3. Assessment of PFM performance

The objective of this section is to provide an assessment of the key elements of the PFM system, as captured by the indicators, and to report on progress made in improving those.

The indicative length for this section is 30-40 pages.

The structure of the section is:

  1. 3.1. Budget reliability
  2. 3.2. Transparency of public finances
  3. 3.3. Management of assets and liabilities
  4. 3.4. Policy-based fiscal strategy and budgeting
  5. 3.5. Predictability and control in budget execution
  6. 3.6 .Accounting and reporting
  7. 3.7. External scrutiny and audit

Each subsection discusses the relevant indicators. For example, subsection 3.2 on transparency of public finances focuses on PI-4 to PI-9. Reporting follows the numerical order of the indicators.

Each indicator is reported separately and discusses the assessment of the present situation, performance change over time, and a description of the reform measures being introduced to address the identified weaknesses. The discussion should include five elements:

  1. General description of the characteristics of the indicator within the scope covered
  2. Performance level and evidence for scoring of each dimension
  3. Performance change since the previous assessment, where applicable
  4. Recent or ongoing reform activities
  5. Summary of scores and performance table
1. General description of the system in relation to the indicator

This may describe the institutional and organizational arrangements and the legislation relevant to the subject being assessed by the indicator.

2. Performance level and evidence for scoring of each dimension
  • The text gives a clear understanding of the actual performance of each of the PFM dimensions captured by the indicators and the rationale for its scoring. Each dimension of the indicator is discussed in the text and addressed in a way that enables understanding of the specific score (A, B, C or D) achieved for the dimension.
  • The report indicates the factual evidence, including quantitative data, which has been used to substantiate the assessment. The information is specific wherever possible, for example, in terms of quantities, dates, and time spans.
  • Any issues in relation to the timeliness or reliability of data and evidence is noted.
  • If insufficient information has been obtained either for a whole indicator or one of its dimension, the text explicitly mentions it.