1 / 10

KYRGYZ REPUBLIC Programmatic Public Expenditure Review Monitoring and Evaluation

KYRGYZ REPUBLIC Programmatic Public Expenditure Review Monitoring and Evaluation. The MOF/Donor Workshop on PPER Bishkek, September 26, 2005. Why Monitoring & Evaluation. In order to improve public’s satisfaction the government needs to improve service delivery

mihaly
Download Presentation

KYRGYZ REPUBLIC Programmatic Public Expenditure Review Monitoring and Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. KYRGYZ REPUBLIC Programmatic Public Expenditure Review Monitoring and Evaluation The MOF/Donor Workshop on PPER Bishkek, September 26, 2005

  2. Why Monitoring & Evaluation • In order to improve public’s satisfaction the government needs to improve service delivery • Improved service delivery needs strategic planning of public intervention (it is understood that expenditure execution is a must) • Good planning is based on feedback on service provision through monitoring and evaluation of outcomes to incorporate results into decision making practices

  3. What is Evaluation? • Assessment of progress toward achievement of policy objectives using proxi indicators • Start with a limited number of key indicators (e.g. student achievement in math, condition of local roads) • Methodology includes extensive data collection, evaluations techniques • Can be selectively outsourced to consulting firms, universities

  4. Integration into Budget cycle APPROVAL PREPARATION EXECUTION EVALUATION

  5. What is already done: • Functional reviews undertaken in the key line ministries with donor support • They consistently point to the need of strong policy units in the line ministries • Background information for the policy framework: - CDF, NPRS, working documents, etc. - DFID study – general on the current system - WB PPER CASE analysis of Education, Transport and Agriculture - Multi-donor analysis in Health sector Other • Information databases initiated in a number of line ministries e.g. MOE and MOT with donor support

  6. There exists good basis for monitoring quantitative and qualitative activities in the key sectors, which could become the basis for the effective operative work This information is not demanded, collected and aggregated at the higher level. Use of rich data is inefficient. No sectors examined have a system of indicators to evaluate outcomes/results (e.g. student performance in math) Multiple efforts on M&E systems do not receive adequate support from the Government. Monitoring system for school conditions financed from the ADB project is under the threat of failure. A unique road database on road conditions in three cities supported by the WB is not used. The ministries do not have organizational function and personnel capacity (e.g. high turnover of the administrative staff) and resources to perform continuous monitoring and analytical work. Parallel flows of identical information have been revealed (departmental and statistical in ME). Many policy decisions are made on political grounds, rather than on the current needs. Findings: PPER CASE M&E Study

  7. Progress on M&E has been slow for a number of reasons, e.g. M&E process is driven not by demand and understanding but by consistent request from the donors and upper levels in the Government to produce immediate outcomes • Lack of coherent and shared strategy on M&E and lack of clear guidance form the Government • Soviet legacy – central planning • Absence or weak policy unites in the line ministries • M&E task is loaded as an additional responsibility on budget departments • Lot of data on inputs but lack of adequate data/no collection of data on outcome indicators

  8. Pre-requisites for “Success” • Strategic leadership – not micro-management from the government • Involvement of all stakeholders: President, Prime-minister, Parliament, Government, Civil Society • Cooperation from the part of the MOF and the line ministries • Clear and simple policy framework: streamline on-going fragmented actions into one policy framework owned by all involved parties with clear implementation arrangements • Develop selected baseline indicators for sector strategies • Recognition of gradual change (long history of attempts to introduce results orientation in other more advanced countries (e.g. 1947-2003 in the US)

  9. Nextsteps • Develop strategy based on the existing analytical background • Review and implement results of functional reviews i.e. establish/strengthen strategic planning units in the MOF and the line ministries charged with the role of M&E (e.g. Policy unit in the MOE under the Rural Education Project, IDF) • Provide training to the MOF budget analysts and line ministries for developing evaluation capacity (e.g. IDF) • Make an inventory of all donor activity in M&E area at central, sectoral level and at level of statistical office

  10. Governement’s Evaluation Road-Map Budget 2006 MTBF 2006-2008 NPRSII 2006 January Jan-Feb Feb-March March-June March-June Preparediagnostic of the current situation based on the background studies Government to validate the work (broad discussion, including with donors) and finalize report Government selects options, sets work plan for the committee: prepares roles and responsibilities, calendar, resources, Set of options/suggestions presented to the Government

More Related