Actionable Governance Indicators – Concepts and Measurement1
What are Actionable Governance Indicators (AGIs)? ........................................................ 1
Definition of AGIs .......................................................................................................... 1
Governance Dimensions ................................................................................................. 1
Governance Systems ....................................................................................................... 3
Why Should We Care About AGIs? ................................................................................... 3
Objectives of AGIs ......................................................................................................... 3
Understanding AGIs Within the Normal Indicators Spectrum ....................................... 4
AGIs and Modeling the Determinants and Impacts of Governance Systems ................. 4
How Can We Actually Measure AGIs? .............................................................................. 7
Two Categories of AGIs ................................................................................................. 7
Governance Systems Features (Performance-determinants): r-indicators .................. 7
Governance Systems Performance: Y-indicators ....................................................... 8
Illustrations of AGIs ....................................................................................................... 9
Public Finance Management (PFM) AGIs: PEFA Indicators..................................... 9
Human Resource Management (HRM) AGIs........................................................... 11
Annexes............................................................................................................................. 16
Annex 1: Summary of AGI Features and Exclusions ................................................... 16
Key Features of AGIs ............................................................................................... 16
Exclusions: What AGIs Are Not............................................................................... 16
Annex 2: What Distinguishes AGIs from Other Types of Indicators? ......................... 17
Annex 3: HRM Diagnostic Tool ................................................................................... 20
What are Actionable Governance Indicators (AGIs)?
Definition of AGIs
Actionable governance indicators (AGIs) provide evidence on the characteristics and
functioning of particular elements and sub-elements of the various dimensions of
governance.
This note explains what AGIs are and illustrates them with a couple of examples. As the
above definition requires clarity on what constitute dimensions, elements and subelements of governance, we begin with explanations of those terms. Annex 1 provides a
bullet-point summary of key features of AGIs, as well as clarification of what AGIs are
not, while Annex 2 provides additional clarification of what distinguishes AGIs from
other types of indicators.
Governance Dimensions
Governance dimensions could, of course, be defined in any number of ways. To avoid
opening a hornet’s nest of argument about what constitutes a “governance dimension”
and what comprises the full set of “governance dimensions”, we simply adopt a
1
Gary J. Reid, Lead Public Sector Management Specialist and Coordinator, Administrative and Civil
Service Reform (ACSR) Thematic Group, The World Bank.
1
02/17/2016
schematic summary of the various dimensions of “good governance” that has evolved
within the World Bank over the last decade:2
Dimensions of Good Governance
Citizens/Firms
Political Accountability
• Political competition, broad-based political parties
• Transparency & regulation of party financing
• Disclosure of parliamentary votes
• Independent, effective
judiciary
• Legislative oversight
(PACs, PECs)
• Independent oversight
institutions (SAI)
• Global initiatives: UN,
OECD Convention,
anti-money laundering
Effective Public Sector
Management
• Ethical leadership: asset
declaration, conflict of
interest rules
• Cross-cutting public
management systems:
meritocracy, public finance,
procurement
• Service delivery and
regulatory agencies in
sectors
Civil Society & Media
• Freedom of press, FOI
• Civil society watchdogs
• Report cards, client surveys
Private Sector Interface
• Streamlined regulation
• Public-private dialogue
• Extractive Industry
Transparency
• Corporate governance
• Collective business
associations
Citizens/Firms
Citizens/Firms
Checks & Balances
Decentralization and Local Participation
• Decentralization with accountability
• Community Driven Development (CDD)
• Oversight by parent-teacher associations & user
groups
• Beneficiary participation in projects
4
Citizens/Firms
AGIs, then, are indicators that provide evidence on the characteristics and functioning of
particular elements or sub-elements of any of the five governance dimensions identified
in the above diagram:
1. Political accountability
2. Checks & balances
3. Civil society, media and private sector interface with politics and the public
administration
4. Decentralization and local participation
5. Public sector management
For simplicity of exposition, we will henceforward employ the term “governance
systems” to refer to the elements and sub-elements of any given governance dimension,
2
World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World (The World Bank: Washington, DC,
June 1997); Helping Countries Combat Corruption: The Role of the World Bank (The World Bank:
Washington, DC, September 1997); Helping Countries Combat Corruption: Progress at the World Bank
Since 1997 (The World Bank: Washington, DC, June 2000); Reforming Public Institutions and
Strengthening Governance: World Bank Strategy, (The World Bank: Washington, DC, November 2000);
Anticorruption in Transition: A Contribution to the Policy Debate (The World Bank: Washington, DC,
November 2000); World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People (The World
Bank: Washington, DC, September 2003); Anti-Corruption in Transition 3: Who Is Succeeding…and Why?
(The World Bank: Washington, DC, July 2006); Global Monitoring Report 2006: Strengthening Mutual
Accountability – Aid, Trade and Governance, (The World Bank: Washington, DC, 2006); Strengthening
World Bank Group Engagement on Governance and Anticorruption (The World Bank: Washington, DC,
March 2007).
2
02/17/2016
whenever the distinction between elements and sub-elements is not essential to the
argument.
Governance Systems
Governance systems comprise the elements and sub-elements of the various governance
dimensions identified in the above diagram. Examples of the “elements” of each
governance dimension are provided in that diagram. But even within those identified
within that diagram, one can still drill down, to what we are terming sub-elements. Thus,
“cross-cutting public management systems” would include at least the following subelements:



Public finance management systems (including budget, revenue, accounting,
auditing, and procurement systems)
Human resource management systems (including both civil service management
systems, as well as personnel management systems for public employees not
encompassed within a given country’s civil service)
Policy management systems (i.e., policy formulation, policy coordination, and
oversight of policy implementation in order to better inform both policy
formulation and policy coordination activities and decisions)
Similarly, “service delivery and regulatory agencies” would include sub-elements, such
as, specific service delivery agents (e.g., a Ministry of Education, individual schools, a
Ministry of Health, health care providers, a health care financing institute, etc.), as well
as specific regulatory bodies. Each such service delivery or regulatory agency would be
a candidate for AGIs designed to provide evidence on the characteristics and functioning
of that particular sub-element of the “service delivery and regulatory agencies” element
of the public sector management dimension of governance.
Why Should We Care About AGIs?
Objectives of AGIs
We care about AGIs for three basic reasons:
1. Design: Guide the design of specific governance systems reforms.
2. Implementation: Hold such governance systems reform efforts accountable for
achieving their objectives.
3. Learn from Experience: Facilitate systematic empirical research on:
a. Determinants of governance systems performance: What factors (e.g.,
reform design elements) contribute most significantly to achieving specific
governance systems objectives?
b. Determinants of governance systems impacts: What impacts do the
various aspects of performance of specific governance systems have on
both broad governance quality as well as on specific aspects of
government activities, such as production of public goods and services?
3
02/17/2016
Understanding AGIs Within the Normal Indicators Spectrum
If AGIs are to be helpful for these three purposes, they need to be properly chosen. For
this reason, it is important to understand how AGIs fit into the conventional set of
performance indicator distinctions. The literature on indicators is voluminous. Standard
typologies of indicators generally posit three broad levels of indicators – inputs, outputs
and outcomes.
1. Inputs are the resources employed and activities undertaken in order to produce
particular outputs. They can be measured either in monetary terms (dollars,
euros, yen, rubles, lei, pesos, etc.), in terms of the magnitudes of particular types
of inputs (e.g., teachers, chalk, books, civil servants, medications, etc.), or by
monitoring the extent of particular types of activities (e.g., number of
teachers/pupil, average class size, etc.)
2. Outputs are the products of those inputs and activities, and they are typically
produced as a means to an end – i.e., individual outputs are generally things that
policy makers believe are required to achieve other, higher level outcomes or
results. Outputs are things like reports produced, laws revised, bridges built,
students attaining some given level of education, vaccinations provided, etc.
3. Outcomes are the ultimate objectives of public policies. They are influenced not
only by the outputs of public sector policies and programs, but also by other
factors, like the economy, social norms, etc. Examples of outcomes include
things like the health of the population (e.g., average life expectancy, infant
mortality rates, etc.), economic well being of the population (e.g., average real
income), environmental quality (e.g., average air quality, average water quality,
etc.).
This three-level hierarchy of indicators, however, is problematic when applied to
governance issues. This is because governance facilitates rather than directly delivers
both outputs and final outcomes. Given this, one needs to employ an additional typology
of indicators in order to be able to shed light on both (a) what factors contribute to
improving the performance of any given governance system, and (b) what impacts those
governance systems have on both outputs and outcomes of government policies and
programs, as well as how those impacts are conditional on other factors (e.g., context).
AGIs and Modeling the Determinants and Impacts of
Governance Systems
Governance systems influence the ways and extent to which a given country’s public
sector produces outputs and outcomes. This influence can be modeled through a system
of four sets of equations (all variables are multi-dimensional arrays):
1. Y =
y(r|s1)
2. G =
g(Y|s2)
3. Q =
f(G, x, z1)
4. O =
m(G, Q, z2)
where
4
02/17/2016
Y=
G=
Q=
O=
r=
s1 =
s2 =
x=
z1 =
z2 =
y, g, f, m =
Quality (performance) of governance systems
Quality (performance) of governance dimensions
Outputs
Outcomes
Factors that determine the performance of each governance
system, where such performance is the extent to which each
governance system meets each of its functional objectives3
Exogenous (contextual) factors that affect the impacts of the rfactors on the performance of each governance system
Exogenous (contextual) factors that affect the impacts of each
governance system on overall governance quality
Inputs
Exogenous factors that impact output productivity independently
of governance systems
Exogenous factors that impact outcome productivity independently
of governance systems
Production functions for governance systems, governance
dimensions, outputs, and outcomes, respectively
In short, the outputs of public sector activities depend on three sets of factors: governance
dimensions and systems (G), inputs (x), and exogenous factors (z1). Similarly, outcomes
depend on governance dimensions and systems (G), outputs (Q), and a different set of
exogenous factors (z2). In both of these relationships, however, the quality of governance
dimensions and systems depend on an array of factors (r), whose impacts are conditional
on another array of exogenous factors (s1 or s2).
Reduced forms of the output and outcome equations would be:
5. Q =
f*(Y, r, s1, s2, x, z1)
6. O =
m*(Y, r, s1, s2, Q, z2)
One of the reasons for developing AGIs identified above is to facilitate a better
understanding of the above relationships. Accordingly, AGIs must provide systematic
data on the Y and r arrays; i.e., the quality of particular governance systems (Y) and the
factors that impact those qualities (r). Such information needs, in turn, to be
complemented with evidence on how their impacts are conditioned on exogenous
(contextual) factors, which requires information on those exogenous factors (s1 and s2).
In the long run, of course, one would love to use AGI data in the estimation of any or all
of the above six equations. This is not realistic in the near or medium term.
What is realistic is to generate Y and r data, complement it with s data, and employ such
data for the three purposes already enumerated above: (i) guiding governance system
reform design, (ii) facilitating more accountable implementation of such reform efforts by
3
To illustrate: Public sector HRM systems typically have four functional objectives: (i) depoliticized HRM
practices; (ii) attracting and retaining required human capital; (iii) meritocratic and performance-focusing
management of human resources; and (iv) wage bill sustainability. The various elements of the r-array for
an HRM system would be those factors that contribute to meeting each of these four HRM objectives.
5
02/17/2016
continuously monitoring the extent to which those reforms achieve their objectives, 4 and
(iii) facilitating empirical research on the determinants of governance systems
performance5.

Design and implementation of governance system reform efforts: AGIs will help
to inform reform efforts on what they are accomplishing (through the Yindicators), as well as on the extent to which the reform effort is making progress
on meeting the prerequisites (the r-indicators) for improved governance system
performance.

Facilitate research on the determinants of governance system performance: AGI
indicators should facilitate empirical research on the contributions of the various
r-indicators to governance system performance, as measured through the Yindicators.
Despite the extensive literature on monitoring issues, there is relatively little recognition
that better understanding of either the contributions of governance dimensions to public
sector performance, or the factors that actually determine the quality with which
particular governance systems function, requires careful, systematic and replicable
measurement of these Y, r and s arrays; i.e., of the quality of particular governance
systems (Y), the factors that impact the various quality dimensions of those governance
systems (r), and the exogenous factors (s) that often condition the relationships between
Y and r.
In short, AGIs must provide evidence on the following sorts of variables:



Determinants (r): Design features of governance systems
Performance (Y): Extent to which governance systems meet their functional
objectives
Exogenous factors (s): Other factors that can condition the impacts of:
o Governance systems design features on the extent to which they meet their
functional objectives
o Governance systems functional performance on outputs and outcomes of
government policies and programs.
This AGI initiative aims specifically at helping to address the need for systematic
evidence on Y, r, and s. One helpful way of thinking of what this need amounts to is to
consider that those of us in the development field, and in the World Bank in particular,
devote considerable amounts of attention to monitoring the development aid we provide
and its results. That monitoring typically focuses on one or more of the three standard
types of indicators identified above: inputs, outputs and outcomes. What is rarely
monitoring in the governance field are the intermediate phenomena that are the focus of
governance reform support and efforts (Y and r); or what we refer to as the “missing
middle” of the indictors spectrum:
4
This should be possible in the near term in any given country, as it only requires monitoring of relevant Y
and r indicators.
5
This will only be feasible in a more medium term, as it requires such data for enough countries over a
long enough time period to allow empirical research.
6
02/17/2016

Inputs and outputs – i.e., inputs employed, actions taken and products produced as
part of an effort to improve the functioning of some specific element or elements
of one or more governance dimensions.

AGIs (the missing middle) – i.e., evidence on the characteristics and functioning
of particular governance systems. Details on the sorts of things such indicators
can be designed to capture are presented below.6

Outcomes – i.e., the final impacts of a country’s governance institutions on one or
more of the five dimensions of governance identified above, or on political, social
or economic phenomena about which citizens care. The most widely monitored
sets of such outcome indicators for governance focus on things like corruption
and its myriad manifestations, “rule of law”, “political freedom”, “democracy”,
etc.
How Can We Actually Measure AGIs?
A program that aims at measuring AGIs for various governance systems must be clear
about the sorts of things that such indicators must capture. The above analysis helps to
clarify what sorts of things will need to be measured. That analysis makes clear that the
focus of AGI measurement must be the various elements of the Y and r factors that apply
to any given governance system targeted by any given AGI monitoring effort.
Two Categories of AGIs
Given the above reasoning, it follows that AGIs fall into two broad categories: Y- and rindicators; where Y-indicators provide information on the performance of particular
governance systems along their various performance dimensions, while r-indicators
provide information on the determinants of the performance of given governance systems
along their various performance dimensions.
Governance Systems Features (Performance-determinants): rindicators
r-indicators aim to capture the features of any given governance system that determine
how well that governance system functions along its various performance dimensions.
As a starting point for developing such indicators, it is typical to devise indicators that
capture widely agreed prerequisites for a well functioning governance system. A useful
typology of such r-indicators subdivides them into two broad sets – (i) rules of the game,
and (ii) descriptors of capacities of the various agents involved in a given governance
system:

rules of the game – i.e., rules governing the actions of agents who are involved in
the operation of a given governance system. These rules create (better or worse)
incentives for agents to perform their roles. They do so in a variety of ways,
including:
6
For more discussion regarding what distinguishes AGIs from input, output and outcome indicators, please
see Annex 2, “What Distinguishes AGIs from Other Types of Indicators?”
7
02/17/2016
o circumscribing the behavior and actions of agents within a particular
governance dimension by specifying rules that govern the actions/behavior
of particular agents:
 mandatory rules: rules that require particular actions by particular
agents
 permissive rules: rules that permit a range of actions/behavior by
particular agents
o defining responsibilities; i.e.,
 defining particular responsibilities of particular agents within any
given governance system and
 establishing the rules governing the exercise of each such
responsibility
o assigning responsibilities, rights and authority; i.e., parceling out those
responsibilities, rights and particular types of authority to distinct agents,
including, but not limited to:
 policy-setting agents; i.e., agents whose roles are to establish the
rules (policies, procedures) governing the actions of other agents
within a given governance system
 operational agents; i.e., agents whose roles are to do the work of a
given governance system
 oversight agents; i.e., agents whose roles are to exercise oversight
of other agents within a given governance system,
 separating conflicting responsibilities; i.e., assigning
responsibilities across agents in ways that avoid creating conflicts
of interest, e.g., by separating oversight responsibilities from
operational responsibilities,
o requiring tracking, monitoring and disclosure of evidence on the exercise
of particular responsibilities, rights and authorities: by, e.g.,
 imposing records tracking (e.g., accounting) requirements for each
set of responsibilities,
 imposing reporting requirements for each set of responsibilities,
 imposing freedom of access to information requirements,
o creating checks and balances, both within and across governance systems
and dimensions.

capacity features – i.e., characteristics of resources that are widely recognized as
important determinants of the capacity of a given governance system to function
well
o types of resources, including descriptors that capture the quality of each
resource
o quantities of each type of resource
o production technologies employed and their defining characteristics
Governance Systems Performance: Y-indicators
Y-indicators provide evidence on how well any given governance system is functioning
along particular performance dimensions; i.e., how well that system is achieving each of
8
02/17/2016
its functional performance objectives. Such indicators capture the extent to which the
immediate objectives of specific institutional reforms are being achieved. More
specifically, such indicators measure aspects of organizational behavior and practices,
whose variance reflects the extent to which a particular governance system is achieving
its various functional performance objectives. For instance, one of the objectives of a
human resource management system is to attract qualified human capital skills. An
indicator of how well this objective is being achieved is the average number of qualified
applicants per advertised position. Higher averages would reflect better performance on
this objective than would lower averages. In addition, variance in such averages across
sets of human capital skills (e.g., across professions or types of positions) would indicate
that this objective was being better (conversely, less well) achieved for some skill sets
than for others.
Illustrations of AGIs
In what follows we provide concrete illustrations of AGIs for two specific governance
systems: (i) public finance management, and (ii) human resource management.
Public Finance Management (PFM) AGIs: PEFA7 Indicators
The Public Expenditure and Finance Accountability (PEFA) indicators provide perhaps
the most fully developed, vetted and officially endorsed set of AGIs currently available.8
The PEFA methodology provides 28 indicators, covering six dimensions of public
finance management systems. Some of the PEFA indicators capture determinants (rindicators) of public finance management (PFM) system performance along particular
PFM dimensions, while others capture performance (Y-indicators) along particular PFM
dimensions. Many capture a mixture of these two types of AGIs, as many of PEFA’s
detailed indicators are multi-dimensional (see Table 1).
The six critical dimensions covered by the PEFA indicators are9:
A Credibility of the budget - The budget is realistic and is implemented as
intended
B Comprehensiveness and transparency - The budget and the fiscal risk oversight
are comprehensive, and fiscal and budget information is accessible to the public.
C Policy-based budgeting - The budget is prepared with due regard to government
policy.
D Predictability and control in budget execution - The budget is implemented in
an orderly and predictable manner and there are arrangements for the exercise of
control and stewardship in the use of public funds.
E Accounting, recording and reporting – Adequate records and information are
produced, maintained and disseminated to meet decision-making control,
management and reporting purposes.
7
Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA): www.pefa.org
http://www.pefa.org/PEFA%20Website%20--%20CURRENT%204-903/www.pefa.org%20WEBSITE/PFM%20PMF%20Final%20June%202005%20for%20reprint%20May%2
02006.pdf
9
Source: Public Financial Management Performance Measurement Framework (PEFA Secretariat, The
World Bank: June 2005 (reprinted May 2006), p. 2.
8
9
02/17/2016
F External scrutiny and audit - Arrangements for scrutiny of public finances and
follow up by executive are operating.
Within each of these high level indicators, the PEFA methodology identifies between two
and nine lower level indicators, which are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: PEFA Indicators
Indicator
Acronym
Indicator
Type: Determinant (rindicator) or Performance
(Y-indicator)
A.
Credibility of the budget
PI-1
Aggregate expenditure out-turn compared to
original approved budget
Performance
PI-2
Composition of expenditure out-turn compared to
original approved budget
Performance
PI-3
Aggregate revenue out-turn compared to original
approved budget
Performance
PI-4
Stock and monitoring of expenditure payment
arrears
Performance/Determinant
B.
Comprehensiveness and transparency
PI-5
Classification of the budget
Performance
PI-6
Comprehensiveness of information included in
budget documentation
Performance
PI-7
Extent of unreported government operations
Performance
PI-8
Transparency of inter-governmental fiscal
relations
Performance/Determinant
PI-9
Oversight of aggregate fiscal risk from other
public sector entities
Performance
PI-10
Public access to key fiscal information
Performance
C.
Policy-based budgeting
PI-11
Orderliness and participation in the annual budget
process
Performance/Determinant
PI-12
Multi-year perspective in fiscal planning,
expenditure policy and budgeting
Determinant
D.
Predictability and control in budget execution
PI-13
Transparency of taxpayer obligations and
liabilities
Determinant
PI-14
Effectiveness of measures for taxpayer registration
and tax assessment
Determinant
PI-15
Effectiveness in collection of tax payments
Performance/Determinant
10
02/17/2016
Indicator
Acronym
Indicator
Type: Determinant (rindicator) or Performance
(Y-indicator)
PI-16
Predictability in the availability of funds for
commitment of expenditures
Performance/Determinant
PI-17
Recording and management of cash balances, debt
and guarantees
Performance/Determinant
PI-18
Effectiveness of payroll controls
Determinant
PI-19
Competition, value for money and controls in
procurement
Performance/Determinant
PI-20
Effectiveness of internal controls for non-salary
expenditures
Performance/Determinant
PI-21
Effectiveness of internal audit
Performance/Determinant
E.
Accounting, recording and reporting
PI-22
Timeliness and regularity of accounts
reconciliation
Performance
PI-23
Availability of information on resources received
by service delivery units
Performance/Determinant
PI-24
Quality and timeliness of in-year budget reports
Performance/Determinant
PI-25
Quality and timeliness of annual financial
statements
Performance/Determinant
F.
External scrutiny and audit
PI-26
Scope, nature, and follow-up of external audit
Performance
PI-27
Legislative scrutiny of annual budget law
Performance/Determinant
PI-28
Legislative scrutiny of external audit reports
Performance
Human Resource Management (HRM) AGIs
AGIs for human resource management (HRM) have been developed for monitoring both
performance of HRM systems (Y-indicators), as well as determinants of the performance
of those systems (r-indicators).
Performance HRM AGIs (Y-indicators)
HRM reforms typically pursue one or more of four objectives:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Depoliticized personnel management
Merit-based, performance-encouraging personnel management
Attract and retain qualified staff
Fiscal sustainability of the wage bill
Table 2 identifies a set of indicators within each of these three broad objectives, each of
which captures either a recognized prerequisite for furthering that objective or a
11
02/17/2016
dimension of organizational behavior that sheds light on whether that objective is being
advanced.
Table 2: Human Resource Management Performance Indicators
Objective
Rationale
Indicator
Type:
Determinant (rindicator) or
Performance (Yindicator
1. Depoliticized personnel management within the Civil Service (CS)
Turnover within
the civil service
(CS) unrelated to
changes in
political leadership
Quarterly civil service turnover
rates that spike immediately
following a change in political
leadership suggest that civil
service appointments and
departures are significantly
influenced by political
pressures.
Quarterly CS
turnover rates
plotted against
changes in political
leadership
Performance
In some countries, transfers,
rather than dismissals, are the
favored device for politicizing
the civil service. Accordingly,
quarterly civil service transfer
rates that spike immediately
following a change in political
leadership suggest that civil
service appointments and
departures are significantly
influenced by political
pressures.
Quarterly CS
transfer rates plotted
against changes in
political leadership
Performance
Quarterly turnover rates of
political appointees plotted
against changes in political
leadership should exhibit larger
spikes after changes in political
leadership than is the case for
civil servants.
Quarterly turnover
rates of political
appointees plotted
against changes in
political leadership
Performance
2. Merit-based, performance-encouraging personnel management
Staff actually
work.
High absenteeism is a sign that
staff are not adequately
motivated to work.
Average absentee
rate within a given
cadre of staff.
Performance
Competition in
recruitment and
selection
Competitive recruitment and
selection procedures enhance
transparency, fairness and the
odds of merit-based personnel
management practices
% of vacancies
filled through
advertised,
competitive
procedures
Performance
Effective
performance
evaluation
practices
Performance evaluations are a
necessary but not sufficient
condition for merit-based CS
management practices that link
% of CS staff for
whom annual
performance
evaluations were
Performance
12
02/17/2016
Objective
Continuously weed
out poor
performing staff
Rationale
Indicator
Type:
Determinant (rindicator) or
Performance (Yindicator
some rewards to performance.
completed
Variance in performance
evaluations is a necessary but
not sufficient condition for an
effective performance
evaluation process.
% of CS
performance
evaluations falling
in each rating
category
Performance
As CS management practices
improve, poorer performing
civil servants should exit the
CS at non-trivial rates, thereby
improving average quality of
CS incumbents over time.
% of civil servants
receiving the lowest
performance rating
in two successive
years who have left
the CS within the
following year.
Performance
Increases in average CS total
remuneration relative to
average economic sector wages
suggest increasingly
competitive (and hence,
attractive) CS remuneration.
Average CS total
remuneration as a %
of average
economic sector
wages
Determinant
A CS salary structure that
yields a consistent ratio of CS
to private sector comparator
salaries across Titles enhances
capacity to recruit and retain
qualified staff within all CS
skill sets.
Ratios of average
CS to private sector
total remuneration
by Title
Determinant
As CS positions become more
attractive, the average number
of qualified applicants per
advertised CS opening should
increase.
Average number of
qualified (longlisted) candidates
per advertised CS
opening
Performance
Low annual turnover rates of
recent recruits suggest that
staff find public employment
attractive enough to remain
within the public
administration.
Average 3-year
turnover rates for
recent recruits.
Performance
Minimal variance in annual
turnover rates among recent
recruits across types of
positions (e.g., Titles, urban vs.
rural locations, etc.) suggests
that employment packages are
consistently attractive across
Variance in titlespecific 3-year
turnover rates
among recent
recruits.
Performance
3. Attract and retain qualified staff
Attract qualified
staff
Retain qualified
staff
13
02/17/2016
Objective
Rationale
Indicator
Type:
Determinant (rindicator) or
Performance (Yindicator
types of positions; while, large
variance in those same
turnover rates suggests that the
types of positions with higher
turnover rates are less
attractive than those with lower
turnover rates.
A higher vertical compression
ratio10 provides a reasonable
indicator of opportunity for
salary growth over a CS career.
Ratio of average
Secretary General
total remuneration
to average Junior
Officer total
remuneration
Determinant
4. Fiscally sustainable wage bill
Civil service wage
bill is fiscally
sustainable
CS wage bill as a fraction of
GDP should be consistent with
Government’s fiscal program
Actual CS wage bill
as a percentage of
GDP.
Performance
Budget-financed
wage bill is
fiscally sustainable
Overall budget-financed wage
bill (covering not just the civil
service, but all budget-financed
public employees) should be
consistent with Government’s
fiscal program
Actual budgetfinanced overall
wage bill as a
percentage of GDP.
Performance
FYR Macedonia and Albania are each monitoring “Actionable HRM Indicators”, from
which many of the entries in Table 2 have been drawn. Albania has been monitoring
such indicators since early 2000, while FYR Macedonia began monitoring more recently.
Albania’s CS reform leaders have, from time to time, employed their monitoring data as
evidence when they have made a case to the Prime Minister or the Government for
particular interventions. For instance, in the early stages of implementation of Albania’s
civil service reform effort, the entity charged with ensuring effective implementation of
the CS Law, the Department of Public Administration (DoPA), noticed a significant
increase in requests from Ministers for exemptions from the competitive recruitment
procedures mandated by the CS Law. DoPA’s Director used data on that increase
successfully to make a case for imposition of regulations that would make it more
difficult to justify such exemptions. Similarly, in the early stages of Albania’s CS reform
effort, a survey of public and private sector salaries was employed by DoPA to develop a
proposal, which was ultimately adopted, for a new CS salary structure, which would
ensure consistency in the competitiveness of CS salaries across types of CS positions.
Finally, evidence on a rising incidence of qualified applicants per advertised CS position
10
Ratio of average total remuneration for staff in the highest rank to average total remuneration for staff in
an entry level position.
14
02/17/2016
in Albania has helped to convince doubters about the efficacy of Albania’s competitive
recruitment and selection procedures.
Determinants HRM AGIs (r-indicators)
Tools have also been developed to measure what many HRM experts view as key
determinants of HRM system performance. A good example of a well-defined and
comprehensive set of such r-indicators is the HRM diagnostic instrument developed in
the Europe and Central Asia (ECA) Region in the late 1990s, which is included as Annex
3. That instrument includes multiple indicators of “good practice” within each of six
broad evaluation dimensions of a country’s HRM system:
A
B
C
D
E
F
Legal and ethical framework
Institutional framework
Employment and pay policy management
Human resource management policies and practices
Training and career development
Management practices and culture
That instrument was applied in a number of candidate countries for EU accession, and
proved to be quite robust. It is now being applied in the East Asia and Pacific (EAP)
Region as well.
15
02/17/2016
Annexes
Annex 1: Summary of AGI Features and Exclusions
Key Features of AGIs




Track impacts that can actually be detected within a relatively short time span.
Capture extent to which the immediate objectives of specific institutional reforms
are being achieved.
Are well defined (i.e., reasonable people can agree on precisely what a given AGI
is measuring), while allowing that disagreement may exist regarding the empirical
importance or normative implications of a given indicator.
Are narrowly enough circumscribed and clearly enough defined that they
facilitate deliberations about what sorts of actions might be helpful for improving
the performance of a particular element of one of the above five governance
dimensions.
Exclusions: What AGIs Are Not

They are not broad indicators of the quality of an entire dimension of governance.

They are not unbundled, constituent elements of such broad indicators of
governance
16
02/17/2016
Annex 2: What Distinguishes AGIs from Other Types of
Indicators?
Consider the process of trying to improve some particular element of a given dimension
of governance. The Bank supports such efforts all the time. Projects aimed at
strengthening public financial management are an example, as would be a project
supporting civil service reform. Similarly, a Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) could
include both analytic and operational work aimed at ensuring that a given country
establishes more effective transparency and accountability requirements, through, for
instance, enacting more sensibly designed asset declaration requirements, conflict of
interest laws and freedom of information requirements. In any such reform process, there
will be a need to monitor both implementation and results of the reform effort. Projects
typically focus their monitoring efforts on inputs, activities and outputs; i.e.., the first two
of the standard sets of indicators noted above. A CAS, on the other hand, is more likely
to focus its monitoring on a mixture of outputs (e.g., laws passed) and outcomes. But it is
rare for reformers or donors, such as the Bank, to design indicators that systematically
monitor the “missing middle” identified above; i.e., the quality of particular elements of
given governance dimensions (the y array noted above) and the factors that impact those
qualities (the r array noted above).
AGIs vs. input and output indicators
Input and output indicators for such governance reform efforts track inputs employed,
actions taken and products produced as part of that effort to improve the functioning of
some specific element or elements of one or more governance dimensions. For example,
a public financial management reform effort might include activities such as the
following:




design and install a computerized financial management information system
(action; product),
revise an organic budget law (action; product)
establish a new accounting system and chart of accounts (action, product)
strengthen the capacities of an internal audit unit by providing training to its staff
(action)
Most governance reform efforts, and World Bank-financed projects in particular,
regularly monitor indicators of such activities, what inputs are employed to do this, at
what cost, and what products are produced by those actions. This is important for
managing such reform efforts, but it is not sufficient for determining whether such a
reform effort is actually making progress on the underlying governance improvements
being sought by those actions.
A key reason for this is that the impacts of most governance reforms depend not solely on
those inputs, actions and products, but also on other factors, such as the ways in which
those actions are undertaken, and whether those actions and their timing are sensibly
adjusted during implementation to address constantly changing challenges to the reform
effort (e.g., events which occur with some probability, rather than which can be
anticipated with certainty during project design). In short, the agents responsible for
implementing a reform agenda can, and often do, undertake the programmed actions in
17
02/17/2016
ineffective ways – e.g., in a pro forma fashion, or without adequately tailoring their
actions to unpredictable sources of resistance if and when such resistance arises, etc.
AGIs provide an additional tool for addressing this risk, since they can provide
systematic evidence on whether the reform agenda has been implemented in a way that
actually furthers the underlying objectives. As such, they provide an important
complement to input and output indicators, which are an important tool for managing a
governance reform effort, but are not well tailored for ensuring that reform activities are
actually contributing to the core objectives of the reform effort. We explain below in the
main body of this note two distinct ways that AGIs can be designed to address this need.
AGIs vs. outcome indicators
Governance outcome indicators, on the other hand, focus on the final impacts of a
country’s governance institutions on one or more of the five dimensions of governance
identified above, or on political, social or economic phenomena about which citizens
care. Examples of the former include some of the WBI governance indicators11, many of
the summary indicators produced within the Global Integrity Index12, the summary
indices included in the World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment
(CPIA)13, etc. Typical examples of the latter include indicators that focus on corruption
and its myriad manifestations; e.g., the WBI governance indicators14, various indicators
available from the Bank’s Business Environment and Enterprise Surveys (BEEPS)15, as
well as Transparency International’s Corruptions Perceptions Index16, etc.
Governance outcome indicators, however, provide very little guidance on why a given
country is performing well or poorly on any given governance dimension. They don’t
shed light on which elements of each dimension are working well or poorly. Nor do they
provide evidence on why any particular element of a given governance dimension is
working well or poorly. AGIs are designed precisely to drill down to the elements and
sub-elements of each governance dimension, and even further, to the various features of a
given element or sub-element, so as to shed light on both which elements or sub-elements
and what features of any given element or sub-element are working well or poorly.
When coupled with evidence on context, as well as inputs and outputs, AGIs can
facilitate research on how particular aspects of context, inputs and outputs of governance
reform efforts interact and contribute to the performance of a particular element or subelement of a given governance dimension.
11
Kaufmann, Daniel; Kraay, Aart; and Massiimo Mastruzzi, Governance Matters VI: Governance
Indicators for 1996-2006 (The World Bank: Washington, DC, July 2007).
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/EXTWBIGOVANTCOR/0,,contentMDK:2077116
5~menuPK:1866365~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:1740530,00.html
12
http://www.globalintegrity.org
13
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/IDA/Resources/73153-1181752621336/CPIA06CriteriaA2.pdf
14
Kaufmann, Daniel; Kraay, Aart; and Massiimo Mastruzzi, Governance Matters VI: Governance
Indicators for 1996-2006 (The World Bank: Washington, DC, July 2007).
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/EXTWBIGOVANTCOR/0,,contentMDK:2077116
5~menuPK:1866365~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:1740530,00.html
15
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/EXTWBIGOVANTCOR/0,,contentMDK:2071139
7~menuPK:1928482~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:1740530,00.html
16
http://www.icgg.org
18
02/17/2016
19
02/17/2016
Annex 3: HRM Diagnostic Tool
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Action Required
Technical
Practice
Benchmark Information
Assistance
Criteria
A. Legal and Ethical Framework
Score:
Desirable characteristics
 Specific legislation governing the civil service, with subsidiary legislation and/or regulation that elaborate rules/procedures/systems for personnel
management
 The behavior of civil servants and political appointees, including probity considerations, is governed by a Code of Conduct
 Merit-based rules and procedures for civil service personnel management
 The scope of the civil service is clearly defined
 Impartial treatment of citizens, transparent civil service operations and policies
A1
The civil
Is there a civil service law?
service is
Are there subsidiary regulations
governed
describing procedures?
by
specific
legislation
.
A2
The scope
Does the law define which categories
of the
and types of staff are civil servants?
Civil
Service is
clearly
defined.
20
02/17/2016
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Practice
Benchmark Information
Criteria
A3
There is a
Is there an adequate Code of Conduct
code of
or equivalent framework for Civil
conduct or
Servants?
equivalent
framewor
k that
governs
the
behavior
of civil
servants.
A4
The civil
Is explicit political activity prohibited
service is
by law?
politically
Is there a clear distinction between
neutral.
political appointees and career civil
servants?
Is the ratio of political appointees to
civil servants similar to good
practice?
E.g.: U.S., 1:394; Sweden, 1:2051;
U.K., no political appointees
21
Action Required
02/17/2016
Technical
Assistance
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Practice
Benchmark Information
Criteria
A5
There are
Are there statements on the need to
legal
disclose conflicts of interest, which
provisions
are in accordance with good practice?
to ensure
Are conflicts of interest inspected
probity,
formally?
such as
requireme
nts to
disclose
conflicts
of interest,
and which
agencies
should
enforce
these
provisions
.
A6
The
Is there an overall statement on the
notion of
civil service operating on the basis of
merit
an individual’s merit?
based
All EU countries recognize the
procedure
principle of a civil service operating
s
on the basis of merit.
establishe
d in law.
22
Action Required
02/17/2016
Technical
Assistance
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Action Required
Technical
Practice
Benchmark Information
Assistance
Criteria
A7
Citizens
Is there an Ombudsman provided for
have
in law?
access to
fair and
transparen
t means of
redressing
grievances
with the
civil
service.
A8
Open
Is civil service policy and
access to
performance widely published?
informatio
Do civil servants have access to their
n.
personnel files?
Civil servants have open access to
their personnel files in the EU
countries for which information was
available
A9
Is there a data protection act?
Average
Score
B. Institutional Framework
Score:
Desirable characteristics
 There are effective, dedicated institutions for civil service policy, management and oversight, with officially recognized legal status and clearly
defined role and responsibilities
 Independent oversight bodies ensure fair play in the civil service
 Existence of accountability and recourse mechanisms for citizens, employees, the legislature, and the executive
23
02/17/2016
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Practice
Benchmark Information
Criteria
B1
There are
Does the civil service law define all
clearly
of the relevant institutions required to
defined
manage the civil service?
institution
Structures vary across EU; function
s to
rather than form, is essential
develop
Is there a single institution to
and coformulate civil service human
ordinate
resources policy?
civil
Single central institution formulates
service
policy and establishes framework for
policy.
CS management
Does the single institution have
sufficient authority to ensure policies
are adopted and complied with?
Key government and civil society
actors agree on policy and
management organs for CS
Does the single institution have
sufficient resources to ensure policies
are developed and complied with?
Do line ministries Human Resources
Departments have appropriate
capacity in terms of numbers of staff
and skills?
B2
There is
Is there a body with the mandate to
an
undertake independent decisions on
oversight
the fairness of civil service policies?
body* to
Does the oversight body have
ensure
sufficient authority to enforce
fairness of
decisions?
24
Action Required
02/17/2016
Technical
Assistance
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Practice
Benchmark Information
Criteria
civil
Is the body governed independently
service
from civil service management and
policies.
political institutions?
(*or
Diverse high-prestige government
bodies)
and non-government composition of
oversight body(ies).
Does the mandate of the oversight
body cover all relevant policies?
Does the oversight body report on its
activities and outcomes?
Does the oversight body have
monitoring and evaluation capacities
to monitor civil service management
performance?
Resources allocated to oversight
tasks match scope of required
activities, and capacity to monitor CS
behavior installed
There is evidence of effective
institutions (such as Legislative
Committees, Judicial Reviews,
National Audit Office) and published
reports.
Evidence of active operations, such
as public hearings, audit reviews,
published reports
Average
Score
25
Action Required
02/17/2016
Technical
Assistance
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Action Required
Technical
Practice
Benchmark Information
Assistance
Criteria
C. Employment and Pay Policy and Management
Score:
Desirable characteristics
 Civil service wage bill is affordable and within overall fiscal framework, and does not crowd out other necessary expenses
 Remuneration is sufficiently competitive to recruit, retain, and motivate qualified staff at all levels
 The compensation system is simple, monetized and transparent, with rule- and/or market-based determinants of compensation
 The establishment control system is in place and linked to well-functioning computerized payroll and personnel information system to provide
adequate budget control of personnel expenditure
 Pensions system is sound and affordable
C1
Numbers
Is the ratio of all public sector
of civil
employees per head of population in
and public
line with EU member states?
servants
EU range: 2.7% (Greece) to 17.4%
are in line
(Sweden); median 7.1%; average
with
7.7%
internatio
nal
practice.
26
02/17/2016
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Practice
Benchmark Information
Criteria
Is the wage bill as a proportion of
government expenditure in line with
EU member states?
EU members wage bill expenditures:
As % of goods and services: range:
24.6% (Germany) to 82.2% (Greece);
median 67.4%; average 58.9%
As % of total expenditure: range:
5.6% (Sweden) to 29.7% (Portugal);
median 11.2%; average 13.2%
As % of total revenue: range: 5.7%
(Sweden) to 36.2% (Greece); median
11.5%; average 14.9%
Are goods and services as a
proportion of government
expenditure in line with EU member
states?
EU members goods and service
expenditures as % of total
expenditure: range: 14.2% (Sweden)
to 96.0% (Switzerland); median
19.1%; average 22.5%
Is there any evidence of overstaffing
in the public sector?
Is there any evidence of shortages of
goods and materials, which are
affecting administrative performance
or service delivery?
27
Action Required
02/17/2016
Technical
Assistance
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Practice
Benchmark Information
Criteria
C2
Levels of
Is the ratio of civil service to private
pay are
sector pay in line with EU or OECD
sufficientl
norms?
y
Annual gross average earnings public
competitiv
sector relative to private sector:
e to
range: 1.02 (U.K.) to 1.64 (Portugal)
recruit,
Are turnover rates comparable to EU
retain and
norms?
motivate
EU turnover rates: range: 0.9-1.2%
qualified
(U.K. management-level staff) to
staff at all
10% (Sweden)
levels.
Is remuneration at senior levels
appropriate to skills, as indicated by
compression ratios?
EU compression ratios: range: 4.6
(France) to 9.8 (U.K.)
C3
There is a
Is the grade structure sufficient to
uniform
provide incentives to advancement
and
without introducing undue
effective
complexity/non-transparency?
grading
Is there evidence of grade creep to
structure
circumvent salary constraints?
that
optimizes
decision
making.
28
Action Required
02/17/2016
Technical
Assistance
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Practice
Benchmark Information
Criteria
C4
The
Are % of non-wage allowances and
Compensa
supplements in line with OECD
tion
ranges?
system is
Base salary as % of total
simple,
remuneration in 19 OECD countries:
monetized
100% in 9 countries; 70-100% in 6
,
countries; 50-100% in 1 country;
transparen
<30% in 3 countries
t and fair.
Is there a system of post-based
establishment control?
Are regular reports produced to
confirm accurate employment
information, and credible patters of
intake and attrition?
Is a computerized system operating
to support establishment control?
Is the establishment system Year
2000 compliant?
Are there well defined lines of
technology and systemic lines of
communication between the
Personnel Department and Budget
Department in the Ministry of
Finance?
Is there predictability and
containment of personnel costs in the
budget?
29
Action Required
02/17/2016
Technical
Assistance
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Action Required
Technical
Practice
Benchmark Information
Assistance
Criteria
C5
There is a
Is the construction of the pensions
pensions
system in line with best practice?
system
Desirable characteristics include:
that is
“stable, reliable, sufficiently flexible
affordable
to adjust to economic, demographic
, effective,
and other changes… easy to
and fair.
understand and administer…
perceived as fair and there is a clear
relationship between performance –
as measured by earnings – and
pensions. Benefits and costs are
reasonable and predictable.” (Sigma
Policy Brief No. 2, “Civil Service
Pension Schemes”)
Is the pensions system based upon
sound actuarial practice?
Is there independent audit of the
pension fund and system?
Average
Score
D. Human Resources Management Policies and Practices
Score:
Desirable characteristics
 Capacity exists to review current and projected staff resource requirements
 An appropriate personnel information system is in place
 Staff selection is conducted on the basis of merit, and promotion is based on open and transparent merit-based procedures and collective
management decisions
 A performance appraisal system is in operation with uniform objective criteria across the service, review at different management levels, and
feedback to individuals
 Disciplinary procedures based on transparent principles, and institutional procedures for judgement and appeal exist
30
02/17/2016
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Practice
Benchmark Information
Criteria
D1 There are
Is there a national planning strategy
effective
and procedure for deployment of
planning
civil servants throughout the
arrangeme
structure?
nts for
deployme
nt of civil
servants.
D2 Effective
Can a system be demonstrated that
Personnel
registers basic personnel information
Informatio
for the entire civil service, containing
n systems
personal characteristics such as
are in
education and skills, personnel
place.
actions, appraisal results, training and
career history?
Are Human Resources Practitioners
trained in the use of Personnel
Management Information Systems?
Is the Personnel Management
Information System used effectively
in decision making?
D3 Recruitme
Are all posts advertised publicly to
nt is based
ensure equal competition for posts?
upon
Is there a competitive process
merit.
including objective assessment for
recruitment?
Are job descriptions prepared and
Job descriptions are required for each
utilized?
post, under the labor code. Usage
varies.
Is the recruitment process checked by
multiple reviewers?
31
02/17/2016
Action Required
MOI should provide
technical assistance to line
agencies in preparation and
use of job descriptions.
Technical
Assistance
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Practice
Benchmark Information
Criteria
Are there consistent practices across
the civil service?
D4 Performan
Are performance appraisals
ce
undertaken on a regular basis for all
evaluation
staff?
is
E.g., Belgium/Germany all
objective,
employees evaluated every 1-2 years;
uniform,
Netherlands/U.K. each employee
and
evaluated annually
focussed
Is there a formal unified performance
on
appraisal system?
performan
Evidence of written appraisals for
ce
last two years available for review?
improvem
EU countries’ appraisals kept on file,
ent and
with open access to employees
career
Are categories of appraisal similar to
developm
best practice?
ent.
Is the appraisal linked to other human
resources procedures?
Promotion
Is there a uniform process, with legal
D5
is open
basis, for making promotion
and
decisions?
transparen
Are the procedures open and
t, and
transparent?
based
Results of promotions published?
upon
Is the process used consistently
merit.
across the civil service?
Is the process overseen by a third
party?
Is there recourse to appeal for
promotion grievances?
32
Action Required
02/17/2016
Technical
Assistance
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Action Required
Technical
Practice
Benchmark Information
Assistance
Criteria
D6 There are
Are there common objective criteria
disciplinar
for disciplinary action?
y
Are statistics held on the number of
procedure
disciplinary hearings and their
s based
outcomes?
upon
Is there a written process for
transparen
conducting disciplinary hearings?
t and fair
principles.
Average
Score
E. Training and Career Development
Score:
Desirable characteristics
 Appropriate training system to re-skill staff and to prepare new recruits for ongoing work, with a budget and clear institutional responsibility
assigned for training policy formulation and implementation
E1
There is
Is there clear responsibility for civil
an
service training policy?
appropriat
Is there a national training policy
e training
based upon training needs analysis?
system to
Is there institutional capacity for
re-skill
developing training policies at
staff to
different levels?
prepare
new
recruits
and
develop
existing
staff.
33
02/17/2016
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Practice
Benchmark Information
Criteria
E2
Training
Are there specific training budgets
budgets
identified in the state budget?
are
Is the level of training expenditure
sufficient
consistent with international
to
practice?
implement
the
training
policies,
within
fiscal
constraint
s.
E3
Training
Is there a sufficient range of public
provision
and private sector providers to
is
compete for training provision?
sufficient
Have options been considered for
to meet
contracting out training provision?
the
requireme
nts of the
civil
service.
Training
Are there defined procedures for
evaluation
evaluating training courses?
is
Does training evaluation examine
Varies by ministry.
undertake
relevance of training, and cost
n to
effectiveness?
34
Action Required
02/17/2016
Technical
Assistance
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Action Required
Technical
Practice
Benchmark Information
Assistance
Criteria
identify
Are trainees utilized and well-placed Unable to assess.
the
in the civil service upon completion
relevance
of training?
and cost
effectiven
ess of
training.
Average
Score
F. Management Practices and Culture
Score:
Desirable characteristics
 Decision-making structures ensure effective citizen-oriented service management and delivery, with delegation schemes that are similar to other EU
civil services
F1
Decision
Are budgets devolved to decision
making is
makers?
placed at
Are there clear mechanisms for
the lowest
delegating decisions and holding
possible
individuals to account for their
level to
performance (in terms of outputs and
ensure
outcomes)?
effective
managem
ent and
service
delivery.
35
02/17/2016
Matrix 1: Evaluation of Civil Service Human Resource Management
Ref Good
Score
Performance Indicators Used and
Evaluation Summary
Practice
Benchmark Information
Criteria
F2
Service
Are standards published for public
Yes. General service standards
Delivery
services?
(response times for inquiries) are
is based
published in the Administrative Code
upon
while standards for individual
public
services are set in regulations issued
consultati
by individual ministries. For
on
example, since passport issuance is
regarding
handled by the Police, MOI
priorities
regulations stipulate the three terms
and
for issuance with corresponding fees.
standards
(e.g. the basic term is 4 weeks at a
of service.
cost of 100 crowns, with 1 week and
24 hour issuance also available for
set, higher fees). Compliance with
standards for common services such
as passport and drivers license
issuance is reported to be timely,
while more problems arise with less
common services (e.g. land cadaster
offices, patents and trademarks).
Are standards based upon public
consultation?
In some areas, such as high visibility
passport-issuance, standards likely
reflect popular demand e.g. for
express service. No information
available about other areas.
Average
score
36
02/17/2016
Action Required
Technical
Assistance
Monitor and publish
performance relative to
published standards.
Public consultation in
standard-setting and
evaluation of performance
relative to standard should
be increased.
Technical Assistance
to help develop
customer service
monitoring.
37
02/17/2016
Gary J. Reid
C:\Documents and Settings\wb51420\My Documents\Ops\PRMPS\Actionable indicators\Actionable Governance Indicators Concept
Note.doc
01/10/2008 5:00:00 PM
38
02/17/2016