1 / 8

Integrity, independence and accountability: The European Statistical System Peer Reviews

Integrity, independence and accountability: The European Statistical System Peer Reviews. Martina Hahn, Solveiga Eidukynaitė Eurostat Statistical governance, quality and evaluation Unit 11 July 2008. Content of the presentation. Quality framework for the ESS peer reviews

wwoods
Download Presentation

Integrity, independence and accountability: The European Statistical System Peer Reviews

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. Integrity, independence and accountability: The European Statistical SystemPeer Reviews Martina Hahn, Solveiga EidukynaitėEurostat Statistical governance, quality and evaluation Unit 11 July 2008

  2. Content of the presentation • Quality framework for the ESS peer reviews • Quality assessment of the ESS peer reviews as an audit • Conclusions

  3. 1. Quality framework for the ESS peer reviews Peer reviews – audit of the compliance status with the Code of Practice in line with the ISO 19011:2002 definition of an audit pre-definedcriteria obtaining & evaluatingaudit evidence systematic independent documented

  4. 2. Quality assessment of the ESS peer reviews as an audit (1) Principles of performance auditingby the International Association of Supreme Audit Institutions: Significance (importance of the matter)? • Areas of the CoP covered crucial for independence, integrity, credibility • Other areas of the Code could be better assessed using different tools Reliability (accurate reflection of actual conditions)? • Findings depend on the information provided by the NSI • Statistical analysis confirms validity of results (correlations, coherence, principle 3 best predictor for overall results) • Indicator differ in suitability for supporting an audit

  5. 2. Quality assessment of the ESS peer reviews as an audit (2) Objectivity (impartial and fair review)? • Matching of PR teams • Independent review • Low “neutralisation” effects within teams • Stricter evaluation during the peer’s second or later review • Eurostat comprehensive quality assurance for whole process Scope (are all elements needed addressed)? • Peer reviews conducted on a strategic, organisation-wide basis • Other national producers of European statistics not included

  6. 2. Quality assessment of the ESS peer reviews as an audit (3) Timeliness (of reports)? • Average reporting rate: 2.5 months • Last report published on the Eurostat website April 2008 Clarity (of reports)? • Reports concise and clear following a common structure • Summary reporting needed to address main stakeholders

  7. 2. Quality assessment of the ESS peer reviews as an audit (4) Efficiency (resources reasonable for significance/complexity)? • 51 peers (31 SPC, 18 Eurostat, 2 IOs) • impressive results during relatively short time (3 days + preparation and reporting), heavy investment on both sides but positive cost-benefit assessments Effectiveness (appropriate response from addressees)? • auditee: agreed improvements, momentum for boosting implementation of the Code • EP/Council: response from governance authorities, enhanced credibility?

  8. ESS peer reviews contribute to enhancing ESS integrity, independence and accountability • carried out in line with criteria of a high quality audit • signalling that the self-regulatory approach works • fostering themselves the implementation of the Code • Some trade-offs to consider: • Comparability – Independence • Reliability – Burden/Costs • Scope – Burden/Costs • Transparency – Credibility (?) • Need to review certain (few) indicators of the Code • Refrain from mere quantitative interpretation and from country rankings 3. Conclusions

More Related