performance budgeting: the french experience by veronique fouque
DESCRIPTION
Presentation by Veronique Fouque at the 10th annual meeting of the Senior Budget Officials Performance and Results Network held on 24-25 November 2014. Find more information at http://www.oecd.org/gov/budgetingTRANSCRIPT
OECD 10th annual meetingPerformance and results network
Paris, 24 & 25 November 2014
Performance budgeting: the French experience
Véronique FOUQUE, Head of the performance departement, Budget Directorate, Ministry of Finance
2The agenda
1. The changes provided by the new law
2. Implementation
� A new chain of responsibility
� A simplified framework for performance
3. Limits and perspectives
3The changes provided by the new law (2006)
More reliable accountsAccounts based on 3 levels :
budgetary, general, costs analysis
A more exhaustive budget
An increased disclosure including analytical justifications, operators
information, …
A results-oriented budgetFor each « program » : a strategy,
objectives, and indicators
A renewed public management
Clarity and transparency
Public policies are organised and presented around « programs »
4Transparency in the State’s budget� http://www.performance-publique.budget.gouv.fr
Budgetary documents
Newsletter
Transversal items
Public finances data
5The agenda
1. The changes provided by the new law
2. Implementation
� A new chain of responsibility
� A simplified framework for performance
3. Limits and perspectives
6
The 2015 State general budget
More transparency in the State budget’s framework
Others
Operating expenditures
Debt payment
Capital expenditures
Intervention expenditures
Staff expenditures
Financial expenditures
Education
Defence
Innovation and SkillsHome
Office
Social AffairsJustice
Culture
Foreign Office
Environment, Energy
Housing
Public affairs management Work and
pensions
Others
31 missions
122 programs
573 actions
The framework
7
■ The Program director (RPROG) is the core player of the new public management process ; he makesa link between political and management responsabilities
■ The Program director delegates the program management to operational budget officers (BOP) whothemselves allocate resources between the operational units (UO)
���� A key point is to feed this network and make operational pract ices performance-oriented
Management practices to serve public policies
The program directors and the operational managers : key players in the chain of responsability
A Program centralizes the credits for one or many action(s)
The Program’sOperational Budget isthe operational variation of the program at a local level (territory, action…)
The Operational Unit is the application « on the field » of the BOP
RPROG
BOP BOP
UO UO
Centrallevel
Central Deconcentrated level
about 2000 BOP :
- 300 central
- 1700 deconcentrated :
- 160 inter-regions,
- 1200 regions
- 300 departments
122 programs in 2015
8
■ Simple and strong scoreboards for decision-making
Example: General Directorate for Employment and Professional Training
9The agenda
1. The changes provided by the new law
2. Implementation
� A new chain of responsibility
� A simplified framework for performance
3. Limits and perspectives
10Simplify the performance framework
� Improve the « mission » level
– The mission indicators have to be more significant and synthetic
– Give priority to the indicators that allow an international benchmarkingwhen relevant and possible
� Keep only (mainly) performance indicators (instead of activity indicators)
■ Within the 2015 - 2017 triennal budget procedure the Budget D irectoratehas wished to :
– Make the performance framework more meaningful: strengthen the link withthe public policies strategies and the selected objectives and indicators
– Make the performance framework more understandable for the Parliamentrepresentatives
11
A set of indicators that has been improved over tim e
Between 2014 and 2015 :
-17% objectives, -19% indicators
Performance indicators
46%
19%
35%Efficiency for the citizen
Quality of service
Efficiency for the taxpayer
12
Program #166 as of 2014 framework: « judiciary justic e »
Example : the « Justice » mission – Program # 166
OBJECTIVE # 1 : Issue quality judgments in Civil Ma tters within reasonable delay
� Indicator P166.1.1 : Average delay for processing cases by type of Court
� Indicator P166.1.2 : Percentage of courts for which the processing delay is 1 month above the average
� Indicator P166.1.3 : Average age of “work-in-progress” cases by type of court
� Indicator P166.1.4 : Rate of cassation for the civil judgments
� Indicator P166.1.5 : Number of civil cases processed per judge or per legal adviser (in full-time equivalent worked)
� Indicator P166.1.6 : Number of cases processed per civil servant (in full-time equivalent worked)
OBJECTIVE # 2 : Issue judgments in Criminal Matters within reasonable delay
� Indicator P166.2.1 : Average delay for processing criminal cases
� Indicator P166.2.2 : Rate of rejection by the national criminal record
� Indicator P166.2.3 : Rate of cassation for the criminal judgments
� Indicator P166.2.4 : Number of cases processed per public prosecutor (in full-time equivalent)
� Indicator P166.2.5 : Number of criminal cases processed per judge or per legal adviser (in full-time equivalent)
OBJECTIVE # 3 : Extend and diversify the answer in Criminal Matters and improve the judgments enforcem ent
� Indicator P166.3.1 : Rate of response in Criminal Matters
� Indicator P166.3.2 : Rate of alternative response (sentences management)
� Indicator P166.3.3 : Rate of judgments enforcement
� Indicator P166.3.4 : Average delay of judgments enforcement
OBJECTIVE # 4 : Control the increase of procedures c osts
� Indicator P166.4.1 : Average cost per criminal case
OBJECTIVE # 5 : Develop the use of electronic commu nication
� Indicator P166.5.1 : Number of visioconferences
13
Program #166 as of 2015 framework: « judiciary justic e »
Example : the « Justice » mission – Program # 166
Adjustment of indicators titles
Creation ofNew indicators
OBJECTIVE # 1 : Improve the quality and effectivene ss of the justice administration
� Indicator 1.1 : Average delay for processing the civil procedures apart from the short-time procedures
� Indicator 1.2 : Percentage of courts for which the processing delay is 15% above the average target
� Indicator 1.3 : Average delay for processing criminal procedures
� Indicator 1.4 : Number of civil procedures processed per judge
� Indicator 1.5 : Number of criminal procedures processed per judge
� Indicator 1.6 : Number of civil and criminal procedures processed per civil servant
� Indicator 1.7 : Rate of cassation (in both civil and criminal procedures)
OBJECTIVE # 2 : Make the reponse, the enforcement a nd adaptation of sentences in Criminal Matters more effective
� Indicator 2.1 : Rate of alternative responses (sentences management)
� Indicator 2.2 : Average delay for the communication of the sentences to the national criminal record
� Indicator 2.3 : Rate of judgments enforcement
� Indicator 2.4 : Average delay for the judgments enforcement
OBJECTIVE # 3 : Modernize justice operations
� Indicator 3.1 : Average cost per criminal case
� Indicator 3.2 : Volume of electronic communication between the courts and the other partners
14The agenda
1. The changes provided by the new law
2. Implementation
� A new chain of responsibility
� A simplified framework for performance
3. Limits and perspectives
15
� Take into account the performance results for budgeting fac es several limits :- The budgetary envelope is capped under a global amount which depends on
exogenous factors- The link between performance and budget is not direct : better results can be obtained
through an optimization of resources allocation and better practices- The evaluation of results is not always connected with the level of resources employed :
a more global evaluation of public policies can be necessary
� Public managers accountability faces several difficultie s:- Political and administrative rythms are different- The transversal nature of public policies tends to make Program directors (RPROG) not
directly responsible- Budgeting does not take into account performance (Supreme Audit Court)
Performance as a support for budgetary decisions
How can performance resultsbe taken into account for budgeting?
16
���� 2 main activities :■ Analyze the value chain of activities : improve our knowledge of costs, activities and results in
order to:– Invest in the activities that create more value (effectiveness)– Maximize the output of resources employed (efficiency)
■ Develop the management dialogue between the different levels of responsability (programdirectors, operational budget officers, …) :– Optimize resource allocation between units– Challenge the use of resources and results achievement– Share best practices
Develop the role of the management controllers
Assess the results and
the deviations with
the forecast
17
■ A various number of institutions involved :– Interministerial Inspection Units : IGAS, IGA, IGF
– Ministerial Inspection Units
– The Supreme Audit Institution
– Reports from the Parliament
– Other institutions : France Stratégie, CAE, INSEE, etc.,
■ The law for public finance provides the « expenses review » as a mandatory step forcost-saving purposes and a necessary input for the budgetar y annual process– Thematical expenses audits will be brought to the Parliament at the same time than the
finance law project. They will be assessed by the Interministerial Inspection Units beforeMarch of the following year
– The Budget Directorate will feed these audits and use their conclusions as an input for the strategic preparation of the budget
But to turn evaluation into decision-making and impleme ntation is a tough job !
The evaluation of public policies remains underused
18The new finance organic law : 3 core goals
■ Make the strategic choices in terms of public finance more clear
■ A strategic management of public policies
Focus ona multi-year
strategy
Improvetransparency
■ Strengthen the role of the Parliament for the expenses authorisation and control procedures
■ Transparency and honesty of the budgetary information
Developefficiency
■ Reinforce the freedom of action and the responsability of public officers
■ A results-oriented budget process
■ Public managers action driven by performance
����☺☺☺☺ ����
