On Tuesday, June 14 the Senate subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security held a hearing on accountability and results in federal budgeting. Specifically, the hearing was held to investigate the specific metrics and tools used by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to measure the effectiveness of federal programs, the advantages and disadvantages of using these systems of measurement, and how information obtained is used to increase accountability in federal budgeting.

Rating: Ineffective 1.1 Is the program purpose clear? Answer: NO Question Weight: 20% Explanation: The program does not have a clear and unambiguous mission. Both the definition of "community development" and the role CDBG plays in that field are not well defined. Evidence: Throughout CDBG's legislative history there has been ambiguity between flexible, steady funding given to localities and the requirements to benefit low- and moderate-income individuals and neighborhoods.

The House Government Reform Committee favorably reported out of committee the Program Assessment and Results Act, a bill that would have the effect of codifying the administration's controversial tool for rating program effectiveness. The bill is expected to move to the House floor this spring. The committee voted 18-14 to send the bill to the House floor during a March 10 markup session, after rejecting every amendment offered by committee Democrats.

For more than five years, the Bush administration has focused a good portion of its rhetoric on performance, accountability and results. To that end, in 2001, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) began to develop a mechanism called the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to help budget examiners and federal managers measure the effectiveness of government programs.