I. Budget reliability
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
1. Aggregate expenditure outturn
A
Notes:
1.1 Aggregate expenditure outturn
A
Notes:
Aggregate expenditure outturn was between 95% and 105% of the approved aggregate budgeted expenditure in two of the three years.
2. Expenditure composition outturn
D+
Notes:
2.1 Expenditure composition outturn by function
C
Notes:
Variance in expenditure composition exceeded 15 per cent in two of last three years.
2.2 Expenditure composition outturn by economic type
D
Notes:
Variance was less than 15% in two of the last three years.
2.3 Expenditure from contingency reserves
A
Notes:
During the last three years, actual expenditures accrued for unforeseen expenses were less than 1% of the total expenditures.
Notes:
3.1 Aggregate revenue outturn
D
Notes:
Actual revenue outturn was in excess of between 92% and 116% of budgeted revenue in at least two of the last three years. It was 123%, 81% and 95% for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 respectively.
3.2 Revenue composition outturn
D
Notes:
In 2017, the composition variance was at 42.8%. However, it has shown continuous improvement to 18.3% and 10.6% in 2018 and 2019.
II. Transparency of public finances
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
4. Budget classification
B
Notes:
4.1 Budget classification
B
Notes:
Revenue and expenditure are shown according to administrative, economic (consistent with GFS 2001) functional (consistent with UN COFOG) classifications at all stages in budget preparation, execution and reporting.
Notes:
5.1 Budget documentation
D
Notes:
The budget documentation fulfills 2 basic elements and 2 elements.
6. Central government operations outside financial reports
A
Notes:
6.1 Expenditure outside financial reports
A
Notes:
There are no expenditures outside financial reports.
6.2 Revenue outside financial reports
A
Notes:
There are no revenues outside financial reports.
6.3 Financial reports of extrabudgetary units
NA
Notes:
There are no extrabudgetary units in LSG Krupskaya.
7. Transfers to subnational governments
NA
Notes:
7.1 System for allocating transfers
NA
Notes:
There are no sub-national governments.
7.2 Timeliness of information on transfers
NA
Notes:
There are no sub-national governments.
8. Performance information for service delivery
D+
Notes:
8.1 Performance plans for service delivery
D
Notes:
Information is not published annually on the activities to be performed under the policies or programs of ministries or a framework of performance indicators relating to the outputs or outcomes of ministries is not in place.
8.2 Performance achieved for service delivery
D
Notes:
Budgetary institutions prepare annual reports on their activities and performances achieved, but they are not published.
8.3 Resources received by service delivery units
A
Notes:
Information on resources received by frontline service delivery units is collected and recorded for all budgetary institutions, disaggregated by source of funds. A report compiling the information is prepared annually.
8.4 Performance evaluation for service delivery
D
Notes:
For the year 2017-2019, LSG Krupskaya did not assess the effectiveness or efficiency of the provision of services.
9. Public access to fiscal information
D
Notes:
9.1 Public access to fiscal information
D
Notes:
III. Management of assets and liabilities
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
10. Fiscal risk reporting
D
Notes:
10.1 Monitoring of public corporations
NA
Notes:
There are no public corporations in the local government of Krupskaya.
10.2 Monitoring of subnational governments
NA
Notes:
There is no lower level of government.
10.3 Contingent liabilities and other fiscal risks
D
Notes:
There is no information on contingent liabilities and other fiscal risks in the financial reports of SNG Krupskaya.
11. Public investment management
D+
Notes:
11.1 Economic analysis of investment proposals
D
Notes:
There are no established economic analysis and selection criteria for capital investment projects.
11.2 Investment project selection
C
Notes:
There are no approved economic selection criteria for capital investment projects. The selection is based on socio-economic development priorities of significance to the region.
11.3 Investment project costing
C
Notes:
Costing information is partially included in the budget documentation – for the next year, only.
11.4 Investment project monitoring
C
Notes:
Project are monitored and information on implementation of project is prepared annually but it is not published.
12. Public asset management
C+
Notes:
12.1 Financial asset monitoring
B
Notes:
Data on financial assets are covered in the annual budget execution report.
12.2 Nonfinancial asset monitoring
C
Notes:
Information on assets is not officially published and available to the public.
12.3 Transparency of asset disposal
C
Notes:
There is no practice and legal requirement of covering assets disposal information in budget documentation.
Notes:
13.1 Recording and reporting of debt and guarantees
NA
Notes:
LSG Krupskaya have not borrowed, issued debt obligations or loan guarantees in the period 2017-2019.
13.2 Approval of debt and guarantees
NA
Notes:
LSG Krupskaya have not borrowed, issued debt obligations or loan guarantees in the period 2017-2019.
13.3 Debt management strategy
NA
Notes:
LSG Krupskaya have not borrowed, issued debt obligations or loan guarantees in the period 2017-2019.
IV. Policy-based fiscal strategy and budgeting
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
14. Macroeconomic and fiscal forecasting
D
Notes:
14.1 Macroeconomic forecasts
NA
Notes:
The Ministry of Economy of the Kyrgyz Republic has prepared Plans for Socio-Economic Development (PSED) for 2019-2020, which approved the macroeconomic parameters of development for 2019-2021 with a breakdown into the Oblasts of the Kyrgyz Republic. These development parameters should be taken as a basis for the development of the PSED LSG.
Notes:
Krupskaya LSG’s budget forecasts were prepared for revenues for 3 years ahead, and for expenditures - for 1 year, and are presented to the Parliament. The document does not contain a mid-term forecast of socio-economic development, which would include forecasts on expenditures, with indication of main changes in expenditures with comparison to the current year and the reasons for their variation.
14.3 Macrofiscal sensitivity analysis
D
Notes:
LSG Krupskaya does not develop macroeconomic scenarios at the local level. In the explanatory note to the budget documentation of the draft local budget, there is no descriptive part on various scenarios of fiscal forecasts by analogy with the Draft Law on the Republican Budget.
Notes:
15.1 Fiscal impact of policy proposals
D
Notes:
The LSG does not prepare an estimate of fiscal implications and revenue and expenditure policies for three years or one fiscal year.
15.2 Fiscal strategy adoption
B
Notes:
The Government adopted and submitted to the bodies of legislative power a current fiscal strategy that includes qualitative or quantitative fiscal targets and covers at least the forthcoming budget year and two subsequent financial years.
15.3 Reporting on fiscal outcomes
D
Notes:
A report on the implementation of the Strategic Plan for the Development of the Ayil Aimak has not been prepared together with the Annual Budget.
16. Medium-term perspective in expenditure budgeting
D
Notes:
16.1 Medium-term expenditure estimates
D
Notes:
The Annual Budget of the Krupskaya Ayil Aimak is generated for the period of three years on revenues, and for the period of one year on expenditures with a break down to economic and functional classifications.
16.2 Medium-term expenditure ceilings
D
Notes:
Aggregate expenditure ceilings for the budget year and the two following fiscal years are not prepared.
16.3 Alignment of strategic plans and medium-term budgets
D
Notes:
Institutions of Krupskaya A/A do not develop Medium-term strategies for budget expenditures.
16.4 Consistency of budgets with previous year’s estimates
D
Notes:
The budget on revenues of the Krupskaya A/A is developed for the period of three years, while for expenditures - for one year.
17. Budget preparation process
D
Notes:
Notes:
No Budget Calendar was developed by the Ayil Kenesh.
17.2 Guidance on budget preparation
D
Notes:
Budget guidance or circular for budgetary units were not prepared.
17.3 Budget submission to the legislature
D*
Notes:
The date of sending the draft budget to the AK for consideration and approval of the budget in two of the last three years is unknown. Hence, it is not possible to know the time allowed for the legislature.
18. Legislative scrutiny of budgets
C+
Notes:
18.1 Scope of budget scrutiny
C
Notes:
The legislature’s review does not cover fiscal policies and aggregates for the coming year as well as details of expenditure.
18.2 Legislative procedures for budget scrutiny
C
Notes:
Legislature approves procedures to be used for reviewing draft budget are approved before budget hearings and are followed. However, the procedures include internal organizational arrangements such as specialized review committees, technical support, and negotiation procedures.
18.3 Timing of budget approval
C
Notes:
The legislature has approved the annual budget within one month of the start of the year in two of the last three fiscal years.
18.4 Rules for budget adjustment by the executive
A
Notes:
Clear rules exist for in-year budget adjustments by the executive. The rules set strict limits on the extent and nature of amendments and are adhered to in all instances.
V. Predictability and control in budget execution
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
19. Revenue administration
NA
Notes:
19.1 Rights and obligations for revenue measures
NA
Notes:
Due to the sharing arrangements with the national level revenue authority, the dimension is considered not applicable.
19.2 Revenue risk management
NA
Notes:
Due to the sharing arrangements with the national level revenue authority, the dimension is considered not applicable.
19.3 Revenue audit and investigation
NA
Notes:
Due to the sharing arrangements with the national level revenue authority, the dimension is considered not applicable.
19.4 Revenue arrears monitoring
NA
Notes:
Due to the sharing arrangements with the national level revenue authority, the dimension is considered not applicable.
20. Accounting for revenue
B+
Notes:
20.1 Information on revenue collections
B
Notes:
Information on revenue collection is disaggregated by type.
20.2 Transfer of revenue collections
A
Notes:
Revenue collections are transferred directly into the Treasury Single Account controlled by the Treasury and their regional offices.
20.3 Revenue accounts reconciliation
A
Notes:
There are monthly reconciliations between Treasury records and those of the regional office of the State Tax Services.
21. Predictability of in-year resource allocation
A
Notes:
21.1 Consolidation of cash balances
NA
Notes:
Cash plans are prepared only in the Republican Budget and the budgets of cities of republican and regional significance.
21.2 Cash forecasting and monitoring
NA
Notes:
Cash plans are prepared only in the Republican Budget and the budgets of cities of republican and regional significance.
21.3 Information on commitment ceilings
NA
Notes:
Cash plans are prepared only in the Republican Budget and the budgets of cities of republican and regional significance.
21.4 Significance of in-year budget adjustments
A
Notes:
No budget adjustments were made during the last financial year of assessment 2019.
22. Expenditure arrears
C+
Notes:
22.1 Stock of expenditure arrears
A
Notes:
The stock of arrears in no more than 2% in two of the last three years.
22.2 Expenditure arrears monitoring
C
Notes:
The organisation of the database managed at regional level allows monitoring of expenditure arrears on annual basis at the end of each fiscal year.
Notes:
23.1 Integration of payroll and personnel records
B
Notes:
The personnel database and payroll system are manually controlled and monthly reconciled.
23.2 Management of payroll changes
A
Notes:
There were no retroactive adjustments in the years of assessment.
23.3 Internal control of payroll
C
Notes:
There is sufficient control on payroll.
Notes:
All budget organisations with audit function regularly conduct payroll audits.
Notes:
24.1 Procurement monitoring
D
Notes:
There is no data monitored on contract award.
24.2 Procurement methods
D
Notes:
66% of the procurement contracts in FY 2019 were procured as direct contract awards.
24.3 Public access to procurement information
A
Notes:
All public access criteria are met.
24.4 Procurement complaints management
A
Notes:
All procurement complaints management criteria are met.
25. Internal controls on nonsalary expenditure
A
Notes:
25.1 Segregation of duties
A
Notes:
Almost all budget operations take place through the Single Treasury Account that is managed by the Ministry of Finance.
25.2 Effectiveness of expenditure commitment controls
A
Notes:
Payment obligations remain within the limits of the annual budget allocations.
25.3 Compliance with payment rules and procedures
B
Notes:
There were no financial violations. Payments are made in accordance with standard payment procedures.
Notes:
26.1 Coverage of internal audit
NA
Notes:
There is no internal audit function in LSG Krupskaya.
26.2 Nature of audits and standards applied
NA
Notes:
There is no internal audit function in LSG Krupskaya.
26.3 Implementation of internal audits and reporting
NA
Notes:
There is no internal audit function in LSG Krupskaya.
26.4 Response to internal audits
NA
Notes:
There is no internal audit function in LSG Krupskaya.
VI. Accounting and reporting
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
27. Financial data integrity
B
Notes:
27.1 Bank account reconciliation
C
Notes:
Reconciliation, between the National Bank and the Central Treasury, is carried out quarterly within a month.
Notes:
All suspense accounts are cleared in a timely way.
Notes:
Reconciliation of advance accounts takes place at least monthly, within a month from the end of each month.
27.4 Financial data integrity processes
NA
Notes:
The data integrity control process is carried out by the Central Treasury at national level.
28. In-year budget reports
C+
Notes:
28.1 Coverage and comparability of reports
A
Notes:
The database in the automated treasury system allows full coverage of budget execution data and comparison with the originally approved budget.
28.2 Timing of in-year budget reports
A
Notes:
The automated treasury system allows receipt of data in real time regardless of the timing of the budget execution report.
28.3 Accuracy of in-year budget reports
C
Notes:
Expenditure is presented only at payment stage.
29. Annual financial reports
D+
Notes:
29.1 Completeness of annual financial reports
D
Notes:
The annual budget execution report for FY 2019 contains information on revenue, expenditure and tangible assets.
29.2 Submission of reports for external audit
B
Notes:
The Account Chamber received the financial reports of LSG Krupkaya within six months from the year end..
29.3 Accounting standards
C
Notes:
Work is underway on the implementation of International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) on an accrual basis.
VII. External scrutiny and audit
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
Notes:
30.1 Audit coverage and standards
C
Notes:
All revenue and expenditure is audited using national audit standards with an increasing amount of compliance with international audit standards with audit findings focused on relevant significant weaknesses.
30.2 Submission of audit reports to the legislature
B
Notes:
The audit report was submitted to the local parliament within six months from receipt of the financial report.
30.3 External audit follow-up
A
Notes:
There is evidence of external audit follow-up and implementation of audit recommendations.
30.4 Supreme Audit Institution independence
B
Notes:
The Chamber of Accounts operates independently from the executive, they plan audits and enjoy unrestricted access to data and information. The CA has substantial independence over its operations and its financing.
31. Legislative scrutiny of audit reports
D
Notes:
31.1 Timing of audit report scrutiny
D
Notes:
No evidence was provided to show audit hearings were conducted by the Ayil Kenesh.
31.2 Hearings on audit findings
NA
Notes:
Since no audit hearings were conducted by the Ayil Kenesh, the legislature did not provide recommendations on the audit reports.
31.3 Recommendations on audit by the legislature
NA
Notes:
Since no audit hearings were conducted by the Ayil Kenesh, the legislature did not provide recommendations on the audit reports.
31.4 Transparency of legislative scrutiny of audit reports
NA
Notes:
No evidence was provided to show that audit scrutiny was conducted by the Ayil Kenesh.
NO PILLAR
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
HLG-1 Predictability of transfers from higher level of Government
A
Notes:
HLG-1.1 Annual deviation of actual total HLG transfers from the original total estimated amount provided by HLG to the SN entity for inclusion in the latter’s budget
NA
Notes:
All transfers have been at least 95% of the planned ones for the three years of assessment.
HLG-1.2 Annual variance between actual and estimated transfers of earmarked grants
A
Notes:
There was no difference between the original budget estimate and actual earmarked transfers in each of the last three years 2017-2019.
HLG-1.3 In-year timeliness of transfers from HLG (compliance with timetables for in-year distribution of disbursements agreed within of month of the start of the SN fiscal year)
A
Notes:
All transfers are actually disbursed each month is being evenly distributed across the year.