{"dataset":{"name":"OECD Governance: Performance budgeting - 2023","slug":"dsd-qdd-gov-perbud-df-gov-perbud"},"field":"measure_name","members":["a. All performance information included in budget documentation is included in relevant reports","a. Assessment of the quality and/or relevance of targets/indicators used","a. Centrally issued guidelines, manuals and definitions (please upload a document or provide relevant links, if applicable)","a. Constitution","a. Effects on budget allocations for the next years (please specify in Q11.2.)","a. Improving accountability for the effective use of resources by public bodies","a. Improving the presentation of performance information","a. Monitoring and reporting mechanisms to track the intended targets and the actual results achieved","a. No specific incentives","a. Not a high priority for the government and/or parliament","a. Performance information is collected from line ministries/agencies in a centrally provided standard spreadsheet or text document","a. Performance objectives that are set at the programme level","a. Priorities of the government (e.g., laid out in the government’s coalition agreement/manifesto)","a. Regular reporting to parliament on performance budgeting","a. Uses performance information to inform resource allocation","a. Yes","a. Yes, in the annual budget documentation where performance information is presented in the main body","a. Yes, performance information is required to reflect the priorities of the government/national strategies","a. Yes, to inform annual resource allocations","a. Yes, undertaken in the past.","b Assessment of whether reported information regarding performance and results is accurate and substantiated","b. A national strategy","b. Improving transparency of what is intended to be achieved with public resources","b. Increased flexibility to reallocate funding within the designated spending envelopes","b. Increased monitoring of the organisation and/or programme in the future","b. Lack of resources (e.g., time, staff)","b. No","b. Organic budget law","b. Parliamentary committee hearings on performance budgeting","b. Performance information is collected from line ministries/agencies through a centrally provided IT system or systems","b. Performance objectives that are set at a different level (i.e., sub-programme or activity level) (please specify in Q5.1)","b. Reducing the volume of performance information included in the budget documents to improve its relevance for decision-making","b. Sign-off on performance information by a high-level official (e.g., minister, deputy minister, state secretary) to be included in the budget","b. Standard templates for collecting and reporting on performance information (please upload a document or provide relevant links, if applicable)","b. The finance ministry (or equivalent) decides what performance information to include in relevant reports","b. Uses performance information to hold ministries accountable, e.g., through parliamentary hearings and debates","b. Yes, in the annual budget documentation where performance information is presented in annexes","b. Yes, performance information is required to be outcome oriented","b. Yes, planned.","b. Yes, to inform multi-annual budget planning","c. Compliance with legal requirements in regard to performance information and budgeting","c. Improving reporting practices of performance indicators included in the budget","c. Improving transparency of the actual results achieved with public resources","c. Line ministries/agencies decide what performance information to include in relevant reports","c. Line ministry/agency plans or strategies","c. Monitors the implementation of performance targets","c. More training provided to staff assigned to the programme/organisation","c. No","c. Other legislation","c. Parliamentary debate on performance budgeting","c. Performance contracts between the finance ministry (or equivalent) and line ministries/agencies detailing funding and performance targets","c. Performance objectives that are not linked to the budget structure","c. Requirements for reporting back on performance to the finance ministry (or equivalent) are reduced","c. Training and capacity-building measures. Please describe the type of capacity-building measures you provide (e.g., peer workshops, performance budgeting schools, training on-demand) and their frequency","c. Yes, in multi-annual budget planning documents","c. Yes, performance information is required to be clear and specific (e.g., SMART)","c. Yes, to inform managerial decisions","d. Assessment of the structure and soundness of the overall performance framework","d. Discussions between line ministries/agencies and the finance ministry (or equivalent) on the quality of performance information","d. Has discussions with stakeholders to improve the performance information provided in the budget","d. Improving the allocation and prioritisation of budget resources","d. International benchmarks of similar programmes","d. Introducing dashboards and other monitoring tools to track performance over time","d. Lack of relevant knowledge or technical expertise","d. New leadership brought in to manage/oversee programme/organisation","d. No","d. Ordinances / Regulations","d. Oversight by the Supreme Audit Institution","d. Performance indicators that are explicitly linked to performance objectives","d. Regular dialogue with stakeholders (parliament, SAI, line ministries, etc.) to improve awareness of performance budgeting","d. Yes, in departmental plans which are presented to the parliament","d. Yes, performance information is required to be relatively stable over time","e. Audit of performance information included in year-end reports","e. Awareness campaign across the administration of the use of performance budgeting","e. Guidance notes, budget circular","e. Improving parliament’s ability to understand and engage in discussion and debate on budget issues","e. Lack of training for staff with regards to performance information","e. Leads to a spending review","e. No","e. Other, please specify in Q21.1","e. Oversight by an Independent Fiscal Institution (parliamentary budget office or fiscal council)","e. Performance indicators that are not explicitly linked to performance objectives (e.g., stand-alone performance indicators)","e. Regular dialogue with stakeholders (parliament, SAI, line ministries, etc.) to receive feedback on the performance budgeting framework","e. Sectoral parliamentary committees engage with relevant line ministries/agencies regarding the performance information they put forth","e. Specific consequences for line ministries/agencies if performance targets are not met (e.g., increased monitoring, more training, leads to a spending review)","e. Yes, there is a limit on the number of performance objectives or performance indicators","f. Annual performance targets are set","f. Improving the overall performance of public policies","f. Lack of cooperation from across the government","f. No","f. No mechanisms to ensure internal accountability for performance budgeting","f. None","f. Regular dialogue with line ministries/agencies to improve the quality of performance information","f. Regular dialogue with sectoral committees within the parliament","f. Structured engagement/events with civil society","g. Centrally provided standard tool for collecting performance information from line ministries/agencies (e.g., spreadsheet or IT system)","g. Lack of impact on budget decisions","g. Multi-annual performance targets are set","g. Other, please specify in Q7.1.","g. Promoting a culture of performance in the public sector","g. Publication of performance reporting documents","h. Facilitating oversight assessment of spending effectiveness and impact","h. Lack of programme budgeting","h. None","h. Performance information is included in interactive online dashboards and/or other visualisation tools. Please provide relevant weblinks in Q12.1.","i. None","i. Promoting budget integration and coordination to achieve cross-cutting goals","i. Unclear policy/programme objectives make it difficult to set performance indicators/targets","j. Poor quality performance information/data","k. Lack of performance information/data","l. Performance information provided is not relevant for decision-making","m. Information overload – too much information is presented, and it is not always clear what information is the most adequate for decision-making","n. Gaming – whereby selection of performance targets chosen deliberately in ways that bias results","o. Lack of culture of performance in the public sector","p. Lack of framework to measure the impact of performance budgeting","q. Unsuitable information and communications technology (ICT)"]}