Rooting out government waste and controlling federal spending is in the news, with President Donald Trump’s administration in general and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in particular imposing spending freezes across a broad array of agencies, contract and lease terminations, and reductions in the federal workforce.
A structured approach to evaluating federal programs is needed. Regular performance reviews can help identify inefficiencies and improve oversight, ensuring taxpayer dollars are used wisely. One proven model worth reviving—President George W. Bush’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)—can achieve this.
Learning from PART: a Model for Improving Oversight
Established under President Bush’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), PART was designed to systematically evaluate federal programs over multiple years. The assessment process relied on agency staff and OMB examiners completing a structured questionnaire that assigned each program a score based on four weighted criteria:
Program Purpose and Design (20%) – Does the program have a clear and justifiable purpose?
Strategic Planning (10%) – Does it have measurable goals and a strategy to achieve them?
Program Management (20%) – Are funds being used efficiently?
Program Results & Accountability (50%) – Is the program achieving its intended outcomes?
Programs were then classified as Effective, Moderately Effective, Adequate, Ineffective, or Results Not Demonstrated (if data was insufficient). Each rating also came with recommendations for improvement, providing a roadmap for policymakers to enhance program performance.
OMB aimed for the PART process to be transparent, consistent, systematic, and objective. To achieve this, it sought feedback from agencies, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), congressional staff, and outside experts before finalizing the assessment tool. OMB also took steps to enhance transparency by publishing detailed worksheets, and ensured consistency through review processes and by developing formal criteria for different types of programs.
In 2006, NTU’s Kristina Rasmussen reviewed PART’s program analyses and found that, over time, PART evaluations showed an improvement in program ratings, with the percentage of “Effective” programs increasing by 10 points and a decline in “Results Not Demonstrated” ratings. Most of this shift was due to agencies becoming more familiar with PART’s evaluation criteria, leading to better data collection and reporting. Between FY2005 and FY2006, 80% of the improvement came from programs moving out of the “Results Not Demonstrated” category into higher ratings like “Adequate” or “Moderately Effective.” However, this did not necessarily mean programs became more effective—only that they were better at measuring performance.1
While some showed improvement, more than a quarter of federal programs were still rated “Ineffective” or “Results Not Demonstrated” even after years of evaluations. Many agencies struggled to define meaningful performance metrics. The Internal Revenue Service’s Tax Collection program, which has clear metrics to track, failed to establish clear standards for four consecutive years. A GAO report confirmed that agencies often lacked credible data sources, making it difficult to assess whether programs were achieving their intended outcomes. PART’s scoring system raised concerns about how effectiveness was measured. For example, FEMA’s disaster response program received an “Adequate” rating in FY2006 and FY2007, despite criticism of its response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Rasmussen also noted that, while PART evaluations shaped the Bush Administration’s budget proposals, Congress often ignored recommendations to cut ineffective programs. In FY2007, Bush proposed eliminating 59 programs, but many survived due to politics and lobbying. Even repeatedly targeted programs saw funding restored, limiting PART’s impact. His $47.5 billion in proposed cuts amounted to less than 2% of federal spending, underscoring the challenge of translating evaluations into real budget reductions. Unfortunately, PART was discontinued under the Obama Administration, leaving a major gap in a comprehensive executive branch oversight initiative to evaluate programs.
During his first term, President Trump rolled out his President’s Management Agenda (PMA) which aimed to modernize government by focusing on IT upgrades, data-driven decision-making, workforce reforms, and improved service delivery. A key component of PMA was enhancing transparency and accountability through better use of data. It also aimed for agile organizations and processes “to quickly respond and align to changing mission needs, innovations, and technological advancement.” The agenda also prioritized rewarding top-performing employees and recruiting and retaining top talent—two goals that could be at risk under indiscriminate or poorly planned workforce reductions.
The PMA report should be required reading for agency heads, officials in OMB, the Office of Personnel Management, and DOGE as the administration implements cost-saving measures and Reductions in Force of federal employees. These efforts would be bolstered by re-instituting a structured evaluation tool like PART, ensuring a consistent framework for assessing program effectiveness with the goal of rooting out waste, duplications, and programs that cannot be shown to be effective.
Ensuring Lasting Oversight through Reforms
Beyond executive action, Congress needs to play a stronger role in overseeing federal spending. Lawmakers are supposed to regularly review programs before reauthorizing them, but, in practice, this often does not happen. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)’s Jule 2024 unauthorized spending report details $516 billion in outlays in 491 programs whose authorizations expired before FY 2024. Among these are 59 programs ($153 billion) whose authorizations expired before FY 2000.
To fix this, Congress should hold regular oversight hearings to review program performance before reauthorizing spending. In 2019, the comprehensive, bipartisan budget reform proposal introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) would have required congressional committees to report their plans for considering the unauthorized programs under their jurisdiction. It also required the committees to detail “their plans for improved government performance based on their review of relevant Inspector General and Government Accountability Office reports and recommendations.”
Building on this to ensure longevity of program assessments, Congress and the executive branch should work together to:
Formalize a performance review system like PART into statute so that there is buy-in to assess program effectiveness and accountability. This could include information from GAO and inspector general assessments that would identify overlapping and duplicate spending across different agencies and departments.
Write program evaluation requirements into statute to ensure longevity, preventing future administrations from simply abandoning oversight efforts.
Require agencies to identify tracking metrics on deliverables and performance.
Finally complete a comprehensive inventory of federal programs as mandated by a 2010 law.
The debate over wasteful spending is nothing new. In the 2008 presidential election, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama famously argued over whether to use a “hatchet” or a “scalpel” to trim the budget. That debate ultimately led to the creation of the U.S. Digital Service (USDS), which has now evolved into DOGE.
Bringing back a systematic review process like PART would provide a sustainable, long-term solution, especially if the congressional oversight committees are on board with the plan. Congress and the administration should pursue targeted reforms that eliminate wasteful spending while ensuring critical services remain intact.