This exploratory research is aimed at offering insights into how intergovernmental dependencies influence Program Assessment Rating Tools (PART) ratings under circumstances when federal funds and responsibility are delegated downward in the system. The research offers formal support for the hypothesis that programs carried out under such circumstances score relatively lower on those portions of the PART instrument that are dependent on intergovernmental collaboration. The findings are important in that they draw attention to an opportunity to improve the consistency of PART ratings across programs. Specifically, they suggest that it may be necessary to revise the instrument to include questions that recognizes and gives credit to efforts of intergovernmental collaborative efforts as part of the PART scoring process.
Burns, R.C. and Lee, R.D. ( 2004). The ups and downs of state budget process reform: Experience of three decades. Public Budgeting and Finance, 24(3), 1-19.
2.
Daniels, Mitchell E., Jr. (2002) Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Governmental Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Affairs and the House Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, Retrieved July 9, 2008, from www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/testimony/daniels_part091902.html
3.
Dull, M. ( 2006). "Why PART? The institutional politics of presidential budget reform," Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 187-215.
4.
Frederickson, D.G., & Frederickson, G.H. (2006). Measuring the performance of the hollow state. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
5.
Gilmour, J. ( 2007). Implementing OMB’s program assessment rating tool (PART): Meeting the challenges of integrating budget and performance. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 7(1), 1-40.
6.
Gilmour, J., & Lewis, D. ( 2006a). Assessing performance budgeting at OMB: The influence of politics, performance, and program size. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 169-186.
7.
Gilmour, J., & Lewis, D. ( 2006b). Does performance budgeting work? An examination of the Office of Management and Budget’s PART scores. Public Administration Review, September/October, 742-752.
8.
Himmelman, A. ( 1996). On the theory and practice of transformational collaboration: Collaboration as a bridge from social service to social justice. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Creating collaborative advantage (pp. 19-43). London: Sage Publishers.
9.
Lewis, D. ( 2007). Testing Pendleton’s premise: Do political appointees make worse bureaucrats? Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1073-1088.
10.
Moynihan, D.P. ( 2006). What do we talk about when we talk about performance? Dialogue theory and performance budgeting, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 151-168.
11.
Mullen, P.R. ( 2006). Performance-based budgeting: The contribution of the program assessment rating tool. Public Budgeting and Finance , 26(4), 79-88.
12.
Norcross, E., & McKenzie, K. ( 2006). An analysis of the Office of Management and Budget’s Program Assessment Rating Tool for Fiscal Year 2007. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.mercatus.org/PeopleDetails.aspx?id=17224
13.
Olsen, R., & Levy, D. ( 2006). Program performance and the president’s budget: Do OMB’s PART scores really matter? Retrieved June 7, 2006, from http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/OMBbudgeting.pdf
14.
Posner, P.P., & Fantone, D.M. ( 2007). Assessing federal program performance: Observations on the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s Program Assessment Rating Tool and its use in the budget process. Public Performance and Management Review, 30(3), 351-368.
15.
Radin, B.A. ( 2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
16.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1995). Block grants: Issues in designing accountability provisions (GAO/AIMD-95-226) . Washington, DC: Author.
17.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2004a). Federal-aid highways: Trends, effect on state spending, and options for future program design (GAO-04-802). Washington, DC: Author.
18.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2004b). Performance budgeting: OMB’s performance rating tool presents opportunities and challenges for evaluating program performance (GAO-04-550T). Washington, DC: Author.
19.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007 ). Performance and accountability: Transportation challenges facing congress and the Department of Transportation (GAO-07-545T). Washington, DC: Author.
20.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2004 ). The federal government is results-oriented: A report to federal employees. Retrieved June 8, 2008, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pma/2004_pma_report.pdf
21.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2005 ). Guidance for completing the Program Rating Assessment Tool . Retrieved June 8, 2008, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/fy2005/2005_guidance.pdf
22.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. (2006, June). OMB Circular No. A-11: Preparation, submission and execution of the budget. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a11/current_year/a_11_2006.pdf
23.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. (2007). Budget of the United States Government, FY 2007, analytical perspectives. Washington, DC: U.S. Printing Office.
