Home » Posts tagged 'budget' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: budget
And speaking of usaspending.gov (thanks Jim for the original post!), Radar Magazine has analyzed federal spending on paper shredding contracts since 2000 (see chart at left) and shown that there has been a 600% increase on these contracts since George W. Bush took office. In 2000, the federal government spent $452,807 on shredding services (no doubt some appropriate and some not); by 2006, the "Cheney Effect" had bumped that number up to $2.9 million. And by halfway through 2007, the feds almost matched that number, with $2.7 million and counting. Here’s the full breakdown and data from usaspending.gov.
The Office of Management and Budget is launching USASpending.gov a relaunch of www.FederalSpending.gov to providecitizens with easy access to government contract, grant, and other award data.
- OMB Offers an Easy Way to Follow the Money, by Elizabeth Williamson, Washington Post, (December 13, 2007; Page A33)
- OMB beats deadline to unveil federal spending database, by Jason Miller, FCW (December 12, 2007)
"The database’s initial functionality will include the ability to search contracts and grants but not other types of spending data such as loans, said Robert Shea, OMB’s associate director of administration and government performance." (FCW)
The database will have an API (application programmming interface) so that programmers will be able to users to write software to access the data directly, and a wiki where users will be able to suggest changes and add information.
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) – Estimated Costs of U.S. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and…the War on Terrorism
CBO’s report on the costs of US operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other related activities (CBO Testimony) states that overall expenditures exceed 600 billion dollars. Their analysis also includes expenditures which aren’t explicitly budgeted for this purpose such as Veteran’s Administration expenditures.
One of the documents included in the presidentâ€™s FY 2004 budget declared â€œâ€¦we are no closer to measurable accountability than in President Johnsonâ€™s dayâ€(48). In the budget for that year, the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) showed how they were addressing this problem with something called the Program Assessment Rating Tool, or PART.
PART was initially developed in 2002 (from what Iâ€™ve been able to determine). By 2004, its performance rating assessments were growing in numbers of programs assessed and in influencing budgeting decisions.It is a questionnaire executed by the OMB and the agency whose program is being assessed. The questions are in weighted into four categories: Program Purpose & Design (20%), Planning (10%), Management (20%), Results (50%).
PART questions are designed for short answers and are to be accompanied with supporting evidence (or other details when applicable). Lack of supporting detail for an answer may result in a disfavorable score for a particular question. PART answers determine a programâ€™s overall rating. An important objective of the PART assessment process is to help an agency develop an improvement plan for a program â€“which is then used to evaluate performance in subsequent evaluations. A PART assessment should help clarify a programâ€™s purpose, design, planning, management, results, and accountability and help decision makers (and citizens) determine its overall effectiveness.
There are seven types of programs eligible for PART, including Direct Federal, Competitive Grant, Block/Formula Grant, and Capital Assets and Service Acquisition (like big-budget defense acquisitions). Programs were initially to be assessed every five years. The FAQ on the OMB page has more detail.
Citizens can get PART assessments from Expectmore.gov. The site was launched formally by the OMB in April of this year(the site was initially launched in February). By making assessments of Federal programs based on PART results available to the public, it is believed such public accountability for performance increases transparency and help us judge whether a program is using resources effectively.
Programs have two categories of ratings, â€œPerformingâ€ (broken down into three sub-categories of â€œEffectiveâ€, â€œModerately Effectiveâ€, or â€œAdequateâ€) and â€œNot Performingâ€ (as either â€œIneffectiveâ€ or â€œResults Not Demonstratedâ€). Currently, according to PART assessment results of about 800 programs,
- 72% of Federal programs are â€œPerformingâ€:
- 15% of Federal programs are Effective (meaning these programs set â€œambitious goals, achieve results, are well-managed and improve efficiencyâ€).
- 29% of Federal programs are Moderately Effective.
- 28% of Federal programs are Adequate.
- 28% of Federal programs are â€œNot Performingâ€:
- 4% of Federal programs are Ineffective (meaning these programs have been judged to be â€œunable to achieve results due to a lack of clarity regarding the program’s purpose or goals, poor management, or some other significant weaknessâ€). Some examples of â€œIneffectiveâ€ programs are the â€œEPA Ecological Researchâ€ and Amtrak .
- 24% of Federal programs are Results Not Demonstrated. Includes those programs which were not able to collect adequate data.
The answers to PART questionnaires for an individual program are available on expectmore.gov. From the main page click on either â€œShow me the programs that are Performingâ€ or â€œNot Performingâ€. These results you have to scroll thru as these query results are not downloadable to Excel for quicker sorting (however, you can get a dump of all programs, ratings, and recent funding information based on FY 2007 requests on the â€œFunding information for each programâ€ link). Next, select a program and bring up its assessment page; at the bottom of the page is a â€œLearn Moreâ€ link on the left and a â€œAssessment Details, Funding, and Improvement Planâ€ link to the right of that. Each assessment has a link to a â€œProgram Performance Measuresâ€ and â€œProgram Improvement Plansâ€ (every program has an improvement plan regardless of its rating being â€œEffectiveâ€ or â€œNot Effectiveâ€).