1. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY (PEFA)-PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK Module 7: Repeat Assessment – Tracking Progress over time

2. Repeat Assessments As at April 2012, stock of more than 96 repeat assessments The increase seen in 2009-2010 (3-4 years after the first baseline/reference PEFA) is expected to continue 2

3. What do we want to determine ? Specific changes in system performance What has changed ? How much ? 3

4. Comparison of Indicator Scores Indicator scores will provide a crude overview of changes over time, but … Dimensions may change differently Performance may not always change enough to change the score (use of arrow) So more detailed explanation is required 4

5. Comparing PI-2 and PI-3 PI-2: New version of indicator with 2 dimensions cannot be compared with old version (only 1 dimension); - The (i) dimension of new version of PI-2 can be compared with old version of PI-2 (i of new version corresponds to PI-2 of old version); - It is possible to provide some measure of progress in performance for PI-2; PI-3: It is not possible to compare the new version with the old version and measure performance (different percentages); - An attempt could be made to apply percentages (%) of new version to previous PEFA assessment. This would measure performance. 5

6. Comparing PI-19 PI-19: New version more comprehensive than old version; - New version includes elements on legal and regulatory framework as well as elements of public access to procurement information; - Elements already present in old version (competitive methods, complaint systems) more elaborated in new version; - Comparing the 2 versions to measure progress in performance not automatic; - Comparisons of common elements may be able to show change in performance; - Element on legal and regulatory framework may also provide indications on changes and or progress in performance (dates, enforcement). 6

7. Other Possible Reasons for Change in Scores - Changes in definitions - Improved availability of or access to information - Different information sampling & aggregation - Scoring methodology mistakes in previous assessment 7

8. If you have problems... Avoid repeating the score of the previous assessment Explain that: 1.- Current scores and scores of previous assessment are not comparable and why 2.- A different point of view in the previous evaluation may have influenced conclusions in the sense of evolutions 8

9. Reporting on Progress Made - Explain all factors that impact a change in rating indicator-by-indicator - Identify the performance change. Monitoring of performance must be clearly visible in the reference framework - Ensure that any reader can track the change from the previous assessment – what performance change led to the change in a rating 9

10. Organizational Requirements - Performance tracking to be clearly reflected in the TOR - The lead agency of the previous assessment, if different, should assist with access to previous assessors’ notes … and be part of the reference group for the repeat exercise - Use of same assessment team desirable but rarely possible 10

11. Reporting on Progress Made (Table in annex of the report) IndicatorScore 2007 Score 2010 Performance changeOther factors PI-1CBPerformance appears improved based on 2005: last deviations 6%, 11%, 18% 2007: 5%, 11%, 6% Not clear if all external project funds were excluded from data for 2007 assessment but probably insignificant issue. PI-4 (i)ACPerformance change is uncertain, despite reported arrears increase from 1% in 2007 to 6% in 2010. 2007assessment used data on pending payment orders only, not overdue invoices. 11

12. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION