1. Performance Evaluation at the RF Federal Treasury

2. Key Features of the Federal Treasury (FT) Impact Evaluation System
Activity planning
Evaluating actuals and estimates/standards (including cost) that reflect outcomes of the FT operations and functions vs. inputs (financial, physical, labor) used to achieve the outcomes.
Evaluating the degree of the expected outcomes achievement
Effectiveness
evaluation
Cost-efficiency evaluation
Р – Effectiveness
Ф – actual outcome
П – expected outcome
Э - performance
Р - outcome
З - cost

3. The FT Activity Planning System
8 лет
ГRF Government Programs
Chairman of the RF Government
FT performance indicators
1 год
FT Activity Plan
RF Finance Minister
5 лет
Head of FT
FT Strategic Road Map
1 год
Key activities under the FT Strategic Road Map and plans for their implementation
Deputy Heads of FT, Chief Legal Counsel
1 год
Activity plans of FT regional offices (FTRO)
Heads of FT HQ Directorates, heads of FTRO and FT IOD
FTRO performance indicators
1 год
Units action plans
Deputy heads of FT HQ Directorates, deputy heads of FT Directorates and FT Interregional Operational Directorates (IOD)
Unit performance indicators
1 год
Staff activity plans
Heads of units at the FT HQ, FT Directorates and FT IOD
Staff performance indicators

4. Effectiveness Evaluation System
External evaluation by the authorities, customers, society – annually
FT performance evaluation
Federal Treasury Regional Office (FTRO) (self-evaluation and evaluation according to the “chain of command”) – annually
Heads of FTRO (self-evaluation and evaluation according to the “chain of command”) – monthly
External evaluation of FTRO – annually
FT body performance evaluation
Units within FT HQ Directorates and units within FTROs (self-evaluation and evaluation according to the chain of command”) – quarterly
FT unit performance evaluation
Staff of FT HQ and FTRO - monthly
FT staff member performance evaluation 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. Types of external evaluations
EXTERNAL EVALUATION OUTCOMES:
are used to improve the RF Federal Treasury operation;
are reviewed by the FT Supervisory Board to develop proposals regarding managerial decisions to be taken by the FT leadership;
are made public on the FT website
Types of external evaluations
Administering questionnaires at websites of FT bodies
Surveying external respondents during meetings
Requests to Presidential Plenipotentiaries at Federal Districts, heads of supreme bodies of executive power and main spending units (state extra-budgetary funds)
Surveys to evaluate collaboration and interaction among FT bodies

6. 1 2 3 4 5 Evaluating performance of FT body (annually)
FT HQ to set effectiveness indicators for the Federal Treasury Regional Office (FTRO) 1
FTRO to calculate the value of each performance indicator as a difference between the greatest possible value (10 points) and penalty value* 2
FTRO to calculate the Total Effectiveness Index 3
FT QH Directorates assess FTRO performance
Administration Department together with FT HQ checks the submitted indicators’ values (calculations)
FTRO are ranked (10 best and 10 worst performers) 4
Drafting a memo to the FT Head with final FTRO performance evaluation for the reporting year
FT Head to take decision on effectiveness evaluation 5
* PENALTY:
The value is derived by formula based on control activities outcome (not equal to zero in case of violations)

7. Effectiveness evaluation for FT units (quarterly)
Establish effectiveness indicators
Head of unit to determine Effectiveness Index (EI) for each task within the unit’s mandate
The head of unit to calculate the summary EI for the unit
A superior head of directorate to approve tables with summary EI
Tables with summary EI to be cleared by the Deputy Head of FT in charge (FTRO)
Tables with summary EI to be submitted to the control unit of FT HQ (FTRO)
The control unit to submit a memo to the FT Head with final evaluation of unit’s effectiveness
Approval of the final effectiveness evaluation
Evaluation outcomes are used to support decision-making, including with respect to monetary and non-monetary incentives to staff

8. Staff Operational Performance Evaluation (monthly)VI
Approval of the final evaluation by the head official and making conclusion as to the staff member effectiveness V
The sum of all indicators IV
Approval of the evaluation by superior managers (heads, deputy heads of FT bodies)
III
Operational performance evaluation by the immediate superior head of unit
Summary effectiveness evaluation
Less than 80% -inadequate impact II I
Определение исполнения каждого показателя
Ообщ = О1 + О Оn, where О1, О2,...,Оn – weights (%) of performance indicators
Setting effectiveness indicators
Gauging the attainment of each indicator
An automated system to evaluate FTRO heads and the director of the Center for FT Activity Support has been developed
1 successfully passed acceptance trials
2 ready to be commissioned

9. The total of four evaluation components is 100%
Staff Effectiveness Indicators Structure
The total of four evaluation components is 100%
10-30%
Action plans
Labor and performance discipline
Individual assignments by managers
Key functions performed

10. The Automated FT Staff Effectiveness Evaluation System
Staff member А of Unit № 1
Head of FT, Administrative Department
The automated evaluation system is piloted at the FT HQ
Staff member B of Unit № 1
Head of Unit №1
Staff member self-evaluation
Obtain Summary Effectiveness Evaluation
Заверено ЭП
Clear with immediate manager and seek approval by the head of directorate
Staff member C of Unit № 1
Head of Directorate
Submit the tables with Summary Evaluation to the Administrative Department
Submit the Final Evaluation to the FT Head

11. 1 2 Key areas of reforming the FT effectiveness evaluation system
Simple and Uniform Evaluation
develop 4 groups of universal indicators
fewer indicators 1
Objective and Measurable Impact Evaluation
develop measurable indicators that can be assessed and tested using relevant software and/or during control activities
unbiased evaluation following established rules 2

12. FT performance evaluation
Performance evaluation is the total of effectiveness, cost-efficiency and other efficiency evaluations
Three levels of evaluation
By information user performance can be classified as follows:
Civil society and customers
RF Ministry of Finance
Treasury of Russia
(internal managerial efficiency)
Informing society and citizens 1
External evaluation by the public against the following criteria:
ensure TSA liquidity;
securing funds of public-law entities.
Evaluation by customers: main spending units, regional and local governments
Evaluating performance of the FT as a subordinate entity of the RF MOF
Boosting managerial efficiency using the analysis of financial, physical, labor inputs vs. scope of functions performed.
Informing superior federal bodies of executive power 2
Informing the leadership of the Federal Treasury 3

13. The FT cost-efficiency index to inform society and citizens (Эог)
Эог = Роз / З,
where:
Роз – public deliverables of the FT, M rubles;
З – FT operating costs, M rubles.
The FT activity outcomes are derived by the formula:
Роз = Рп + Рв + Рл + Рк + Рю,
Рп – revenues to the budgets of the RF budget system allocated and recorded by the FT, as well as revenues to entities that do not participate in the budget process and are served by FT bodies;
Рв – cash payments from the budgets of the RF budget system, made and recorded by the FR, as well as cash payments of entities that do not participate in the budget process and are served by FT bodies;
Рл – cash amounts received (or attracted) as revenues of the federal budget in the course of TSA cash management;
Рк – cash amounts saved by the FT in the budgets of the RF budget system in the course of and ex-ante and ongoing financial control from unreasonable and inappropriate use;
Рю – cash amounts saved by the FT in the budgets of the budget system as a result of legal work.

14. 1. Indicators of functional activity
FT Key Performance Indicators (1) №
Indicator
1. Indicators of functional activity
1.1
Total budget appropriations provided by the FT bodies to main spending units, spending units and federal budget holders
1.2
Total funds provided by the federal budget to the budgets of the RF budget system as intergovernmental budget transfers
1.3.1
Number of enforcement documents enforced
1.3.2
Amounts obtained upon enforcing enforcement documents
1.4
Amounts obtained upon enforcement of tax authorities’ decisions
1.5
Federal budget funds on bank deposits
1.6
Budget credits provided to replenish account balances of regional (local) budgets
1.7
Funds placed under repo agreements
1.8
Revenues from managing federal budget single account balances
1.9
Total number of inspections made
1.10
Total amount of budget funds inspected
1.11
Total amount of violations identified after inspections
1.12
Number of fines levied after inspections
1.13
Total amount of fines levied after inspections
1.14
Total amount of fines paid after inspections
1.15
Number of enforcement actions taken after inspections performed in the financial and budgetary sphere
1.16
Number of corrective actions taken after inspections related to audit institutions supervision

15. FT performance indicators (2)№
Indicator
2. Indicators of support activity
2.1
Cost of supporting functions/powers of the Federal Treasury
2.2
Cost of maintaining government information systems (GIS) for which the FT was defined as the operator
2.3
FT headcount
2.4
Number of budget holders
3. Performance (effectiveness) indicators
3.1
Federal budget revenues from managing TSA balances vs. cost of supporting FT functions/powers (except the cost of maintaining GIS for which the FT was defined as the operator)
3.2
Financial outcomes (additional revenues of the federal budget) of managing TSA balances
3.3
Average cost per FT staff member considering the cost of supporting FT functions/powers (except the cost of maintaining GIS for which the FT was defined as the operator) / year
3.4
Unused balances of legal entities transferred to the federal budget as revenues

16. FT performance index to inform superior federal bodies of executive power (Эво)
Эво = Эво1 + Эво2 + Эво3 + ….... Эвоn / n, где: n – number of planned activities; Эво1; Эво2; Эво3; Эвоn – indices of cost-efficiency in implementing relevant activities under the RF government programs (FT action plans), derived by the formula: Эвоi = Фэi / Пэi х 100%, where: Фэi – actual value of implementing relevant activity under the RF government program (plan); Пэi – expected target value of implementing relevant activity under the RF government program (plan).

17. in order to inform the FT leadership:
Evaluating cost-efficiency of FT operations to inform the FT leadership (1)
Three analytical indicators are used to evaluate cost-efficiency of FT operations
in order to inform the FT leadership:
– government functions delivery cost index (Ис);
– government functions delivery labor-intensity index (Ит);
– government functions delivery quality index (Ик).

18. Evaluating cost-efficiency of FT operations to inform the FT leadership (2)
The government functions delivery cost index (Ис) is a relative measure describing deviations of the actual cost
from target figures, and is derived by the formula :
Ис = Сп / Сф х 100%,
where:
Сп – target cost of government functions delivery, M rubles;
Сф – actual cost of government functions delivery, M rubles.
The government functions delivery quality index (Ик) describes expected (standard) quality of government functions delivery
vs. actual delivery, and is derived by the formula:
Ик = Кф / Кп х 100%,
Кф – actual quality of government functions delivery;
Кп – expected (standard) quality of government functions delivery.
The government functions delivery quality index (Ик) describes expected (standard) quality of government functions delivery vs. actual delivery, and is derived by the formula:

19. Full automation of performance evaluation
Future Development
Key tasks in developing FT
performance evaluation system
Full automation of performance evaluation
Update of regulatory framework
Performance evaluation development is crucial to:
improve government functions delivery;
ensure efficient use of budget resources;
successfully implement civil service reforms.

20. Thank you!