This paper contains in-depth evaluation of the structure and contents of the “Performance Report of 2011 Fiscal Year.” First of all, the paper reviews if the performance report has been written faithfully and reflects the purpose of the performance management system.
In addition, this paper analyzes programs which failed to achieve targeted objectives or achieved poor performance compared to their budget scale in order to support performance-based deliberation of budget and settlement of accounts. Based on that analysis, steps to improve its performance have been suggested.
According to “The FY 2011 Performance Report” submitted by the government, 4,609 performance indicators (82.5 percent of the total 5,584) had achieved the originally targeted level of performance.
In some cases, however, the government set performance indicators which are easily achievable or passively set to last year’s level without considering budget increases. In other cases, the report presented inaccurate information and even missed basic performance information. Moreover, half of government outlay programs were covered in the “Performance Plan” or “Performance Report.”
Based on the results of the evaluation, this paper suggests measures to improve the performance management system, such as restoring the credibility of the Performance report and intensifying the linkage between performance evaluation results and budget.
1. Evaluation of “The FY 2011 Government Performance Report on the Basis of Each Line Ministry” (Series 1–4), is made up of four volumes and categorized by each standing committee in charge by showing in-depth research for each performance report.
2. Emphatic Evaluation of “The FY 2011 Government Performance Report” (Series 5), consisting of one volume, focuses on the Evaluation of pending issues with regard to the FY 2011 Government Performance Report.
3. “The Comprehensive Outlook of the FY 2011 Government Performance Report” (Series 6) explains the current fiscal status and main features of “The FY 2011 Government Performance Report.”
Program Evaluation Bureau
In addition, this paper analyzes programs which failed to achieve targeted objectives or achieved poor performance compared to their budget scale in order to support performance-based deliberation of budget and settlement of accounts. Based on that analysis, steps to improve its performance have been suggested.
According to “The FY 2011 Performance Report” submitted by the government, 4,609 performance indicators (82.5 percent of the total 5,584) had achieved the originally targeted level of performance.
In some cases, however, the government set performance indicators which are easily achievable or passively set to last year’s level without considering budget increases. In other cases, the report presented inaccurate information and even missed basic performance information. Moreover, half of government outlay programs were covered in the “Performance Plan” or “Performance Report.”
Based on the results of the evaluation, this paper suggests measures to improve the performance management system, such as restoring the credibility of the Performance report and intensifying the linkage between performance evaluation results and budget.
1. Evaluation of “The FY 2011 Government Performance Report on the Basis of Each Line Ministry” (Series 1–4), is made up of four volumes and categorized by each standing committee in charge by showing in-depth research for each performance report.
2. Emphatic Evaluation of “The FY 2011 Government Performance Report” (Series 5), consisting of one volume, focuses on the Evaluation of pending issues with regard to the FY 2011 Government Performance Report.
3. “The Comprehensive Outlook of the FY 2011 Government Performance Report” (Series 6) explains the current fiscal status and main features of “The FY 2011 Government Performance Report.”
Program Evaluation Bureau