{
  "id": "RL32164",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32164",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 346958,
      "date": "2005-03-16",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:50:28.435029",
      "title": "Performance Management and Budgeting in the Federal Government: Brief History and Recent Developments",
      "summary": "The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-62), known as GPRA or the Results Act, sought to promote greater efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in federal spending by establishing a new framework for performance management and budgeting in federal agencies. GPRA represents the latest in a series of initiatives in the last 55 years attempting to link budget levels with expected results, so that spending decisions can be better aligned with anticipated performance, an approach commonly referred to as \u201cperformance budgeting.\u201d\nOn April 9, 2001, President Bush transmitted his budget for FY2002, in which various steps to strengthen the linking of budget and management decisions to performance were endorsed. This was followed in August by the \u201cPresident\u2019s Management Agenda\u201d for improving performance; one of five government-wide initiatives identified was budget and performance integration. On February 4, 2002, President Bush transmitted his budget for FY2003, which introduced a Management Scorecard, to measure agency progress on the initiatives. The FY2003 budget also contained initial efforts at performance analysis of over 100 programs that were used to inform funding decisions, constituting the first time a President\u2019s budget submission attempted formally to link budget requests with program performance.\nA new program assessment rating tool (PART) was developed in 2002, and used by agency program managers and OMB staff to evaluate over 200 programs during the course of formulating the FY2004 budget. The PART reviews have continued and expanded, covering 40% of programs in the FY2005 budget and 60% of programs in the President\u2019s FY2006 budget submission.\nIn Congress, interest continues in monitoring the PART process, as well as in the Administration\u2019s budget and performance integration initiative and ongoing implementation of GPRA. In the 108th Congress, H.R. 3826, to provide a statutory mandate for PART-like reviews, was reported favorably by the Government Reform Committee, and a similar measure, H.R. 185, has been approved by the committee in the 109th Congress. The extent to which performance information will influence budget deliberations in Congress remains to be seen. Adopting performance budgeting will not remove controversy from the budget process, since budgeting entails the allocation of limited resources among competing priorities. Performance information may make a positive contribution to the federal budget debate, but a performance budget will not eliminate the need for difficult political choices.\nThe appendix gives important benchmarks in the evolution of performance management and budgeting in the federal government. This report will be updated as events warrant.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32164",
          "sha1": "799288f3b7fd3abd2ec4280aadc5b40542d30a27",
          "filename": "files/20050316_RL32164_799288f3b7fd3abd2ec4280aadc5b40542d30a27.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32164",
          "sha1": "f4ade3b9fdf7cb63c1fe4b88acd5a11c0010b9af",
          "filename": "files/20050316_RL32164_f4ade3b9fdf7cb63c1fe4b88acd5a11c0010b9af.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}