2. BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION
The President’s Management Agenda (PMA) aims to
improve the management and performance of the Federal
government. The Budget and Performance Integration
(BPI) initiative of the PMA specifically directs
departments to improve program results and to ensure
that performance is routinely considered in funding and
management decisions.
It’s not enough to advocate reform. You have to be able to get it done. And that’s what we have done.
When it comes to reforming schools to provide excellent education for all our children, we got the job
done. Results matter. When it comes to health care reforms to give families more access and more
choices, results matter. When it comes to improving our economy and creating jobs, results matter.
When it comes to having a strong farm economy, results matter. When it comes to better securing our
homeland, fighting the forces of terror, and spreading the peace, results matter.
President George W. Bush
Mankato, Minnesota
August 4, 2004
I. THE OBJECTIVES OF THE BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION INITIATIVE
The Federal government spends over $2 trillion a
year on its programs. In a results-oriented government,
the burden of proof rests with these Federal programs
and their advocates to show that programs are achieving
results for the American people in the most effective
and efficient manner. Furthermore, it is the government’s
responsibility to make difficult decisions about
whether to increase or decrease the funding of a program,
or terminate a program’s funding entirely if it
is not producing the desired results. The Budget and
Performance Integration Initiative is making this link
between a program’s performance and decisions about
its funding more routine.
American taxpayers expect managers of Federal programs
to constantly assess whether their programs are
achieving the desired results at acceptable costs. If the
answer is ‘‘no’’ or ‘‘we don’t know,’’ the taxpayer expects
those in charge to take immediate corrective action.
This results-focus is evident in the meaningful
progress that agencies make in the BPI Initiative,
which has three specific objectives all supporting the
goal of using performance information in budgeting and
improving program performance and efficiency:
• Increasing accountability, effectiveness, and
efficiency—implementing plans designed to improve
the management and performance of programs.
• Investing in high pay-off or high priority activities—
focusing most on programs that can
achieve demonstrably greater results for the same
or less cost.
• Improving program design—developing, enacting,
and implementing legislative or other proposals
to fix flaws identified through the Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) that impede performance.
10 ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES
What is the PART and How is it Used?
The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) is designed to help assess the management and performance of individual programs.
The PART evaluates a program’s purpose, design, planning, management, results, and accountability to determine its
overall effectiveness. Recommendations are then made to improve program results.
To reflect that Federal programs deliver goods and services using different mechanisms, the PART is customized by program
category. The seven PART categories are: Direct Federal, Competitive Grant, Block/Formula Grant, Research and Development,
Capital Assets and Acquisition, Credit, and Regulatory. The PART types apply to both discretionary and mandatory programs.
Each PART includes 25 basic questions and some additional questions tailored to the program type all divided up into four sections.
The first section of questions gauges whether a program’s design and purpose are clear and defensible. The second section
involves strategic planning, and weighs whether the agency establishes valid annual and long-term goals for its programs.
The third section rates the management of an agency’s program, including financial oversight and program improvement efforts.
The fourth section of questions focuses on results that programs can report with accuracy and consistency.
The answers to questions in each of the four sections result in a numerical score for each section from 0 to 100 (100 being the
best score). Because reporting a single weighted numerical rating could suggest false precision, or draw attention away from the
very areas most in need of improvement, numerical scores are translated into qualitative ratings. The bands and associated ratings
are as follows:
Rating Range
Effective ................................................................... 85–100
Moderately Effective ............................................... 70–84
Adequate ................................................................. 50–69
Ineffective ................................................................ 0–49
Regardless of overall score, programs that do not have acceptable performance measures or have not yet collected performance
data generally receive a rating of ‘‘Results Not Demonstrated.’’
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. In some cases, 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 if it is not a priority or has completed its mission. However, most of the time, an ‘‘Effective’’ is
an indication that the program is using its funding well and that major changes may not be needed.
11 2. BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION
II. RESULTS AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS ARE ACHIEVING
BPI Initiative Success
More and more agencies are achieving greater results
with the help of the habits and discipline established
through the Budget and Performance Integration (BPI)
Initiative. These agencies recognize that BPI is much
broader than the PART and that the PART is simply
a tool used to achieve the much larger goals of the
initiative.
In 2004, eight agencies achieved green status on the
BPI Scorecard, a quarterly rating that assesses whether
agencies have achieved clear standards of success for
the initiative. The agencies at green are: Department
of Energy, Department of Labor, Department of Transportation,
Department of State, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, National Science Foundation,
Small Business Administration, and Social Security
Administration.
Scorecard—Standards for Success
For each initiative, the PMA established clear, Government-wide goals or Standards for Success (http://results.gov/agenda/standards.
pdf). Agencies then develop and implement detailed, aggressive action plans to achieve these goals. Most importantly,
agencies are held publicly accountable for adopting these disciplines. The Standards for Success for the BPI Initiative are below:
• Senior agency managers meet at least quarterly to examine reports that integrate financial and performance information that
covers all major responsibilities of the department. Agency demonstrates improvement in program performance and efficiency
in achieving results;
• Strategic plans contain a limited number of outcome-oriented goals and objectives. Annual budget and performance documents
incorporate all measures identified by the PART and focus on the information used in the senior management report
described in the first criterion;
• Has performance appraisal plans and awards programs for all SES and managers, and more than 60% of agency positions
that effectively: link to agency mission, goals and outcomes; hold employees accountable for results appropriate to their
level of responsibility; differentiate between various levels of performance; and provide consequences based on performance.
The agency is also working to include all agency employees under such systems
• Reports the full cost of achieving performance goals accurately in budget and performance documents and can accurately
estimate the marginal cost (+/ - 10%) of changing performance goals;
• Has at least one efficiency measure for all PARTed programs; and
• Uses PART evaluations to direct program improvements, and PART ratings and performance information are used consistently
to justify funding requests, management actions, and legislative proposals. Fewer than 10% of agency programs receive
a Results Not Demonstrated rating for more than two years in a row.
Each quarter, agencies are rated on their status in achieving the overall goals for each initiative and progress in implementing
their respective action plans. To that end, a simple grading system of red, yellow, and green was developed. Green status is for
success in achieving results in each of the criteria above; yellow is for an intermediate level of performance; and red is for unsatisfactory
results.
The Government-wide scorecard reporting on individual agency progress is published quarterly at http://results.gov/agenda/scorecard.
html.
12 ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES
Table 2–1. PROGRAM RATINGS ARE IMPROVING
(Cumulative program results by ratings category 2002–2004)
Ratings/year
Year
2002 2003 2004
Number of Programs 1 ............................................................ 234 407 607
Effective ................................................................................... 6% 11% 15%
Moderately Effective ................................................................ 24% 26% 26%
Adequate .................................................................................. 15% 20% 26%
Ineffective ................................................................................. 5% 5% 4%
Results Not Demonstrated ...................................................... 50% 38% 29%
Best Practices
Executive branch agencies are using and sharing
with each other innovative management practices to
achieve the goals of the BPI initiative and thereby improving
organizational and program performance. One
of the best practices shared across the Executive
Branch came from the Department of State (DOS).
Management at DOS has integrated the PART into
their automated performance planning system. This capability
allows DOS to 1) monitor the quality and content
of PART submissions, 2) track the status of PART
recommendations to improve program performance, and
3) most importantly, allows the Department of State
to make this information available to managers so that
they can use performance information to influence
budget decisions.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) shared with
other agencies its successes with implementing marginal
cost methodologies, which assists in articulating
the cost/benefit of putting additional resources into a
program. This year, DOT improved its performance
budgeting by estimating the marginal cost of performance
for selected programs. DOT’s disciplined approach
allows it to see how inputs affect outputs and how
outputs roll up to produce outcomes. As an example,
DOT is able to estimate the reduction in rail-related
accidents and incidents it expects to achieve at various
funding levels. DOT now submits a budget that shows
expected performance at both a baseline level and a
specified marginal level. As a result, annual performance
targets will be adjusted accordingly to reflect the
specified levels of funding.
The bottom line is that without solid performance
baselines, you cannot accurately predict performance
changes resulting from varying resource levels.
Programs Assessed Using the PART
This marks the third year that the PART was used
to assess program performance, make recommendations
to improve program performance, and help link performance
to budget decisions. To date, the Administration
has assessed 607 programs, which represent approximately
60 percent of the Federal budget. Over the
next two years, the Administration will use the PART
to assess the performance and management of all remaining
Federal programs with limited exceptions. Alternative
methods and timelines for assessment are
being considered for programs with limited impact and
large activities where it is difficult to determine an
appropriate unit of analysis.
With the help of the PART, we have improved program
performance and transparency. There has been
a substantial increase in the total number of programs
rated either ‘‘Effective,’’ ‘‘Moderately Effective,’’ or ‘‘Adequate’’.
This increase came from both re-assessments
and newly PARTed programs. The Table 2–1 below
shows the percentage of programs by ratings category.
Of the 607 programs assessed, 71 percent have defined
and are tracking clear outcome goals to measure
their results and 59 percent have efficiency measures
in place to manage costs.
Unfortunately, in 2004 33 percent of PARTed programs
are rated ‘‘Results Not Demonstrated’’ or ‘‘Ineffective.’’
Particularly in a period of tight budgets, these
programs must improve their performance or their resources
may be moved to higher performing programs.
Programs Reassessed
Programs are reassessed when significant changes
have been made to improve the program and those
improvements can be demonstrated. For example, programs
might be reassessed when new performance
measures are agreed upon, PART recommendations
have been implemented, new performance data have
been compiled, or a program evaluation has been completed.
In the last two years more than 127 programs were
reassessed. Chart 2–1 which follows demonstrates that
PART recommendations are being implemented and we
are seeing results. The chart illustrates a significant
increase in ‘‘Effective’’ programs and a decrease in programs
rated ‘‘Results Not Demonstrated.’’
13 2. BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION
Chart 2-1. Comparison of Ratings from Initial
PART to Most Recent Reassess
Initial PART Reassessment
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Effective
Moderately Effective
Ineffective Results Not
Demonstrated
76
8
Number of programs
4
27
Adequate
Following up on PART Recommendations. While
the Administration believes that an increasing number
of programs will earn ‘‘Effective’’ ratings, we also stress
that PART recommendations are more important than
PART ratings because the focus of the PART is on
continuous improvement of program performance. The
PART serves its purpose if its findings and recommendations
play a substantial role in guiding decisions
on spending, management and program improvements.
A number of Federal programs across the government
have improved their management or performance by
implementing recommendations made through the
PART process:
• Health Centers: The President’s Health Centers
Initiative is creating 1,200 new and expanded
health center sites to serve an additional 6.1 million
people by 2006. From 2001 to 2005, this program
increased the number of low-income individuals
served by over 30 percent. In 2006, the program
has a goal to serve approximately 16.4 million
people, up from 10.3 million in 2001.
• Broadcasting Board of Governors: As a result
of the PART, this program established goals for
weekly audience size, program quality, signal
strength and cost-per-listener for all language programs.
The Near East Asia and South Asia programs
are on track to attain their long-term weekly
audience size goal in Arabic speaking countries
of 21 million listeners and viewers by 2008—a
nearly 700% increase from 3.1 million weekly listeners
and viewers in 2002.
• FAA’s Facilities and equipment Program: The
PART helped management determine the reasons
projects in this program consistently experienced
large costs and schedule overruns. In response to
a PART recommendation, the FAA began focusing
on increasing the use of performance based contracts
as a means of controlling costs. Managers
are now held accountable for achieving cost, schedule,
and performance targets through the FAA’s
Performance management system, which is evaluated
semiannually.
• National Weather Service (NWS): During a
PART reassessment it was determined that NWS
increased its tornado warning lead time from 10
minutes to 13 minutes; improved its flash flood
warning accuracy from 86 percent to 89 percent;
and accurately predicted the tracks of hurricanes
within 94 nautical miles. It has set goals to improve
these and other key indicators of its ability
to protect lives and property from national disasters.
• The Migratory Bird Management Program:
This year the program developed new performance
goals during the PART process. Specifically, one
of the new goals examines the percent of migratory
birds that are at healthy and sustainable levels.
If the program is successful, and external factors
that also affect migratory bird populations
do not dramatically change, by 2008, 62 percent
14 ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES
of all migratory bird populations will be healthy
and sustainable.
• Corps Hydropower Program: A reassessment
of the Hydropower Program credited the Corps
with developing an overall asset management plan
for plant and program mangers. This management
plan is used by managers in making risk-based
hydropower investment decisions, as well as setting
regional and national hydropower investment
priorities. The management plan was developed
in response to deficiencies cited in the initial
PART.
• Nonpoint Source Grants (NPS): The Environmental
Protection Agency’s program provides
grants to states to identify and address NPS pollution
problems, a leading cause of water quality
impairment. NPS pollution comes from both urban
and rural sources, including roads, farms, and
mines. A previous program assessment recommended
that the NPS program improve its performance
metrics and take steps to reduce any
activities duplicated by similar Department of Agriculture
(USDA) programs. As a result, in agricultural
areas, the program refocused its efforts on
watershed planning to avoid redundancy with
USDA’s efforts. The program also developed good
long-term, annual, and efficiency measures.
• The Capital Security Construction Program:
A past program assessment identified a standard
embassy design which would promote the construction
of new embassy compounds more quickly,
efficiently and in a cost effective manner. This
year’s reassessment found that the Department
of State implemented this design recommendation
across overseas capital construction programs and
for security and non-security projects.
• Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS):
In response to an assessment completed two years
ago, Citizenship and Immigration Services has
begun to implement significant IT and process improvements.
Since May 2003, more than 182,000
immigration applications have been filed on-line,
reducing processing time and errors. One CIS field
office is piloting a green card replacement project.
This field office is accepting e-filed applications
and has demonstrated results by reducing the average
renewal processing time from eight months
to approximately two business weeks. This improvement
is accompanied by a significant rise
in e-filed applications from an average of 650 per
month prior to the pilot to about 1,650 per month.
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration:
In response to the PART recommendations,
this program now identifies the monetary costs
and net benefits for all new economically significant
regulations. In addition, the 2006 Budget requests
$1 million for an initiative to allow OSHA
to develop more timely data to assess performance.
Efficiency Measures
One of the greatest challenges for agencies has been
developing meaningful measures of program efficiency.
Ideally, programs should be able to articulate production
costs for each unit of what it is they are achieving.
Agencies should be able to use efficiency measures to
capture skillfulness in executing programs and achieving
results while avoiding wasted resources, time, and
effort. Although much work remains, this year we experienced
many notable examples of success:
• Department of Commerce. In 2005 the Patent
and Trademark Office (PTO) continues to align
resources with its goal of promoting scientific
progress by securing inventors’ rights to their respective
discoveries. PTO has clearly defined
quantitative performance measures that are
linked to its annual funding request. For example,
for 2005, PTO set the following annual targets
for the patent program: quality (as measured by
an error rate of 3.75%), processing time (as measured
by patent pendency of 31 months), and unit
cost of $4,052 per production unit for a funding
level of $1.337 billion. Moreover, PTO’s budget is
not only framed around its strategic plan, but its
specific initiatives are linked to PTO’s three strategic
goals: improving the quality, processing
times, and flexibility of its organization.
• Department of Justice. The Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) has demonstrated proficiency
at quantifying the impact of funding increases
(or decreases) on its performance measures
relative to targets established from the PART
process. DEA is capable of translating a budget
increase for additional drug enforcement agents
into a specific number of drug trafficking organizations
that will be either disrupted or dismantled
in the fiscal year.
• Social Security Administration (SSA). SSA’s
ability to link financial resources and performance
has assisted executive and legislative branch decision
makers during the appropriations process.
SSA was able to determine the number of claims
that could be processed at different funding level
proposals. This efficiency measure provided the
requisite information to arrive at the best possible
funding decision.
• Department of State. The State Department has
developed efficiency measures for each of its programs
and is using them to drive down cost while
increasing performance. For instance, the Refugee
Admissions program has decreased the per-person
cost of admitting refugees to the United States
from nearly $4,500 in 2002 to $3,500 in 2004,
while exceeding the goal of admitting 50,000 refugees.
• Department of Energy. The Weatherization Assistance
program increases the energy efficiency
of dwellings occupied by low-income Americans,
thereby reducing their energy costs, while safeguarding
their health and safety. The program
15 2. BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION
added a long-term efficiency measure to maintain
a benefit-cost ratio greater than one, which compares
estimated lifetime energy cost savings of all
homes weatherized in a given year to total program
costs for that year.
Cross-cutting Review of Federal Programs
The Administration continues to look for new ways
to improve the performance of programs with similar
purpose or design by using the PART to analyze performance
across agencies (i.e., cross-cutting analysis).
Cross-cutting analysis can improve coordination and
communication by getting managers from multiple
agencies to agree to a common set of goals and placing
the focus on quantifiable results. This type of analysis
breaks down barriers across the Federal government
and at the state and local levels so that all are working
toward the same goal. This past year the Administration
began a cross-cutting analysis of community and
economic development programs and rural water programs.
Community and Economic Development crosscut
analysis. To help foster community and economic
development, the Federal Government provides financial
assistance to communities through 35 grant, loan,
and tax incentive programs spread across seven agencies.
In 2005 nearly $16 billion will be spent on efforts
to revitalize distressed communities and increase economic
opportunity in areas that, despite increases in
national economic growth and productivity, continue to
suffer from high unemployment, low incomes and economic
disruption.
During 2004, OMB reviewed the effectiveness and
structure of Federal community and economic development
programs. An inter-agency group, the Interagency
Collaborative on Community and Economic Development,
also assisted this review by highlighting the
strengths, weaknesses and challenges of community
and economic development efforts. OMB reviewed the
PART assessments of several programs to identify challenges
shared by these programs. First, several of these
programs had unclear long-term objectives, which resulted
in many instances in a focus on short-term outputs
(e.g., number of people assisted and number of
housing units constructed), not on long-term community
impacts. Second, the programs did not coordinate effectively,
and in many cases overlapped in mission and
function. For example, assistance for infrastructure investment
is provided by at least four Federal agencies.
Third, and most importantly, the programs were unable
to demonstrate that they were achieving long-term outcomes.
In fact, there was little research to demonstrate
that Federal investment had improved communities
over the long-term. Ultimately, these programs should
be able to measure conditions and track changes in
key indicators such as job creation, homeownership,
commercial development and increases in private sector
investment.
To ensure the efficient use of taxpayer resources and
improve the focus on results, the Budget proposes a
$3.7 billion program within the Department Commerce
to support communities’ economic development and revitalization
efforts. This initiative will consolidate programs
such as Community Development Block Grants
and the Economic Development Assistance Programs
into a more targeted, unified program that sets accountability
standards in exchange for flexible use of the
funds. Further discussion on this initiative can be found
in the Department of Commerce budget chapter.
Rural Water cross-cut analysis. At least 12 different
Federal programs participate in building facilities
that provide drinking water or wastewater services
to rural areas of the country. These programs have
some overlapping missions and use similar service delivery
mechanisms. Water development is part of the
core mission of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department
of Interior, the Rural Utilities Service in
USDA, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s
Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds. Other agencies, such as the Indian Health Service
in the Department of Health and Human Services
and the Economic Development Administration in the
Department of Commerce, support activities related to
rural water development, but use them as means to
achieve broader program goals such as promoting economic
development. Analysis of these programs also
revealed that the Federal government’s role in developing
water resources is unclear, which hampers the
long-term strategic planning of these agencies and creates
uncertainty as to what actions Federal agencies
should undertake and how to prioritize funding for Federal
water projects. Consolidating some of these programs
may result in more efficient program management
and better delivery of on-the-ground services for
rural communities. The Administration will develop recommendations
regarding consolidation and reform of
Federal rural water programs that it will forward to
a proposed Results Commission, if authorized by Congress.
(See next section).
III. NEXT STEPS FOR THE BPI INITIATIVE
Results Commission
Dysfunctional program overlap is why many of the
30 percent of programs are rated either ineffective or
unable to demonstrate results. Cross-cutting analysis
can help in many of these areas, but overlapping jurisdictions
in Congress provide daunting hurdles to legislative
remedies for the poor performance of duplicative
programs. To overcome this challenge, the President
will propose that Congress enact legislation that gives
him the authority to recommend the creation of ‘‘Re16
ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES
sults Commissions’’ to consider and revise Administration
proposals to improve the performance of programs
or agencies by restructuring or consolidating them. Proposals
approved by a commission would then be approved
by the President and considered by Congress
under expedited procedures.
The President’s proposal to the Congress will also
include a process by which programs undergo the regular
scrutiny brought about by having to defend their
existence before a Sunset Commission. Programs would
be reviewed by the Sunset Commission according to
a schedule enacted by Congress. The Commission would
consider and revise Administration proposals to retain,
restructure, or terminate programs. Programs would
automatically terminate according to the schedule unless
Congress took some action to reauthorize them.
Both components of this proposal—the Results Commissions
and the Sunset Commission—will require enactment
by Congress and the President. In the absence
of these reforms, the Administration will continue to
pursue all opportunities to improve program performance
to include using the PART for cross-cutting analysis.
Other Cross-Cuts of Federal Programs
In 2005, the Administration will conduct additional
cross-cuts in three different areas: block grant programs,
small business innovation research programs
and credit programs.
Block Grants. One of the most common tools used
by the Federal government is the block grant, particularly
in the social services area where states and localities
are the service providers. Block grants are embraced
for their flexibility to meet local needs and criticized
because accountability for results can be difficult
when funds are allocated based on formulas and population
counts rather than achievements or needs. In
addition, block grants pose performance measurement
challenges precisely because they can be used for a
wide range of activities. The obstacles to measuring
and achieving results through block grants are reflected
in PART scores: they receive the second lowest average
score of the seven PART types, 8 percent of block grant
programs assessed to date are rated ineffective, and
45 percent are rated Results Not Demonstrated.
Nonetheless, the PART shows that some Federal
block grant programs are achieving results superior to
others, effectively combining the flexibility that localities
need with the results that taxpayers deserve. In
the coming year, the Administration will apply the lessons
learned from the effective block grants to several
of those performing inadequately. This project will identify
the methods used to manage highly rated block
grant programs and adapt and implement those practices
in large, low-scoring programs. Each of the programs
targeted for improvement will develop an action
plan and implementation timeline that will be tracked
quarterly. The targeted programs will be re-analyzed
through the PART in one to two years to assess whether
implementing the block grant best practices results
in improved performance.
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). The
SBIR program established in 1982, sets aside 2.5 percent
of government research and development (R&D)
contract and grant funding to allow small businesses
to explore innovative ideas. The goal of the program
is to assist small businesses in undertaking and obtaining
the benefits of research and development, while
assisting the funding agencies to realize their mission.
Approximately $2 billion was spent last year in SBIR
programs.
All Federal agencies with R&D budgets above $100
million per year must publish a list of technical topics
that they would like to support, after which small businesses
are encouraged to submit research funding proposals
addressing opportunities in those areas. First,
agencies investigate the feasibility of the project and,
if deemed promising, funding is provided for research
and development. Awards generally are limited to about
$1 million per project. Agencies monitor the progress
of the selected projects and report key data annually
to the Small Business Administration.
This year the Administration will review the SBIR
programs of several agencies in a cross-agency review.
Key questions to be asked include how well the program
is managed; how well it is coordinated among
the participating agencies; how well the program has
done in commercializing products in the marketplace;
and how well it has contributed to the success of the
missions of the participating agencies.
Credit Programs. The Federal Government is one
of the world’s largest lenders. At the end of 2003, the
Government held a financial asset portfolio of nearly
$1.5 trillion, including direct loans, loan guarantees,
defaulted loans, and non-credit debt owed to agencies.
Many agencies lack the data, processes, or overall understanding
of the credit lifecycle (origination, loan
servicing/lender monitoring, liquidation, and debt collection)
needed to effectively assist intended borrowers
while also proactively reducing errors, risk, and cost
to the Government. Some credit program PART scores
reflect these fundamental inefficiencies.
A cross-cutting analysis will identify best practices
that can be implemented across the major credit agencies,
with the goal of strengthening Government credit
management practices at all stages of the credit
lifecycle. This will in turn lead to improved credit program
PART scores as well as substantial budgetary
savings: upfront subsidy costs and administrative expenses
could be reduced by hundreds of millions of
dollars, and delinquent debt could be reduced by up
to $10 billion.
Additional discussion of the credit program cross-cut
can be found in chapter seven of this Analytical Perspectives
volume (‘‘Credit and Insurance’’).
Follow-up on Recommendations
Rigorous follow-up on recommendations from the
PART will accelerate improvements in the performance
17 2. BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION
of Federal programs. The Administration is developing
a web-based PART recommendation tracking system
that will monitor what actions are required and their
state of completion. This will ensure that the hard work
done through the PART produces performance and
management improvements.
APPENDIX 1: DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE PART WORKS
Sections of the PART. The accompanying table provides
a brief description of the four sections along with
examples of programs that scored high or low in this
year. For more detailed information regarding PART
guidance and PART worksheets, visit the OMB website
at www.omb.gov/part.
Table 2–2. SECTIONS OF THE PART
Section Description Low Score Example High Score Example
Program Purpose and Design
Weight = 20 percent
To assess whether the program’s purpose
and design are clear and sound
Migrant and Seasonal Farm workers—program
design needs significant improvement
Nonproliferation and International Security
Program—clear purpose and strong design,
which is not duplicated in the
Federal government
Strategic Planning
Weight = 10 percent
To assess whether the agency has established
valid long-term and annual
measures and targets for the program
Juvenile Accountability Block Grants—
lacks strategic planning, ambitious goal
setting
Healthcare Facilities Construction—Longterm
and annual measures that assess
critical health-focused outcomes
Program Management
Weight = 20 percent
To rate agency management of the program,
including financial oversight and
program improvement efforts
Alaska Native Villages Program—poor
program management resulted in significant
contracting, accounting, and
performance problems
Capital Security Construction Program—
strong and responsive management
and oversight
Program Results/Accountability
Weight = 50 percent
To rate program performance on measures
and targets reviewed in the strategic
planning section through other
evaluations
Natural Gas Technologies Program—has
shown little evidence of improved outcomes
and results
DOD Energy Conservation Improvement
Program—achieves results, reduction in
cost, and net savings for investment
PART Questionnaire. The table below illustrates
key questions from each section of the PART.
Table 2–3. THE PART QUESTIONNAIRE
Key Questions for Every Program Description
PROGRAM PURPOSE AND DESIGN
• Is the program purpose clear?
• Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?
• Is the program designed so it is not redundant or duplicative of any other federal,
state, local or private effort?
• Is the program designed free of major flaws that would limit program effectiveness or
efficiency?
• Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach the intended beneficiaries
and/or otherwise address the program’s purpose directly?
This section examines the clarity of program purpose and soundness of program design.
It looks at factors including those the program, agency, or Administration may
not directly control but which are within their influence, such as legislation and market
factors. Programs should generally be designed to address a market failure—either
an efficiency matter, such as a public good or externality, or a distributional objective,
such as assisting low-income families—in the least costly or most efficient
manner. A clear understanding of program purpose is essential to setting meaningful
program goals, measures, and targets; maintaining focus; and managing the program.
Potential source documents and evidence for answering questions in this section
include authorizing legislation, agency strategic plans, annual performance plans,
and other agency reports. Options for answers are Yes, No or Not Applicable
18 ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES
Table 2–3. THE PART QUESTIONNAIRE—Continued
Key Questions for Every Program Description
STRATEGIC PLANNING
• Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures
that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?
• Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?
• Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance goals that
can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program’s long-term goals?
• Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?
• Do all partners (grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other
government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals
of the program?
• Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope conducted on a regular basis or as
needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance
to the problem, interest or need?
• Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term
performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent
manner in the program’s budget?
• Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its strategic planning deficiencies?
This section focuses on program planning, priority setting, and resource allocation. Key
elements include an assessment of whether the program has a limited number of
performance measures with ambitious—yet achievable—targets, to ensure planning,
management, and budgeting are strategic and focused. Potential source documents
and evidence for answering questions include strategic planning documents, agency
performance plans and reports, reports and submissions from program partners,
evaluation plans, budget submissions and other program documents. Options for answers
are Yes, No or Not Applicable.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
• Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information from
key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?
• Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors,
cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for
cost, schedule and performance results?
• Are funds (Federal and partners’) obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended
purpose?
• Does the program have procedures (i.e. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT
improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost
effectiveness in program execution?
• Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?
• Does the program use strong financial management practices?
• Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?
This section focuses on a variety of elements related to whether the program is effectively
managed to meet program performance goals. Key areas include financial
oversight, evaluation of program improvements, performance data collection, and program
manager accountability. Additionally, specific areas of importance for each program
type are also explored. Potential source documents and evidence for answering
questions in this section include financial statements, GAO reports, IG reports,
performance plans, budget execution data, IT plans, and independent program evaluations.
Options for answers are Yes, No or Not Applicable.
PROGRAM RESULTS/ACCOUNTABILITY
• Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance
goals?
• Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance
goals?
• Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving
program goals each year?
• Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including
government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?
• Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program
is effective and achieving results?
This section considers whether a program is meeting its long-term and annual performance
goals. This section also assesses how well the program compares to similar
programs and how effective the program is based on independent evaluations. Potential
source documents and evidence for answering questions in this section include
annual performance reports, evaluations, GAO reports, IG reports and other
agency documents. Assessments of program results should be based on the most
recent reporting cycle or other relevant data. The PART worksheet, under the
‘‘Measures Page,’’ calls for data on a few years of performance targets and results
to be reported. Answers in this section are rated as Yes, Large Extent, Small Extent,
and No.
PART Categories. The PART segments mandatory
and discretionary Federal programs into seven categories.
The accompanying table describes the program
categories:
19 2. BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION
Table 2–4. THE PART, BY CATEGORY
Program Type Description Examples
Competitive Grant Programs Programs that distribute funds to state, local and tribal
governments, organizations, individuals and other entities
through a competitive process.
• Head Start
• Weed and Seed
Block/Formula Grant Programs Programs that distribute funds to state, local and tribal
governments and other entities by formula or block
grant.
• Vocational Education State Grants
• Native American
• Housing Block Grants
Regulatory-Based Programs Programs that employ regulatory action to achieve program
and agency goals through rulemaking that implements,
interprets or prescribes law or policy, or describes
procedure or practice requirements. These
programs issue significant regulations, which are subject
to OMB review.
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration
• Food Safety and Inspection Service
Capital Assets and Service Acquisition Programs Programs where the primary means to achieve goals is
the development and acquisition of capital assets
(such as land, structures, equipment, and intellectual
property) or the purchase of services (such as maintenance
and information technology) from a commercial
source.
• Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
• DoD—Shipbuilding
Credit Programs Programs that provide support through loans, loan guarantees
and direct credit.
• Rural Electric Utility Loans and Guarantees
Direct Federal Programs Programs in which support and services are provided
primarily by Federal employees.
• Coin Production
• National Weather Service
Research and Development Programs Programs that focus on creating knowledge or applying it
toward the creation of systems, devices, methods, materials
or technologies.
• Solar Energy Program
• Mars Exploration
APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY RESULTS OF PROGRAMS EVALUATED USING THE PART
Since its inception, the PART has been improved annually
based on feedback received from agencies and
the public. Although there were no changes to the
PART questions for this past year, the guidance has
been refined each year to improve consistency in application
of the PART across programs. Feedback from
Federal agencies, General Accounting Office, Center for
Excellence in Government, National Academy of Public
Administrators, the public, and internal quality control
reviews all helped improve the guidance.
The table that follows lists summary PART results
and funding information for each of the assessed programs.
It affirms the fact that PART ratings are one
factor, but not the only factor, in the Administration’s
budget formulation process. The PART gives the Executive
Branch, Congress, and individual program managers
valuable insight into ways we can improve program
performance on behalf of the American people.
Individual PART summaries are included on the CD
that accompanies the Analytical Perspectives volume,
and full PART worksheets can be found on OMB’s web
page (www.budget.gov/budget/fy2006/part.html)
20 ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES
Table 2–5 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING INFORMATION
(Current Data for All Programs Assessed by PART)
Agency/Program Title Rating Primary Program Type
Program Funding Level
(dollars in millions)
2004
Actual
Estimate
2005 2006
Department of Agriculture:
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund—Guaranteed
Loans.
Moderately Effective Credit 2,402 2,763 2,866
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Direct
Loans.
Moderately Effective Credit 844 955 937
Animal Welfare ................................................ Adequate Regulatory Based 17 17 18
APHIS Plant and Animal Health Monitoring
Programs.
Effective Regulatory Based 173 232 283
Bioenergy ......................................................... Adequate Direct Federal 150 100 60
CCC Marketing Loan Payments .................... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 843 6,423 5,096
CCC Export Credit Guarantee Programs
(GSM–102, GSM–103, SCGP, FGP).
Moderately Effective Credit 4,275 4,556 4,556
Commodity Grading and Certification Programs.
Adequate Direct Federal 171 185 189
Commodity Supplemental Food Program
(CSFP).
Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 109 110 107
Community Facilities Program ...................... Results Not Demonstrated Credit 726 527 527
Conservation Technical Assistance ................ Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 729 706 622
Counter Cyclical Payments ............................ Adequate Direct Federal 812 3,942 5,950
Crop Insurance ................................................ Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 3,437 3,091 3,730
Dairy MILC Program ...................................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 221 500 50
Dairy Price Support Program ......................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 399 280 130
Direct Crop Payments ..................................... Adequate Direct Federal 5,289 5,303 5,303
Emergency Watershed Protection Program .. Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 150 250 0
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP).
Moderately Effective Direct Federal 903 1,017 1,000
Farmland Protection Program ....................... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 91 112 84
Food Aid Programs .......................................... Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 515 524 539
Food Safety and Inspection Service ............... Adequate Regulatory Based 778 820 853
Food Safety Research ...................................... Results Not Demonstrated Research and Development 98 103 108
Food Stamp Program ...................................... Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 27,205 32,397 35,922
Forest Service: Forest Legacy Program ......... Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 64 57 80
Forest Service: Invasive Species Program ..... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 263 167 173
Forestry Research Grants ............................... Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 22 22 11
In House Research: Economic Opportunities
for Producers.
Moderately Effective Research and Development 381 385 321
Intermediary Relending Program (IRP) ........ Adequate Credit 40 34 34
Land Acquisition ............................................. Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 102 156 41
Multifamily Housing Direct Loans and Rental
Assistance.
Results Not Demonstrated Mixed 631 620 884
Mutual Self Help Housing—Technical Assistance
Grants.
Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 34 34 34
National Agricultural Statistics Service ........ Moderately Effective Direct Federal 128 128 145
National Forest Improvement and Maintenance.
Adequate Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
635 704 391
National Resources Inventory ........................ Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 35 37 37
National School Lunch .................................... Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 6,649 6,967 7,254
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act ..... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 10 9 10
Pest and Disease Exclusion ............................ Effective Regulatory Based 126 125 144
Pesticide Data/Microbiological Data Programs.
Adequate Direct Federal 21 21 22
Plant Materials Program ................................ Results Not Demonstrated Research and Development 12 15 11
RBS Business and Industry Guaranteed
Loan Program.
Adequate Credit 26 30 44
Research/Extension Grants: Economic Opportunities
for Producers.
Moderately Effective Research and Development 382 396 424
Resource Conservation and Development ..... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 53 51 27
Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program .. Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 43 40 40
Rural Business-Cooperative Service Value-
Added Producer Grants.
Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 14 16 16
Rural Distance Learning and Telemedicine
Loan and Grant Program.
Results Not Demonstrated Mixed 325 74 25
Rural Electric Utility Loans and Guarantees Adequate Credit 3,989 3,317 2,520
Rural Telecommunications Loan Programs .. Adequate Credit 514 518 670
21 2. BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION
Table 2–5 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING INFORMATION—Continued
(Current Data for All Programs Assessed by PART)
Agency/Program Title Rating Primary Program Type
Program Funding Level
(dollars in millions)
2004
Actual
Estimate
2005 2006
Rural Water and Wastewater Grants and
Loans.
Results Not Demonstrated Mixed 601 548 450
School Breakfast Program .............................. Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 1,792 1,910 2,030
Single Family Housing Direct Loans ............. Moderately Effective Credit 1,351 1,100 1,100
Single Family Housing Loan Guarantees ..... Moderately Effective Credit 2,610 2,500 3,100
Snow Survey Water Supply Forecasting ....... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 10 11 10
Soil Survey Program ....................................... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 87 89 88
USDA Wildland Fire Management ................ Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 1,876 2,014 1,493
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Adequate Direct Federal 126 111 20
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program ............. Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 38 47 60
Department of Commerce:
Advanced Technology Program ...................... Adequate Competitive Grant 169 136 0
Bureau of Economic Analysis ......................... Effective Direct Federal 67 73 81
Coastal Zone Management Act Programs ..... Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 136 128 96
Commerce Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) Program.
Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 9 7 5
Current Demographic Statistics ..................... Effective Direct Federal 58 59 62
Decennial Census ............................................ Moderately Effective Direct Federal 253 388 464
Economic Census ............................................. Effective Direct Federal 73 68 71
Economic Development Administration ........ Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 308 284 27
Export Administration .................................... Adequate Regulatory Based 26 26 31
Intercensal Demographic Estimates .............. Moderately Effective Direct Federal 9 9 10
Manufacturing Extension Partnership .......... Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 39 108 47
Minority Business Development Agency ....... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 29 30 31
National Marine Fisheries Service ................ Adequate Regulatory Based 644 686 627
National Weather Service ............................... Effective Direct Federal 825 783 839
NIST Laboratories ........................................... Effective Research and Development 300 375 412
NOAA Climate Program ................................. Moderately Effective Research and Development 242 275 250
NOAA Navigation Services ............................. Moderately Effective Direct Federal 89 83 92
NOAA Protected Areas ................................... Adequate Regulatory Based 62 71 46
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund ......... Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 89 89 90
Survey Sample Redesign ................................ Effective Direct Federal 13 11 10
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—Patents Adequate Direct Federal 1,098 1,380 1,517
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—Trademarks.
Moderately Effective Direct Federal 131 174 186
US and Foreign Commercial Service
(USFCS).
Adequate Direct Federal 225 216 232
Department of Defense—Military:
Air Combat Program ....................................... Moderately Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
13,904 14,537 14,559
Air Force Aircraft Operations ........................ Effective Direct Federal 10,481 8,299 9,341
Air Force Depot Maintenance ........................ Effective Direct Federal 3,402 3,576 3,533
Airlift Program ................................................ Moderately Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
5,143 6,356 5,960
Army Land Forces Operations ....................... Effective Direct Federal 9,236 9,710 9,488
Basic Research ................................................. Effective Research and Development 1,358 1,513 1,319
Chemical Demilitarization .............................. Ineffective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
1,620 1,454 1,406
Comanche Helicopter Program ...................... Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
1,068 0 0
Communications Infrastructure ..................... Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
3,625 4,244 4,021
Defense Health ................................................ Adequate Direct Federal 17,769 18,177 19,792
Depot Maintenance—Naval Aviation ............ Effective Direct Federal 1,078 980 962
Depot Maintenance—Ship .............................. Effective Direct Federal 4,107 3,889 3,967
DoD Applied Research Program .................... Moderately Effective Research and Development 4,350 4,850 4,139
DoD Small Business Innovation Research/
Technology Transfer.
Results Not Demonstrated Research and Development 1,100 1,133 1,500
Energy Conservation Improvement ............... Effective Capital Assets & Service
Acquisition
50 50 60
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, Modernization,
and Demolition.
Adequate Direct Federal 11,189 11,291 12,795
Housing ............................................................ Moderately Effective Direct Federal 17,001 15,554 16,371
22 ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES
Table 2–5 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING INFORMATION—Continued
(Current Data for All Programs Assessed by PART)
Agency/Program Title Rating Primary Program Type
Program Funding Level
(dollars in millions)
2004
Actual
Estimate
2005 2006
Military Force Management ........................... Effective Direct Federal 115,549 105,273 108,942
Missile Defense ................................................ Moderately Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
8,618 10,044 8,567
Navy Ship Operations ..................................... Effective Direct Federal 4,372 4,224 4,406
Navy/Marine Corps Air Operations ............... Effective Direct Federal 4,632 5,687 5,649
Recruiting ........................................................ Moderately Effective Direct Federal 1,935 2,048 2,217
Shipbuilding ..................................................... Adequate Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
11,989 11,384 9,354
Department of Education:
21st Century Community Learning Centers Adequate Block/Formula Grant 999 991 991
Adult Education State Grants ........................ Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 574 570 200
American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation
Services.
Adequate Competitive Grant 31 32 33
Assistive Technology (AT) Alternative Financing
Program.
Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 0 4 15
B.J. Stupak Olympic scholarships ................. Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 1 1 0
Byrd Honors Scholarships .............................. Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 41 41 0
Child Care Access Means Parents in School Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 16 16 16
College Assistance Migrant Program
(CAMP).
Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 16 16 16
Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 28 0 0
Comprehensive School Reform ....................... Adequate Block/Formula Grant 234 205 0
Even Start ........................................................ Ineffective Block/Formula Grant 247 225 0
Federal Family Education Loans ................... Adequate Credit 9,602 10,111 7,241
Federal Pell Grants ......................................... Adequate Block/Formula Grant 12,007 12,365 17,953
Federal Perkins Loans .................................... Ineffective Credit 165 66 0
Federal Work-Study ........................................ Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 999 990 990
GEAR UP ......................................................... Adequate Competitive Grant 298 306 0
Graduate Assistance in Areas of National
Need.
Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 31 30 30
High School Equivalency Program (HEP) ..... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 19 19 19
IDEA Grants for Infants and Families .......... Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 444 441 441
IDEA Grants to States .................................... Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 10,068 10,590 11,098
IDEA Part D—Parent Information Centers .. Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 26 26 26
IDEA Part D—Personnel Preparation ........... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 91 91 91
IDEA Part D—Research and Innovation ...... Results Not Demonstrated Research and Development 78 83 73
IDEA Part D—Technical Assistance and
Dissemination (TA&D).
Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 53 52 49
IDEA Preschool Grants ................................... Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 388 385 385
Impact Aid Payments for Federal Property .. Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 62 62 62
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants ..... Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 2,930 2,917 2,917
Independent Living (IL) Programs ................ Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 127 131 131
International Education Domestic ................. Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 89 92 92
Javits Fellowships ........................................... Adequate Competitive Grant 10 10 10
Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership.
Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 66 66 0
Magnet Schools ................................................ Adequate Competitive Grant 109 108 108
National Assessment ....................................... Effective Research and Development 90 89 111
National Center for Education Statistics ...... Effective Research and Development 92 91 91
National Writing Project ................................. Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 18 20 0
Nat’l Institute on Disability and Rehab. Research
(NIDRR).
Results Not Demonstrated Research and Development 107 108 108
Occupational and Employment Information Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 9 9 0
Parental Information and Resource Centers Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 42 42 0
Projects with Industry .................................... Adequate Competitive Grant 22 22 0
Ready to Learn Television .............................. Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 23 23 23
Safe and Drug Free Schools State Grants .... Ineffective Block/Formula Grant 441 437 0
State Assessment Grants ................................ Adequate Block/Formula Grant 390 412 412
Student Aid Administration ........................... Adequate Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
912 914 939
Supplemental Educational Opportunity
Grants.
Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 770 779 779
Teacher Quality Enhancement ....................... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 89 68 0
Teaching American History ............................ Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 119 119 119
23 2. BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION
Table 2–5 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING INFORMATION—Continued
(Current Data for All Programs Assessed by PART)
Agency/Program Title Rating Primary Program Type
Program Funding Level
(dollars in millions)
2004
Actual
Estimate
2005 2006
Tech-Prep Education State Grants ................ Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 107 106 0
Training and Advisory Services ..................... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 7 7 7
Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational
and Technical Institutions.
Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 7 7 7
TRIO Student Support Services ..................... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 263 275 275
TRIO Talent Search ........................................ Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 144 145 0
TRIO Upward Bound ...................................... Ineffective Competitive Grant 312 313 0
Troops-to-Teachers .......................................... Adequate Competitive Grant 15 15 15
Vocational Education State Grants ............... Ineffective Block/Formula Grant 1,195 1,194 0
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants ........ Adequate Block/Formula Grant 2,548 2,636 2,720
William D. Ford Direct Student Loans ......... Adequate Credit –169 –89 –616
Department of Energy:
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative ...................... Moderately Effective Research and Development 66 67 70
Advanced Scientific Computing Research ..... Moderately Effective Research and Development 202 232 207
Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASCI) Effective Research and Development 718 741 666
Basic Energy Sciences ..................................... Effective Research and Development 1,011 1,105 1,146
Biological and Environmental Research ........ Effective Research and Development 641 582 456
Bonneville Power Administration .................. Moderately Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
1,403 –10 –10
Building Technologies ..................................... Adequate Research and Development 58 65 58
Clean Coal Research Initiative ...................... Adequate Research and Development 378 273 286
Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) ..................... Moderately Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
1,349 1,406 1,421
Distributed Energy Resources ........................ Moderately Effective Research and Development 61 60 57
Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium
Production Program.
Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
65 50 132
Energy Information Administration (EIA) .... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 81 84 86
Environmental Management .......................... Adequate Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
7,052 7,284 6,505
Facilities and Infrastructure .......................... Moderately Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
239 316 284
Fuel Cells (Stationary) .................................... Adequate Research and Development 69 74 65
Fusion Energy Sciences .................................. Moderately Effective Research and Development 263 274 291
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative.
Moderately Effective Research and Development 27 40 45
Geothermal Technology .................................. Moderately Effective Research and Development 26 25 23
High Energy Physics ....................................... Moderately Effective Research and Development 734 736 714
High Temperature Superducting (HTS) R&D Moderately Effective Research and Development 34 55 45
Hydrogen Technology ...................................... Moderately Effective Research and Development 82 94 99
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and
High Yield Campaign/NIF Construction
Project.
Moderately Effective Research and Development 513 492 460
International Nuclear Materials Protection
and Cooperation.
Effective Direct Federal 258 238 343
National Nuclear Infrastructure .................... Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
76 113 98
Natural Gas Technologies ............................... Ineffective Research and Development 43 45 10
Nonproliferation and International Security Effective Direct Federal 114 124 80
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative .............. Results Not Demonstrated Research and Development 6 0 0
Nuclear Physics ............................................... Effective Research and Development 390 405 371
Nuclear Power 2010 ........................................ Adequate Research and Development 19 50 56
Oil Technology ................................................. Ineffective Research and Development 35 34 10
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities
(RTBF), Operations.
Moderately Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
1,314 1,310 1,388
Safeguards and Security ................................. Moderately Effective Direct Federal 626 707 708
Secure Transportation Asset (STA) ............... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 186 201 212
Solar Energy .................................................... Moderately Effective Research and Development 83 85 84
Southeastern Power Administration ............. Moderately Effective Direct Federal 5 5 0
Southwestern Power Administration ............. Moderately Effective Direct Federal 29 29 3
State Energy Programs ................................... Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 44 44 41
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) ............... Effective Direct Federal 176 170 166
Vehicle Technologies ....................................... Moderately Effective Research and Development 177 165 166
Weatherization Assistance ............................. Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 227 228 230
24 ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES
Table 2–5 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING INFORMATION—Continued
(Current Data for All Programs Assessed by PART)
Agency/Program Title Rating Primary Program Type
Program Funding Level
(dollars in millions)
2004
Actual
Estimate
2005 2006
Western Area Power Administration ............. Moderately Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
177 172 54
Wind Energy .................................................... Moderately Effective Research and Development 41 41 44
Yucca Mountain Project .................................. Adequate Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
577 572 651
Department of Health and Human Services:
317 Immunization Program ............................ Adequate Competitive Grant 469 520 429
Administration on Aging ................................ Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 1,243 1,253 1,272
Adolescent Family Life Program (AFL) ......... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 31 31 31
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry.
Adequate Competitive Grant 73 76 76
Assets for Independence ................................. Adequate Competitive Grant 25 25 25
CDC State and Local Preparedness Grants .. Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 918 927 797
CDC: Buildings and Facilities ........................ Adequate Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
260 270 30
CDC: Epidemic Services ................................. Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 92 92 92
CDC: Infectious Diseases ................................ Adequate Competitive Grant 222 226 225
CDC: Occupational Safety and Health .......... Adequate Research and Development 277 286 286
CDC: STD and TB ........................................... Adequate Competitive Grant 296 298 299
Child Care and Development Fund ............... Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 4,804 4,801 4,801
Child Welfare—Community-Based Child
Abuse Prevention (CBCAP).
Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 33 43 43
Child Welfare- CAPTA State Grant .............. Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 22 27 27
Children’s Hospitals Graduate Medical Education
Payment Program.
Adequate Block/Formula Grant 303 298 200
Childrens Mental Health Services ................. Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 102 105 105
Chronic Disease—Breast and Cervical Cancer.
Adequate Competitive Grant 197 204 204
Chronic Disease—Diabetes ............................. Adequate Competitive Grant 60 63 63
Community Mental Health Services Block
Grant.
Adequate Block/Formula Grant 435 433 433
Community Services Block Grant .................. Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 642 637 0
Data Collection and Dissemination ............... Moderately Effective Research and Development 65 65 63
Developmental Disabilities Grant Programs Adequate Block/Formula Grant 150 154 154
Domestic HIV/AIDS Prevention ..................... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 668 662 658
Emergency Medical Services for Children .... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 20 20 0
Family Violence Prevention and Services
Program.
Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 129 129 129
Food and Drug Administration ...................... Moderately Effective Regulatory Based 1,695 1,801 1,881
Foster Care ...................................................... Adequate Block/Formula Grant 4,974 4,855 4,855
Head Start ....................................................... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 6,774 6,843 6,888
Health Alert Network ..................................... Adequate Competitive Grant 0 0 0
Health Care Facilities Construction .............. Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
94 89 3
Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control
(HCFAC).
Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 160 160 160
Health Centers ................................................ Effective Competitive Grant 1,617 1,734 2,038
Health Professions .......................................... Ineffective Competitive Grant 409 416 129
HIV/AIDS Research ........................................ Moderately Effective Research and Development 2,850 2,920 2,933
Hospital Preparedness Grants ....................... Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 515 491 483
IHS Federally-Administered Activities ......... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 1,698 1,793 1,887
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program.
Moderately Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
93 92 94
Independent Living Program ......................... Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 140 140 140
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 1,889 2,182 2,000
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
(MCHBG).
Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 730 724 724
Medicare ........................................................... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 296,825 328,239 396,347
Medicare Integrity Program (HCFAC) .......... Effective Block/Formula Grant 720 720 795
National Bone Marrow Donor Registry ......... Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 23 25 23
National Health Service Corps ....................... Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 170 132 127
NIH Extramural Research Programs ............ Effective Research and Development 20,880 21,146 21,385
25 2. BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION
Table 2–5 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING INFORMATION—Continued
(Current Data for All Programs Assessed by PART)
Agency/Program Title Rating Primary Program Type
Program Funding Level
(dollars in millions)
2004
Actual
Estimate
2005 2006
Nursing Education Loan Repayment and
Scholarship Program.
Adequate Competitive Grant 27 31 31
Office of Child Support Enforcement ............. Effective Block/Formula Grant 3,815 3,934 4,081
Office on Women’s Health .............................. Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 29 29 30
Organ Transplantation ................................... Adequate Competitive Grant 25 24 23
Patient Safety .................................................. Adequate Research and Development 80 84 84
Pharmaceutical Outcomes .............................. Moderately Effective Research and Development 13 27 26
Poison Control Centers ................................... Adequate Block/Formula Grant 24 24 23
Projects for Assistance in Transition from
Homelessness.
Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 50 55 55
Refugee and Entrant Assistance .................... Adequate Block/Formula Grant 201 214 214
Resource and Patient Management System Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
34 36 37
Runaway and Homeless Youth ...................... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 89 89 89
Rural Health Activities ................................... Adequate Competitive Grant 147 147 33
Ryan White ...................................................... Adequate Block/Formula Grant 2,045 2,073 2,083
State Children’s Health Insurance Program Adequate Block/Formula Grant 4,607 5,343 6,233
Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Block Grant.
Ineffective Block/Formula Grant 1,779 1,775 1,775
Substance Abuse Prevention PRNS ............... Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 198 199 185
Substance Abuse Treatment Programs of
Regional and National Significance.
Adequate Competitive Grant 419 422 448
Translating Research into Practice ................ Adequate Research and Development 8 6 1
Traumatic Brain Injury .................................. Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 9 9 0
Urban Indian Health Program ....................... Adequate Block/Formula Grant 32 32 33
Department of Homeland Security:
Aids to Navigation ........................................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 843 942 1,031
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program .... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 746 715 500
Baggage Screening Technology ...................... Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
310 645 594
Biological Countermeasures ........................... Effective Research and Development 286 398 385
Border Patrol ................................................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 1,441 1,547 1,606
Coast Guard Domestic Icebreaking Program Effective Direct Federal 48 52 72
Coast Guard Fisheries Enforcement .............. Moderately Effective Direct Federal 615 715 779
Coast Guard Migrant Interdiction Program Moderately Effective Direct Federal 244 267 301
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaking Program ...... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 47 47 0
Container Security Initiative ......................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 61 126 139
Detention and Removal .................................. Moderately Effective Direct Federal 1,084 1,257 1,493
Drug Interdiction ............................................. Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 904 985 1,114
Federal Air Marshal Service .......................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 623 663 689
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center .. Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 192 196 224
Federal Protective Service .............................. Moderately Effective Direct Federal 424 478 487
FEMA Response .............................................. Adequate Direct Federal 617 1,307 326
Foreign Protectees and Foreign Missions ..... Effective Direct Federal 80 106 110
Hazard Mitigation Grant ................................ Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 155 161 161
Immigration Services ...................................... Adequate Direct Federal 1,576 1,775 1,854
Inspection Technology ..................................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 184 205 232
Marine Environmental Protection ................. Moderately Effective Regulatory Based 230 295 288
Metropolitan Medical Response System ........ Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 50 30 0
National Flood Insurance ............................... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 2,153 1,524 1,632
Office of Investigations ................................... Adequate Direct Federal 941 1,181 1,399
Passenger Screening Technology ................... Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
27 103 147
Protective Intelligence .................................... Effective Direct Federal 57 59 60
Recovery ........................................................... Adequate Direct Federal 3,031 6,466 1,374
Screener Training ............................................ Adequate Direct Federal 106 89 91
Screener Workforce ......................................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 2,334 2,522 2,669
Search and Rescue .......................................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 691 768 794
Standards ......................................................... Adequate Research and Development 38 40 37
State Homeland Security Grants ................... Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 1,200 1,500 1,020
Threat and Vulnerability, Testing and Assessment
(TVTA).
Results Not Demonstrated Research and Development 93 66 50
26 ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES
Table 2–5 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING INFORMATION—Continued
(Current Data for All Programs Assessed by PART)
Agency/Program Title Rating Primary Program Type
Program Funding Level
(dollars in millions)
2004
Actual
Estimate
2005 2006
Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Community Development Block Grant (Formula).
Ineffective Block/Formula Grant 4,331 4,117 0
Fair Housing Assistance Program ................. Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 28 26 23
Fair Housing Initiatives Program .................. Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 20 20 16
Family Self-Sufficiency Program (FSS)—
within Housing Vouchers.
Adequate Competitive Grant 48 46 55
FHA Single-Family Mortgage Insurance ...... Adequate Credit –2,660 –2,121 –1,867
HOME Investment Partnerships Program ... Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 2,006 1,900 1,941
Homeownership Voucher ................................ Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 4 3 5
HOPE VI .......................................................... Ineffective Competitive Grant 149 143 –143
Housing Counseling ........................................ Adequate Competitive Grant 40 42 40
Housing for Persons with Disabilities ........... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 249 238 120
Housing for the Elderly .................................. Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 773 741 741
Housing Opportunities for Persons with
AIDS.
Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 297 282 268
Housing Vouchers ............................................ Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 14,415 14,717 15,784
Indian Community Development Block
Grant Program.
Adequate Competitive Grant 72 68 58
Lead Hazard Grants ....................................... Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 164 167 110
National Community Development Initiative Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 35 34 0
Native American Housing Block Grants ....... Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 650 622 522
Partnership for Advancing Technology in
Housing (PATH).
Results Not Demonstrated Research and Development 7 7 0
Project-Based Rental Assistance .................... Ineffective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
4,769 4,950 4,682
Rural Housing and Economic Development .. Ineffective Competitive Grant 25 24 0
Department of the Interior:
Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation .............. Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 172 168 170
DOI Wildland Fire Management ................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 685 733 757
Energy and Minerals Management ............... Adequate Direct Federal 109 108 117
Energy Resource Assessments ....................... Moderately Effective Research and Development 25 24 21
Federal Regulatory and Abandoned Mine
Land Program.
Results Not Demonstrated Regulatory Based 54 58 58
Geologic Hazard Assessments ........................ Moderately Effective Research and Development 75 76 82
Habitat Restoration Activities ........................ Moderately Effective Direct Federal 144 150 158
Indian 477—Job Placement and Training .... Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 8 9 9
Indian Forestry Program ................................ Adequate Direct Federal 49 53 53
Indian Law Enforcement ................................ Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 172 180 192
Indian Post Secondary Education—Tribal
Colleges.
Adequate Block/Formula Grant 94 97 88
Indian Roads—Operation and Maintenance Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 27 27 27
Indian School Construction ............................ Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
295 263 174
Indian School Operations ............................... Adequate Direct Federal 522 518 522
Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
State Grants.
Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 91 90 0
LWCF Land Acquisition ................................. Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 98 103 114
Migratory Bird Program ................................. Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 119 129 141
Mineral Resource Assessments ...................... Moderately Effective Research and Development 55 54 26
Minerals Revenue Management ..................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 99 103 104
National Fish Hatchery System ..................... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 58 57 58
National Historic Preservation Programs ..... Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 97 98 88
National Mapping ............................................ Effective Research and Development 130 119 139
National Park Service Cultural Resource
Stewardship.
Adequate Direct Federal 92 95 96
National Park Service Facility Management Adequate Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
700 690 717
National Park Service Natural Resource
Stewardship.
Moderately Effective Direct Federal 198 206 210
National Wildlife Refuge Operations and
Maintenance.
Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 412 402 415
27 2. BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION
Table 2–5 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING INFORMATION—Continued
(Current Data for All Programs Assessed by PART)
Agency/Program Title Rating Primary Program Type
Program Funding Level
(dollars in millions)
2004
Actual
Estimate
2005 2006
Outer Continental Shelf Environmental
Studies.
Moderately Effective Research and Development 27 27 26
Partners for Fish and Wildlife ....................... Adequate Direct Federal 42 48 52
Project Planning and Construction ................ Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
143 143 143
Realty and Ownership Management ............. Adequate Direct Federal 107 107 97
Reclamation Hydropower ................................ Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
59 69 71
Recreation and Concessions ........................... Adequate Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
10 10 10
Recreation Management ................................. Adequate Direct Federal 64 63 68
Regulation of Surface Coal Mining Activities Results Not Demonstrated Regulatory Based 70 71 71
Resource Evaluation and Leasing Program .. Moderately Effective Direct Federal 54 58 59
Rural Water Supply Projects .......................... Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
75 89 55
Science & Technology Program (S&T) ........... Effective Research and Development 16 17 10
Southern Nevada Public Land Management
Act.
Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 240 401 521
Title XVI Water Reuse and Recycling ........... Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 28 26 10
Tribal Courts ................................................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 18 18 18
Tribal Land Consolidation .............................. Moderately Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
22 35 35
Water Information Collection and Dissemination.
Moderately Effective Research and Development 66 64 64
Water Resources Research ............................. Moderately Effective Research and Development 143 141 140
Department of Justice:
ATF Arson & Explosives Program ................. Moderately Effective Direct Federal 215 188 195
ATF Firearms Programs—Integrated Violence
Reduction Strategy.
Moderately Effective Direct Federal 596 673 712
Bureau of Prisons ............................................ Moderately Effective Direct Federal 4,755 4,776 5,066
Community Oriented Policing Services ......... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 742 499 22
Criminal Justice Services ............................... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 291 435 464
Cybercrime ....................................................... Adequate Direct Federal 183 234 251
Drug Courts ..................................................... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 38 39 70
Drug Enforcement Administration ................ Adequate Direct Federal 2,070 2,208 2,269
Juvenile Accountability Block Grants ........... Ineffective Block/Formula Grant 59 54 0
National Criminal History Improvement
Program.
Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 30 25 58
Organized Crime/Drug Enforcement ............. Adequate Direct Federal 379 581 545
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment ...... Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 0 25 44
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program .... Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 297 301 0
U.S. Attorneys ................................................. Adequate Direct Federal 1,525 1,542 1,623
USMS Apprehension of Fugitives .................. Adequate Direct Federal 181 186 191
USMS Protection of the Judicial Process ...... Adequate Direct Federal 539 551 599
Weed and Seed ................................................ Adequate Competitive Grant 58 61 60
White Collar Crime ......................................... Adequate Direct Federal 429 508 529
Department of Labor:
Black Lung Benefits Program ........................ Moderately Effective Direct Federal 1,451 1,446 1,401
Bureau of Labor Statistics .............................. Effective Direct Federal 524 534 543
Community Service Employment for Older
Americans.
Ineffective Direct Federal 439 437 437
Davis-Bacon Wage Determination Program Results Not Demonstrated Regulatory Based 10 10 10
Dislocated Worker Assistance ........................ Adequate Block/Formula Grant 1,236 1,203 1,094
Employee Benefits Security Administration
(EBSA).
Moderately Effective Regulatory Based 134 148 154
Employment Service ....................................... Adequate Block/Formula Grant 787 780 696
Federal Employees’ Compensation Act
(FECA).
Moderately Effective Direct Federal 2,571 2,634 2,702
H–1B Labor Condition Applications Program Moderately Effective Direct Federal 5 5 6
International Child Labor Program and Office
of Foreign Relations.
Adequate Competitive Grant 111 93 12
Job Corps ......................................................... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 1,566 1,576 1,547
Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers ............. Ineffective Competitive Grant 79 78 0
28 ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES
Table 2–5 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING INFORMATION—Continued
(Current Data for All Programs Assessed by PART)
Agency/Program Title Rating Primary Program Type
Program Funding Level
(dollars in millions)
2004
Actual
Estimate
2005 2006
Mine Safety and Health Administration ....... Adequate Regulatory Based 269 279 280
Native American Programs—Workforce Investment
Act.
Adequate Competitive Grant 57 56 56
Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Adequate Regulatory Based 458 464 467
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
(OFCCP).
Adequate Regulatory Based 79 80 82
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ......... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 294 312 297
Permanent Labor Certification Program ....... Adequate Direct Federal 37 38 40
Trade Adjustment Assistance ......................... Ineffective Direct Federal 1,341 1,060 969
Unemployment Insurance Administration
State Grants.
Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 2,815 2,699 2,660
Youth Activities ............................................... Ineffective Block/Formula Grant 1,005 1,012 960
Department of State:
Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI) ............ Adequate Direct Federal 727 725 735
Capital Security Construction Program ........ Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
753 775 810
Contribution to the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP).
Effective Block/Formula Grant 101 108 95
Contributions For International Peacekeeping
Activities.
Effective Direct Federal 795 483 1,036
Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs
in Near East Asia and South Asia.
Effective Competitive Grant 80 89 125
Global Educational and Cultural Exchanges Effective Competitive Grant 321 356 430
Humanitarian Migrants to Israel .................. Effective Block/Formula Grant 49 50 40
International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement Programs in the Western
Hemisphere (INCLE WHA).
Adequate Direct Federal 47 45 51
International Fisheries Commissions ............ Adequate Block/Formula Grant 19 21 25
Nonproliferation of WMD Expertise
(NWMDE).
Moderately Effective Direct Federal 36 38 44
Non-Security Based Capital Construction
Program.
Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
64 0 0
Refugee Admissions to the U.S ...................... Effective Competitive Grant 142 138 223
UN High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR).
Effective Block/Formula Grant 297 270 285
Visa and Consular Services ............................ Effective Direct Federal 649 755 791
Worldwide Security Upgrades ........................ Effective Direct Federal 640 650 690
Department of Transportation:
FAA Air Traffic Services ................................. Adequate Direct Federal 6,581 7,475 7,247
FAA Grants-in-Aid for Airports (Airport Improvement
Program).
Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 3,784 3,987 3,021
Facilities and Equipment ............................... Adequate Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
2,863 2,525 2,448
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA):
Research and Development/Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS).
Moderately Effective Research and Development 436 458 430
Federal Lands .................................................. Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 664 750 973
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Grant Program.
Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 193 193 225
FHWA Highway Infrastructure ..................... Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 32,728 32,926 33,167
Formula Programs—Section 5307 and 5309 Effective Block/Formula Grant 4,427 5,384 5,024
Hazardous Materials Transportation ............ Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 14 14 14
Maritime Security Program ............................ Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
102 101 156
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Grant Program.
Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 224 227 469
New Starts ....................................................... Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 1,438 1,531 1,531
Operations and Programs ............................... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 175 229 233
Operations and Research ................................ Moderately Effective Regulatory Based 112 278 285
Pipeline Safety ................................................. Moderately Effective Regulatory Based 101 116 92
Railroad Safety Program (RSP) ..................... Moderately Effective Regulatory Based 143 157 148
Regulation & Certification .............................. Moderately Effective Regulatory Based 871 903 942
29 2. BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION
Table 2–5 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING INFORMATION—Continued
(Current Data for All Programs Assessed by PART)
Agency/Program Title Rating Primary Program Type
Program Funding Level
(dollars in millions)
2004
Actual
Estimate
2005 2006
Research and Development ............................ Moderately Effective Research and Development 37 44 51
Research, Engineering & Development ......... Effective Research and Development 137 165 146
Department of the Treasury:
Administering the Public Debt ....................... Effective Direct Federal 173 175 177
ATF Consumer Product Safety Activities ..... Adequate Regulatory Based 20 37 41
Bank Enterprise Award .................................. Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 15 10 0
CDFI Fund: Financial and Technical Assistance.
Adequate Competitive Grant 38 32 0
Coin Production ............................................... Effective Direct Federal 431 481 480
Debt Collection ................................................ Effective Direct Federal 64 44 50
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Compliance.
Ineffective Direct Federal 197 165 169
Financial Management Service (FMS): FMS
Collections.
Effective Direct Federal 17 20 17
IRS Tax Collection .......................................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 1,773 1,826 2,015
IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service ..................... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 166 170 174
IRS Taxpayer Service ...................................... Adequate Direct Federal 2,361 2,329 2,254
New Currency Manufacturing ........................ Effective Direct Federal 340 345 410
New Markets Tax Credit ................................ Adequate Competitive Grant 5 6 4
OCC Bank Supervision ................................... Effective Regulatory Based 477 488 509
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) ...... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 22 22 24
OTS Thrift Supervision ................................... Effective Regulatory Based 178 182 187
Submission Processing (SP) ............................ Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 1,275 1,276 1,274
U.S. Mint: Numismatic Program ................... Effective Direct Federal 452 709 696
Department of Veterans Affairs:
Burial Benefits ................................................ Moderately Effective Direct Federal 431 453 467
Disability Compensation ................................. Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 26,995 29,845 30,644
General Administration .................................. Moderately Effective Direct Federal 551 622 677
Housing ............................................................ Results Not Demonstrated Credit 9,385 11,440 10,678
Medical Care .................................................... Adequate Direct Federal 28,207 29,925 30,705
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) (Education
Benefits).
Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 1,968 1,991 2,580
VA Research and Development ...................... Results Not Demonstrated Research and Development 866 784 786
Corps of Engineers-Civil Works:
Coastal Ports and Harbors ............................. Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
914 911 907
Coastal Storm Damage Reduction ................. Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
93 82 69
Corps Hydropower ........................................... Adequate Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
245 285 240
Emergency Management ................................ Moderately Effective Direct Federal 3 148 70
Flood Damage Reduction ................................ Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
1,077 1,059 967
Inland Waterways Navigation ....................... Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
866 844 898
Non-regulatory Wetlands Activities ............... Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
413 423 507
Recreation Management ................................. Moderately Effective Direct Federal 260 268 268
USACE Regulatory Program .......................... Moderately Effective Regulatory Based 140 144 160
Environmental Protection Agency:
Acid Rain .......................................................... Moderately Effective Regulatory Based 19 19 19
Air Toxics ......................................................... Adequate Regulatory Based 96 99 100
Alaska Native Villages .................................... Ineffective Block/Formula Grant 43 45 15
Brownfields ...................................................... Adequate Competitive Grant 170 210 210
Civil Enforcement ............................................ Adequate Direct Federal 446 446 467
Clean Water State Revolving Fund ............... Adequate Block/Formula Grant 1,342 1,091 730
Climate Change Programs .............................. Adequate Direct Federal 110 109 113
Criminal Enforcement ..................................... Adequate Direct Federal 43 46 51
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund .......... Adequate Block/Formula Grant 845 850 850
Ecological Research ......................................... Results Not Demonstrated Research and Development 115 94 84
Endocrine Disruptors ...................................... Adequate Direct Federal 17 17 18
Environmental Education ............................... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 9 9 0
30 ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES
Table 2–5 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING INFORMATION—Continued
(Current Data for All Programs Assessed by PART)
Agency/Program Title Rating Primary Program Type
Program Funding Level
(dollars in millions)
2004
Actual
Estimate
2005 2006
Existing Chemicals .......................................... Adequate Direct Federal 16 16 17
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks ........... Adequate Block/Formula Grant 72 69 69
Mobile Source Standards and Certification .. Moderately Effective Regulatory Based 61 68 70
New Chemicals ................................................ Moderately Effective Direct Federal 15 14 15
Nonpoint Source Grants ................................. Adequate Block/Formula Grant 237 209 209
Particulate Matter Research .......................... Results Not Demonstrated Research and Development 57 64 66
Pesticide Enforcement Grant Program .......... Ineffective Block/Formula Grant 20 20 19
Pesticide Field Programs ................................ Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 38 40 38
Pesticide Registration ..................................... Adequate Direct Federal 43 45 44
Pesticide Reregistration .................................. Adequate Direct Federal 54 61 61
Pollution Prevention and New Technologies Results Not Demonstrated Research and Development 43 34 26
Public Water System Supervision Grant Program.
Adequate Block/Formula Grant 102 105 101
RCRA Base Program, Permits and Grants ... Adequate Regulatory Based 152 156 158
RCRA Corrective Action ................................. Adequate Regulatory Based 40 41 41
Stratospheric Ozone Protection ...................... Adequate Regulatory Based 17 19 18
Superfund Remedial Action ............................ Adequate Direct Federal 622 748 622
Superfund Removal ......................................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 232 229 246
Tribal General Assistance .............................. Adequate Block/Formula Grant 62 63 58
U. S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure .... Adequate Block/Formula Grant 50 50 50
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Grant
Program.
Adequate Block/Formula Grant 11 11 11
General Services Administration:
Asset Management of Federally-Owned Real
Property.
Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
2,384 2,393 2,725
GSA New Construction (BA51) Program
DRAFT.
Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
1,035 956 845
GSA’s Regional IT Solutions Program ........... Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
5,401 5,217 5,311
Leasing Space .................................................. Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
3,722 4,164 4,198
Multiple Award Schedules .............................. Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 463 479 506
National IT Solutions Program ...................... Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
1,829 1,847 1,937
Office of Governmentwide Policy ................... Results Not Demonstrated Regulatory Based 93 133 125
Personal Property Management Program
(FBP).
Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 32 29 31
Real Property Disposal (PR) ........................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 27 47 45
Supply Depots and Special Order .................. Adequate Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
1,075 1,166 1,226
Vehicle Acquisition .......................................... Adequate Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
1,292 1,321 1,376
Vehicle Leasing ................................................ Moderately Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
1,117 1,138 1,161
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Aeronautics Technology .................................. Moderately Effective Research and Development 1,057 906 852
Biological Sciences Research .......................... Results Not Demonstrated Research and Development 365 482 385
Earth Science Applications ............................. Results Not Demonstrated Research and Development 103 76 76
Earth System Science ..................................... Moderately Effective Research and Development 1,505 1,384 1,248
Education ......................................................... Adequate Competitive Grant 230 217 167
Mars Exploration ............................................. Effective Research and Development 596 681 723
Mission and Science Measurement Technology.
Moderately Effective Research and Development 459 0 0
Solar System Exploration ............................... Effective Research and Development 1,296 1,125 1,043
Space and Flight Support ............................... Adequate Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
466 485 376
Space Shuttle ................................................... Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
4,061 4,669 4,531
Space Station ................................................... Moderately Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
1,364 1,676 1,857
Structure and Evolution of the Universe ...... Effective Research and Development 451 378 353
Sun-Earth Connection ..................................... Effective Research and Development 731 696 740
31 2. BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION
Table 2–5 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING INFORMATION—Continued
(Current Data for All Programs Assessed by PART)
Agency/Program Title Rating Primary Program Type
Program Funding Level
(dollars in millions)
2004
Actual
Estimate
2005 2006
National Science Foundation:
Biocomplexity in the Environment ................ Effective Research and Development 104 99 84
Collaborations .................................................. Effective Research and Development 398 306 298
Facilities ........................................................... Effective Research and Development 566 615 692
Individuals ....................................................... Effective Research and Development 567 547 519
Information Technology Research .................. Effective Research and Development 309 197 167
Institutions ...................................................... Effective Research and Development 181 177 159
Nanoscale Science and Engineering .............. Effective Research and Development 256 297 257
Polar Tools, Facilities and Logistics .............. Effective Research and Development 277 257 301
Office of Personnel Management:
Federal Employees Group Life Insurance
(FEGLI).
Adequate Direct Federal 3,499 3,607 3,844
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Adequate Direct Federal 29,220 32,126 34,625
Federal Employees Retirement Program ...... Adequate Direct Federal 52,475 55,951 58,850
FEHBP Integrity ............................................. Effective Direct Federal 12 13 13
Small Business Administration:
Business Information Centers ........................ Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 0 0 0
Disaster Loan Program ................................... Effective Credit 169 112 138
SCORE ............................................................. Moderately Effective Block/Formula 5 5 5
Section 504 Certified Development Company
Guaranteed Loan Program.
Adequate Credit 0 0 0
Section 7 (a) Guaranteed Loan Program ....... Adequate Credit 78 0 0
Small Business Development Centers ........... Moderately Effective Block/Formula 88 88 88
Small Business Investment Company ........... Adequate Credit 0 0 0
Social Security Administration:
Disability Insurance ........................................ Moderately Effective Direct Federal 78,162 83,951 90,041
Supplemental Security Income ...................... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 36,903 41,843 41,381
International Assistance Programs
Department of State:
Anti-Terrorism Assistance .............................. Effective Direct Federal 141 128 150
Assistance Coordination of SEED/FSA .......... Effective Competitive Grant 1,026 949 864
Economic Support Fund (HRDF) ................... Adequate Competitive Grant 34 37 27
Economic Support Fund (WHA) ..................... Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 149 146 174
Export Controls ............................................... Effective Direct Federal 35 38 44
Humanitarian Demining ................................ Effective Direct Federal 50 59 72
Military Assistance to new NATO and
NATO Aspirant Nations.
Moderately Effective Direct Federal 149 173 141
Nonproliferation & Disarmament Fund ........ Effective Direct Federal 29 32 38
PKO—OSCE Programs ................................... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 28 2 2
Security Assistance for the Western Hemisphere.
Moderately Effective Direct Federal 133 140 149
Security Assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa .. Moderately Effective Direct Federal 57 86 147
Terrorist Interdiction Program (TIP) ............. Effective Direct Federal 4 4 8
Department of the Treasury:
African Development Fund ............................. Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 112 105 136
Global Environment Facility .......................... Results Not Demonstrated Block/Formula Grant 138 107 108
International Development Association ........ Adequate Block/Formula Grant 908 843 950
Treasury Technical Assistance ....................... Adequate Direct Federal 19 19 20
Tropical Forest Conservation Act 1 ................ Results Not Demonstrated Credit 20 20 0
Overseas Private Investment Corporation:
Overseas Private Investment Corporation—
Finance.
Adequate Credit 24 24 20
Overseas Private Investment Corporation—
Insurance.
Adequate Credit 1,800 2,000 2,000
U.S. Trade and Development Agency:
U.S. Trade and Development Agency ............ Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 67 58 52
United States Agency for International Development:
Child Survival and Health (CSH—LAC) ....... Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 150 130 132
Development Assistance (LAC) ...................... Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 265 255 224
Office of Transition Initiatives ....................... Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 55 49 325
32 ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES
Table 2–5 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING INFORMATION—Continued
(Current Data for All Programs Assessed by PART)
Agency/Program Title Rating Primary Program Type
Program Funding Level
(dollars in millions)
2004
Actual
Estimate
2005 2006
Operating Expenses and Capital Investment
Fund (OE/CIF).
Moderately Effective Direct Federal 737 672 758
Public Law 480 Title II Food Aid ................... Adequate Competitive Grant 1,185 1,173 885
USAID Climate Change .................................. Adequate Competitive Grant 180 180 150
USAID Development Assistance—Population Moderately Effective Competitive Grant 373 372 346
Other Independent Agencies
American Battle Monuments Commission:
World War II Memorial .................................. Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
22 0 0
Appalachian Regional Commission:
Appalachian Regional Commission ................ Adequate Competitive Grant 66 65 65
Armed Forces Retirement Home:
Asset Management of AFRH Real Property Moderately Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
68 65 61
Broadcasting Board of Governors:
Broadcasting to Africa .................................... Moderately Effective Direct Federal 13 14 13
Broadcasting to East Asia & Eurasia ............ Moderately Effective Direct Federal 102 100 106
Broadcasting to Near East Asia and South
Asia.
Moderately Effective Direct Federal 136 145 170
Commodity Futures Trading Commission:
Enforcement Program ..................................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 35 38 40
Consumer Product Safety Commission:
Consumer Product Safety Commission ......... Results Not Demonstrated Regulatory Based 60 62 62
Corporation for National and Community
Service:
AmeriCorps ...................................................... Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 312 288 277
Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency for the District:
Community Supervision Program .................. Adequate Direct Federal 118 110 131
Pretrial Services Agency ................................. Moderately Effective Direct Federal 38 39 42
Delta Regional Authority:
Delta Regional Authority ................................ Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 5 6 6
Denali Commission:
Denali Commission ......................................... Adequate Competitive Grant 59 70 6
Export-Import Bank of the United States:
Export Import Bank—Long Term Guarantees.
Moderately Effective Credit 585 764 490
Federal Communications Commission:
Schools and Libraries—Universal Service
Fund.
Results Not Demonstrated Regulatory Based 2,250 2,250 2,250
Federal Election Commission:
Compliance—Enforcement .............................. Results Not Demonstrated Regulatory Based 50 52 55
National Archives and Records Administration:
Electronic Records Services ............................ Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
54 50 49
Records Services Program .............................. Adequate Direct Federal 351 363 384
National Credit Union Administration:
Community Development Revolving Loan
Fund—Loan and Technical Assistance
Grant components.
Results Not Demonstrated Credit 4 6 6
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation:
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ..... Moderately Effective Block/Formula Grant 114 114 118
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Fuel Facilities Licensing & Inspection .......... Effective Regulatory Based 22 39 36
Nuclear Materials Users Licensing & Inspection
(NMULI).
Effective Regulatory Based 44 63 65
Reactor Inspection and Performance Assessment.
Effective Regulatory Based 107 180 193
Office of National Drug Control Policy:
CTAC Counterdrug Research & Development.
Results Not Demonstrated Research and Development 18 18 10
CTAC Technology Transfer Program ............. Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 24 24 20
Drug-Free Communities Support Program ... Adequate Competitive Grant 70 79 80
33 2. BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE INTEGRATION
Table 2–5 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING INFORMATION—Continued
(Current Data for All Programs Assessed by PART)
Agency/Program Title Rating Primary Program Type
Program Funding Level
(dollars in millions)
2004
Actual
Estimate
2005 2006
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
(HIDTA).
Results Not Demonstrated Competitive Grant 225 227 100
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign ................ Results Not Demonstrated Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
144 119 120
Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia:
Public Defender Service for the District of
Columbia.
Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 25 30 30
Securities and Exchange Commission:
Enforcement ..................................................... Results Not Demonstrated Direct Federal 303 361 356
Full Disclosure Program (Corporate Review) Results Not Demonstrated Regulatory Based 96 128 129
Tennessee Valley Authority:
TVA Power ....................................................... Moderately Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
7,657 7,875 8,153
TVA Resource Stewardship (Non-Power) ...... Effective Capital Assets and Service
Acquisition
87 87 85
1Tropical Forest Conservation Act——Funding for 2006 will be provided within the amount appropriated for debt relief based on the program’s
ability to demonstrate results in 2005
