The White House released the next round of PART scores yesterday (the 2007 PART scores), adding an additional 40 new programs that had never before been assessed to the docket and 75 programs that were reassessed at the request of agency staff. The full gambit of PART scores can be found at ExpectMore.gov, but it is difficult to identify the newly assessed programs or the ones that were reassessed. There isn't much new to report with this latest release. OMB's releases (see here and here) show that overall, programs are getting better scores on the PART. The releases don't elaborate if this means the programs are actually getting better results, or if program staff are just getting better at taking the test. OMB does cite two examples of improved programs, saying the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program dismantled 149 more drug trafficking organizations for $4,000 less per organization, saving the taxpayers a whopping $596,000, and the Administration on Aging served 20,000 more elderly people between 2003 and 2005. While the savings to the HIDTA program are small, they are savings nonetheless, and I think we can all agree that serving more elderly folks in need is certainly a good thing. (Despite this, there was no information given concerning if the elderly received similar services or if the program received additional funds between those years. It's also strange that AoA was cited because it was assessed by the PART in 2003, not this past year. Check out the HIDTA and AoA PART assessments.) While loyal BudgetBlog readers will know we have some pretty serious concerns with the PART, OMB does seem to be continually improving the transparency and access to information on the ExpectMore.gov website. They have added the option to browse programs by either type of program (block grant, credit, research and development, etc.) or by topic (education, transportation, law enforcement, etc.). They've also added an agency summary section for each agency that includes links to the agency's budget justification documents, strategic plans, and nice breakdowns of the ratings received for all programs in the department and how much money is spent on each type of rated program (i.e. $X million spent on moderately effective programs or ineffective programs).