본문 바로가기 대메뉴 바로가기
Center for Performance Evaluation and Management

The Center for Performance Evaluation and Management carries out education and research on performance evaluation and management of budgetary programs and plays the role of a budgetary program evaluation body.

Self-Assessment of Budgetary Programs

Background for introduction

  • In 2005, MOSF introduced Self-Assessment of Budgetary Programs (SABP) to enhance links between performance evaluation and budget allocation.
  • SABP was introduced to strengthen links between performance information and budget allocation.

Overview of the process

Description of “Self-Assessment of Budgetary Program”
  • Ministry of Strategy and Finance (MOSF) reviews self-assessment of programs done by line ministries/agencies
  • Budgetary authority provides a standardized checklist for reporting self-assessment
  • The checklist contains questions on program design, performance management system, program implementation, and actual performance
  • Entire programs are reviewed in three years.
    • About 1/3 programs are reviewed each year
    • About 300 sub-programs are reviewed each year
    • Evaluation unit is usually sub-programs which are unit for budget allocation by MOSF
  • While PMSBP relies on the small number of key performance measures for the performance management, SABP collects more detailed information on budgetary programs.
  • SABP examines planning, management and results of budgetary programs by a checklist designed by MOSF.
  • Line ministries/agencies evaluate their programs by answering the questions provided by the checklist.
  • It plans to evaluate all the budgetary programs in 3 years by evaluating 1/3 of programs every year.
  • More than 1,700 programs have been evaluated between 2005 and 2007.
Contents of Checklist
Design and Planning
(30)
  • Program purpose
  • Rationale for govemment spending
  • Duplication with other programs
  • Efficiency of program design
  • Relevance of performance objectives and indicators
  • Relevance of performance targets
Management
(20)
  • Monitoring efforts
  • Obstacles of program implementation
  • Implementation as planned
  • Efficiency improvement or budget saving
Results and accountability
(50)
  • Independent program evaluation
  • Results
  • Utilization of evaluation results