
contained a separate volume devoted to the Scorecard and PART, titled Performance and
Management Assessments. On February 2, 2004, the budget for FY2005 was released,
containing a brief discussion of PART in the Analytical Perspectives volume, but with the
detailed information on PART reviews now provided on a CD-ROM, and this form of
presentation continued with the budget for FY2006, transmitted on February 7, 2005.11
Table 1. Program by PART Rating Categories, 2002-2004
Rating Group
2002 (n=234)
2003 (n=407)
2004 (n=607)
Effective
6%
11%
15%
Moderately Effective
24%
26%
26%
Adequate
15%
20%
26%
Ineffective
5%
5%
4%
Results not Demonstrated
50%
38%
29%
Source: OMB, Analytical Perspectives, FY 2006 Budget, p. 10.
As indicated in Table 1, half of the 234 programs subject to PART evaluations in
the 2002 round were rated as “results not demonstrated,” due to inadequate performance
goals or unavailability of data to provide evidence of results. Programs in this category
declined to 38% in 2003 and 29% in 2004. From 2002 to 2004, programs in the effective
group increased from 6% to 15%, while programs deemed moderately effective increased
a bit, from 24% to 26%. The adequate category showed a greater increase in the period,
from 15% to 26%. The percentage of programs rated ineffective declined slightly, from
5% in 2002 to 4% in 2004.
Outlook
In his “Message” to Congress accompanying the Agenda in August 2001, President
Bush observed:
These proposals will often require the cooperation of Congress. Congress’ agenda is
a crowded one, and there is an understandable temptation to ignore management
reforms in favor of new policies and programs. However, what matters most is
performance and results. In the long term, there are few items more urgent than
ensuring that the federal government is well run and results-oriented.12
Two legislative proposals for management reform relating to the initiatives were
formulated by OMB and first introduced in the 107th Congress by Senator Fred Thompson
11 See Fiscal Year 2006 Budget of the United States Government Analytical Perspectives
(Washington: GPO, 2004), pp. 9-33. The CD, titled “Analytical Perspectives Fiscal Year 2006:
Supplemental Materials,”comes attached to the Analytical Perspectives volume.
12 Agenda, p. 1.

---

CRS-5
as S. 1612, the Managerial Flexibility Act, and S. 1613, the Freedom to Manage Act.
Hearings were held, but no further action occurred before adjournment. In the 108th
Congress, Title III of H.R. 180, “Budgeting and Managing for Results: Full Funding for
Federal Retiree Costs,” resembled Title II of S. 1612 in the 107th Congress. The
provisions sought to charge to the budgets of each federal agency the full accruing costs
for retirement systems and retiree health benefits, without, however, making any changes
in benefits provided or employee contributions. This tied in with the budget and
performance integration initiative, by seeking to link total cost of resources used with
results.
On March 26, 2003, the House Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and
Financial Management held an oversight hearing on “Management and the President’s
Budget.” With regard to accomplishments of the Agenda to date, officials from OMB
offered this assessment:
The Scorecard is working. Clearly it still shows a lot of agencies in the ‘red’ for
status. And that reflects the nature of the problems we are trying to solve — chronic
longstanding management challenges that defy quick fixes. However, there is
significant improvements since our initial evaluation.13
Testimony from the General Accounting Office likewise was supportive of the effort:
Overall, there has been continuing progress in implementing the governmentwide
PMA initiatives. This progress, however, has been uneven and a continued focus is
needed to improve the management and performance of the federal government and
to ensure accountability.14
At an oversight hearing on February 11, 2004, OMB Deputy Director for
Management Clay Johnson III testified that due to efforts associated with the Agenda,
“Agencies are better managed and achieving greater results than they were two-plus years
ago,” as reflected in the Scorecard. Further, according to Deputy Director Johnson, the
PART process offers a vehicle for improving program performance, while building on the
foundation provided by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The
strategic and performance plans prepared by agencies pursuant to GPRA provide a basis
on which “to judge an agency’s performance management practices or the goals by which
it measures success. The PART reinforces the law’s important requirements to set
outcome-oriented goals and measure progress against those goals.”15
In his opening statement at the hearing, subcommittee chairman Todd Platts
suggested an interest in discussing “how best to codify the requirement for a coordinated
13 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government
Efficiency and Financial Management, Management and the President’s Budget, hearing, 108th
Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 26, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p.71.
14 Testimony of Patricia A. Dalton, ibid., pp. 16-17.
15 U.S. Congress. House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government
Efficiency and Financial Management, The President’s Management Agenda: Are Agencies
Getting to Green? hearing, 108th Cong., 2nd sess, Feb. 11, 2004 (Washington: GPO, 2004), pp.
9, 12.

---

CRS-6
program-by-program evaluation such as PART.” 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.” On February 25, 2004, Representative Platts
introduced H.R. 3826, the Program Assessment and Results Act (PARA), to amend
GPRA and establish a statutory requirement for program reviews. The bill would have
required OMB to review each program activity at least once every five years, but did not
mandate the use of PART specifically. H.R. 3826 was reported favorably in the House,
and a Senate companion bill was introduced, but no further action occurred in 2004.16 On
January 4, 2005, Representative Platts reintroduced a PARA bill as H.R. 185.
The 109th Congress may consider additional measures relating to the President’s
management initiatives. In the FY2006 budget submission, the President called for
establishment of two new types of statutory commissions. “Results Commissions” would
consider and revise proposals from the President to restructure or consolidate overlapping
programs and then submit the plans to Congress for consideration under expedited
procedures. The arrangement appears similar to that for a Commission on the
Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies (CARFA), contained in S. 1668 and H.R.
3213, 108th Congress. At a Senate hearing in 2004, Clay Johnson testified in support of
such legislation, linking the proposed commission with the Agenda by suggesting that the
new commission, if established, could base its recommendations for eliminating wasteful
and duplicative programs on OMB’s PART evaluations.17 President Bush also called for
creation of a Sunset Commission to conduct systematic reviews of federal programs
according to a set schedule. Absent action by Congress to reauthorize them, programs
would automatically terminate following the reviews. Several states, including Texas,
have sunset commissions, and for 30 years sunset bills have been introduced in Congress,
most recently as H.R. 1227 in the 108th Congress.18
Budgetary concerns may pose a continuing challenge for the Agenda, since
implementing some of the initiatives would likely require additional funding. Yet with
pressures tightening to hold down discretionary spending it may prove difficult for
agencies to come up with the resources needed.
16 For further discussion of this measure, see CRS Report RL32671, Federal Program
Performance Review: Some Recent Developments, by Virginia A. McMurtry.
17 For further background on CARFA, see CRS Report RS21980, Proposed Commission on the
Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies (CARFA): A Brief Overview, by Clinton Brass.
18 For further background on sunset legislation, see CRS Report RL31455, Federal Sunset
Proposals: Developments in the 94th to the 107th Congresses, by Virginia A. McMurtry.

---