{
  "id": "RL32671",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32671",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 312853,
      "date": "2006-02-28",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:11:12.045029",
      "title": "Federal Program Performance Review: Program Assessment and Results Act and Other Developments",
      "summary": "On January 4, 2005,  H.R. 185 , the Program Assessment and Results Act (PARA), was\nintroduced, to require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review government programs\nat least once every five years for purposes of evaluating their performance. The bill would amend\nthe Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 ( P.L. 103-62 , known as GPRA), to create a\nstatutory process resembling the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), first used by OMB\nduring preparation of the FY2004 budget. H.R.  185 would not, however, mandate the use\nof PART specifically. \n On March 10, 2005, the House Government Reform Committee held a business meeting to\nmark up  H.R. 185 . The committee voted to report the bill favorably (19 yeas-14 nays),\nand the written report followed on March 17 (House Report 109-26). H.R.  185 is very\nsimilar to  H.R. 3826  as reported in the 108th Congress (House Report 108-768) and to\n S. 2898 , a companion bill in the 108th Congress. H.R.  185 would amend\nGPRA to require the OMB director to review, to the maximum extent practicable, each federal\nprogram (as defined by OMB) at least once every five years. In conducting each assessment, OMB\nwould coordinate with the relevant agency head to determine the programs to be reviewed, and to\nevaluate the purpose, design, strategic plan, management, and results of the program. In developing\ncriteria for identifying programs to be assessed each year, the director would consider the advantages\nof reviewing programs with similar purposes or functions the same year. At least 90 days prior to\ncompleting the annual assessments, a listing of programs under review and the criteria being used\nwould be available on the OMB website, and OMB would also \"provide a mechanism\" for public\ncomment on the programs and criteria. The assessments would be performed only by federal\nemployees, and the results would be transmitted to Congress along with the next budget submission\nof the President. PARA would further amend GPRA to require submission of strategic plans\ncovering four years, to be submitted by September 30 following a year when there is a presidential\nelection.\n Various subjects are of potential interest in considering  H.R. 185 . One issue is its\nrelationship with GPRA and PART. Some suggest that PARA builds and improves upon the GPRA\nframework and is needed to ensure that coordinated program reviews continue. Others point out that\nthe PART process, which PARA resembles, is not well integrated with GPRA, and that PARA,\nunlike GPRA, does not require consultation with Congress and other stakeholders. Additional\nconcerns include avoiding partisanship in the review process and protecting the role of Congress. \nFinally, frameworks for systematic review of federal programs developed previously in sunset bills\nmay be of interest in PARA deliberations. For example, in 1978, S.  2 (95th Congress), as\npassed by the Senate, devised a 10-year schedule for review and reauthorization of most federal\nprograms based on categories of function and subfunction in the FY1979 federal budget. \n This report will be updated as events warrant.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32671",
          "sha1": "225e536e7767c811856ed120658002e65c1342d2",
          "filename": "files/20060228_RL32671_225e536e7767c811856ed120658002e65c1342d2.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32671",
          "sha1": "e39ac0a4b2d94a3999563df49353f35a232450bb",
          "filename": "files/20060228_RL32671_e39ac0a4b2d94a3999563df49353f35a232450bb.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7392/",
      "id": "RL32671 2004-11-15",
      "date": "2004-11-15",
      "retrieved": "2005-10-18T14:04:45",
      "title": "Federal Program Performance Review: Some Recent Developments",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20041115_RL32671_02cc83605fcb3c673344337a3be270ed2f53e62b.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20041115_RL32671_02cc83605fcb3c673344337a3be270ed2f53e62b.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Executive departments",
          "name": "Executive departments"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Performance measurement - Law and legislation",
          "name": "Performance measurement - Law and legislation"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}